value of things

Though the spigot and the well both exist for the same purpose, Borgmann's point seems to be that drawing water from the well required effort and special knowledge and because of this the drink of water received was appreciated more. With spigots, water is taken for granted. About the only time I pay attention to the water in my house is when the water has been turned off for some reason and I need to take a shower.

For Borgmann, devices hide the means of providing the commodity. This not only lessens the value of the product (we tend not to appreciate things unless we work for them) but also causes us as human beings to lose anchors into reality. Borgmann may be a bit nostalgic when he talks about the olden days and the wheel wrights (overlooking just how much work is involved in such things) but he has a point. I crocheted a scarf for my sister for Christmas. I traded the free time I would have gained by just buying her one in return for the new techniques I learned, the talks with my mom about the different stitches, the personalization of the work. I invested my time in the piece and I think it was more appreciated for that.

Devices seem to devalue commodities.

Grace and Dominance

Spikots are at our command. They suggest the economy of dominance. Wells suggest the economy of grace. But for the giver of water, the well runs dry. The well gives or the well withholds. This is suggestive of a similar distinction we find in Genesis and Exodus. There the distinction is between bricks and stone/earth. Both serve the same function, but the text associates the former with technological striving (the tower of Babel) and dominance (the Israelites as slaves in the brickyards of the Egyptians). The latter is what God commands an alter to Him to be built from. The stone/earth is directly a gift from God; the brick is a more versatile technology representing humanity's 'improvement' on God's gift, to better serve OUR ends.
Ultimately, if our aim is to obtain drinking water, the spikot is more reliable. We would all choose the spikot, given the choice (unless we're simply contrarian). That is to say, we are so situated, vis a vis technology/the economy of domination that we will consistently choose it (and it is perfectly rational to do so). However, it necessarily follows that doing so seperates us from the economy of grace (bestowal of gifts).

Advertising and Rhetoric

I think advertising is very much like rhetoric because when the marketing teams are advertising they are directly trying to get us to buy their product. Advertising only brings out the best parts of the product and talks about how convienient life would be if we bought their product, they don't tell us that if we buy their product we will have no idea how to use it, fix it, or even replace it. Advertising doesn't want to allow people to fix the things they already have because they want them to have to buy new ones. Advertising is so powerful today because we see it everywhere now. From the minute the alarm clock goes off till the moment you turn off the television at night we are bombarded by advertisements.
People have to remember that advertisements are for the companies that they work for; they're not for us. As long as the American people keep the advertisements in perspective then its ok; but we can not believe everything that we hear and see. Advertisments are just created to make the most money that they can.

While I initally tend to agree with Borgmann about the loss of focal practices in society today, I do think he's being a little rough on those of us who enjoy some aspects of technology, but are also smart enough to not let it rule our life. Did he write this book on a typewriter or a computer?

I like my Ipod and the ability it gives me to take the music I really enjoy with me to the gym, or on a walk, or anywhere else I want to go. On the other hand, however, I know that it's not the same as a night out at the Southgate House listening to live music and interacting with people who have similar musical interests. A spigot isn't as interactive as a well, and an Ipod isn't as social as live music, but all of these things have value in their own way. By not having to spend time getting water out of a well, I'm able to use that time for something I enjoy, like taking a walk listening to music on my Ipod.

Maybe the fact that people use the extra time made available to them through technology in a less than productive way, isn't as much of a commentary on the problem of technology as it is a commentary on the problem of human nature.

Where have all the wells gone?

According to Borgmann, a thing can be described as something that involves its users' participation. A device, on the other hand, in Borgmann's opinion, is supposed to disburden its users.
Although a spigot and a well ultimately produce the same results, Borgmann says a well creates the opportunity for a focal activity to occur. A well's users, in this sense, will feel more appreciation for the well's product. The spigot user, in contrast, will take for granted the water that is automatically and easily available. I understand Borgmann's distinction, however, at times, I feel he is too idealistic. I agree that with the advancement of technology, society has become more isolated, but I feel, for the most part, people do still long for the opportunity to connect with other people. I don’t think modern technology has to be completely eradicated for people to truly appreciate the context of the "good old days".

What is the "good life"?

In today's society, it is hard to watch a television program, read a magazine, or even see a movie, without being constantly bombarded with glossy images that promise the "good life" accompanies the consumption of a certain product.
When Boorstin claims that "advertising is the rhetoric of democracy", he is forcing us to question the images we are constantly presented.
As we have mentioned in class, advertising implies we all desire the same things out of life. As a society, I think we need to ask ourselves, "Are these things I really want? Will these things make me happier? Do these images accurately represent my values?" The relationship between Boorstin's "rhetoric of democracy" and Borgmann's device paradigm is very closely knit. Borgmann has said we are allowing technology to control us, just as we are allowing the technology of advertising dictate society's standard of living.

Foreground of Technology

As discussed in class the foreground of technology is what we see and do and what we value. Technology is delivered by how we experience it. Technology is ideas about leisure and consumption. We takes these things for granted.
By using and relying on only technology it enables us to get the true meaning of something and we then begin to lose the real tradtion and context of that thing. By participating and engaging in cooking, hands on cleaning, sewing, knitting, and other things we then begin to understand and appreciate things and devices more.
Advertising persuades and influences others and myself in to buy something. It attracts us to that device and we then begin to lose the importance of it. Life is filled with commodities. Life should be filled with love, tradition, compassion, and hard-work. The more work and effort we put into something the less the commodity is used. We must being to understand the real meanings of devices so that family tradition is not reduced soley to machinery.

The return of sophism...if it ever left

The use of the phrase, "rhetoric of democracy," by Boorstin reminds me of ancient Greek sophism. As a philosophy Sophism is one that is not directly built upon knowing anything concretely. Instead, the foundation of it is that people can't know anything for sure but one can observe other cultures, bring back the knowledge, and teach their knowledge through the use of rhetoric for a very high cost. The problem with Sophism is that it isn't a complete philosophy, it doesn't give any principles to live by or any form of government to serve. At best, it seems like a cliff notes interpretation of philosophy. By now anyone reading this has probably fallen asleep. To you, person who has fallen asleep, I say wake up!!!! Back to the blog report (imagines saying the phrase like a newsman). Democracy like sophism is based upon having charismatic leaders, who can bring whatever knowledge they have to a posistion and then try to convince the rest of the country what they believe works best with the use of speeches. To make the situation worse, the views they espouse are hidden beneath the "advertisement" of republican or democrat so that one never knows what's really there or what's really true. Eventually, the entire system gets tangled up in the sophism of politics instead of its duty to the people and as a result people become disenchanted. The question of democracy has become is there any knowledge behind the speeches? Will this question always exist because the system is reflection of its own changing nature that can't be put into concrete knowledge? Advertising embodies the same problems of sophism and democracy and more concretely shows their shared problems. When insomnia hits on a Sunday night after a sleepy weekend and informercials come on with the promise of a vitamin that the, "Chinese have been using for centuries to cure Cancer." Tell anyone at school the next day about your nobel prize winning find at 2 a.m. and the inevitable result will be laughter, squinting, loss of respect, or presumption of being gullable (practical jokes will ensue). The truth is that no one actually believes any advertisement anymore, everything has to be taken with a grain of salt, because it is corrupt by its complete loss of a basis in truth or context. There, is the connection with the device paradigm, which hides the context and the meaning from its' consumer. No longer is it possible to know everything about democracy and the devices we buy because there is no more pride in the work that we do or the knowledge that we gain, it's all about getting home at the end of the day to rest. Essentially, our society has become symbolized by that person who tries to get to the end of a book as fast as possible without taking any meaning from it---a book becomes simply an end (with hesitation goes back to reading Japanese novel...slowly).

What do you choose: Spigot or a Well?

According to Borgmann, a spigot is a device and a well is a thing. But how are we to know how to distinguish between what is a device or a thing? The major difference I think distiguishes the two concepts is the thing you have to put forth an effort to achieve your desire outcome. Using the example of the well, Borgmann explains that a well just does not give a person water but work is needed to be done such as digging the well, and retrieving the water with a bucket. On the other hand, the spigot to modern people is just a turn of a knob. No hard work is actually used to recieve the water. Another point Borgmann brings up in the book is how with a spigot people lose a sense of place. For an example, a person cannot tell someone to meet them at a spigot but a well may be a meeting place for a community, since this is the place where people get their water.
There was one point that was brought up in class that stuck out to me which was when you work for something it means more to you. I think this statement is very true. The people who use a well may realize how precoius water is and not take it for granted. They realize how the whole mechanism works. But for people who use a spigot may not fully understand how the device actually works. If a spigot broke people would have to call a plummer to fix it where as if a well was broke the person would understand how to fix the problem with out needing an expert on the thing. I believe modern people take so many things for granted and do not even realize it. We do not work hard today like the people in the past did. Everything for us comes easy and we take total advantage of it.

Thing vs. Device

Albert Borgmann talks alot about the Device Paradigm, which involves the distinction between a thing and a device. Modern technology has developed what is known as a device, which Borgmann believes this technology has nothing to do with our traditional focal activities. It is this aspect that distinguishes modern technology from pre-modern technology, which focuses on the use of things. Things involve more human participation and have more than one commodity.

Borgmann uses the example of a well vs. a spigot where the well is a thing and the spigot is a device. The well not only provides us with water, but it requires a human interaction: a web of relationships, which are not present in the use of devices. The spigot provides the same commodity of water; however, the actual means of getting the water is not clear to everyone and it only requires that one person get the water. The web of relationships has disappeared with technology, which Borgmann believes could end up doing more harm in the future. We are losing our true sense of values and culture as our lives become more leisurely and less social. With devices we also lose a sense of a particular place as water can be obtained anywhere now, whereas years ago a well was only found in specific places. Once again this loss of a special place emphasis the diminishing web of relations and focal practices.

Though the devices of modern technology may provide us with the same ends as things of the pre-modern technological times, we are becoming more and more distant from each other as a society. I do not believe that Borgmann is just obsessed with some sense of nostalgia; however, I do agreee with him when it comes to the fact that we no longer have that certain web of relations. Sure things are easier now, but we need to find a way, as Borgmann explains, to incorporate this convenience (the use of devices) with our focal practices.

rhetoric and democracy

Referring to advertising as a type of rhetoric in our society seems to be fairly accurate. Rhetoric usually refers to the idea of being "well-spoken," which is the target goal of advertising. The point of advertising is to be well-spoken on a specific concept or product and therefore, encourage people to buy what is being sold. The rhetoric of advertising simply feeds the device paradigm by weakening focal practices, such as various family traditions.

Borgmann expresses major concern on the topic of advertising because he feels that consumerism and commodities are taking over the lives of people all around the world. I too feel that consumerism and the rhetoric of advertisement are running rampant. Rather than planning a night out with friends or family, people base their lives around television and advertisements that encourage us to "buy, buy , buy!" Although technology can make our lives easier, it does not necessarily make us happier. Humans are social beings by nature; however, a great deal of time is spent in isolation due to technology. For example, even when a family is seated together around the television, they are not necessarily conversing and bonding with one another. The device paradigm continues to grow stronger, but the satisfaction of life for many people is beginning to dwindle.
Emily Linneman

Spigot vs. A Well

Borgmann has two classifications for items that we use and deems them either "things" or "devices". But how do we decide with items that we use on whether they are things or devices? The example that Borgmann uses is the distinction between the well and the spigot. He classifies the well as a thing, and the spigot as a device. Both items produce the same result, water, so what is the difference?
The well is a very simple machine. Therefore, the people that use it understand the mechanics of it and are able to "fix" it if the desired water is unavailable. People could either alter the location of the well or do a simple repair that would enable the person to retrieve thier desired ends, as Borgmann will go on later to talk about.
The spigot on the other hand is a device. The complexity of it is beyond the common understanding of most of us. We simply incounter it in our daily use or need for water. Although we use it every day we dont truely understand the mechanics of it. All we really know is that if we turn the knob water comes out for us to use. However, if for some reason when we turned it on and nothing happened most of use would be unable to repair or "fix" the problem on our own. We would be forced to call a plumber or quite possibly the water department. Also, the spigot is hardly the gathering point that the well once was and now almost all homes have a spigot somewhere in their yard on the outside of their home elliminating the social factor that was once the well. The main point that Borgmann try's to make is that in today's society all we are concerned with are the ends that we receive and none of us really care about the means needed to attain our ends.
Borgmann later goes on to describe computers fit the same mold. Almost everyone today either has a computer or access to one. Everyone knows how to manipulate the computer to attain their desired ends. However, not many people know how to repair or trouble shoot a computer to prevent or to repair any soft or hardware involved with computers. Technology is a great thing but if we don't take a more proactive approach to actually understand the means to our ends than we will lose touch with all of the paticipitory factors of family as well as mankind. If this does happen then we truely have become victims of our own technology. Therefore, we are ignorant in our environment. Borgmann states that he too is a victim of nostalgia but that is not neccessarily a bad thing. The bad only occurs when we as a society lose touch and dont realize how lazy and ignorant of our environment that we have actually become.

Advertising = Rhetoric of Democracy

Advertising = Rhetoric of Democracy

This equation has been formed accordingly. I do believe that advertising has come to a point where we are bombarded with the world of the device paradigm. Everyday there is a new product on the market and you can not keep up with the new devices that come out in the market. Computer industry can be a great example. As we speak there is a new product made elsewhere in the world. Nations like China and Japan are making fast paced technological advacements. There is always the need for better and more technological devices. People are even in shock. Have we really learned the technology of aliens by kidnapping them?

I keep a very close eye on the aviation industy as Im planning on being part of it. New and better airplanes like the A380 a French made double deck Airbus Airliner will carry up to 555 people. The aviation industry has started in the late 20's and it has only been around for 80 years and we have made so much progress and this has all to do with the demand for new and better technologies. Advertising and the free market = rhetoric of democracy which opens up new options and availability to its customers. This drastic and rapid change may not be dismissed and one can not overlook at the fact how progressive the advertising industry has come to be.

This is exactly what Borgmann claims that the fast paced and demand for better and new products causes us to lose the products (what is made) value, rapid changes within the society and more importantly human nature and where people stand in terms of these relationships. We are not robots but we are made to feel as ones with the introduction of these new devices. I do believe nowadays people are less happier although life might be made easier for them but there is very little social support which people must have in order to function and be productive in a society. We can not put the people on spot and use them through the influence of rhetoric and the way products are advertised to individuals.

Things and Devices

Borgman repeats over and over that things require participation and some amount of work behind them. Devices on the other hand are things that may get the job done but they don't require work nor participation from the user. The problem with devices is the fact that we really don't know the insides and outs about how they work. Using the well vs. spicket example, if something was to go wrong with the water we were drinking and we were using the "well" then we would be able to fix the problem and go along with the process of getting clean water. Whereas with the spicket, if something was wrong with the water that was flowing out of the spicket then we would really have no idea what the problem was and we would have to call proffessionals to fix the problem. This is where the detachment becomes important. We don't know the means anymore, all we know are the ends. Technology has blessed us with the ability to be able to virtually do no work at all; but at the same time we then have no knoledge how to fix something or know when a device is not completely functioning properly. Borgman uses the computers as an example, he says almost everyone in America has a computer but almost no one knows a lot about how it works or be able to trouble shoot. Being an athlete this reminds me of an athletic example, the fans that come to the games on saturday afternoons see us playing a game for an hour or so and they enjoy the baskets scored, the picks set, the defense that is played and they think we played pretty well and some fans may think that they want to be a part of the team because it looks like a lot of fun. But they don't see the hours of practice, the loss of sleep because we had to ice till 3 a.m. from the practice before, or the 4 hour bus ride that we had to take in order to get to the game. The point is that in many situations people see the ends having no idea what it took to get there. Technology is definately aiding the ends, but it's not doing a whole lot for the means. In the example of downloading a trip to the grand canyon on your i-pod instead of actually going there, this is a total disengaging idea and in Borgman's eyes this would be the epitimy of total loss of participation and tradition. Half of the experince of going on vacation and experiencing things is dealing with the external factors like not having water to drink, getting lost, asking people for help, and coming out of your comfort zone a little bit. I believe technology is a great thing as long as we all don't lose touch with reality.

spigot vs. well

According to Borgmann, a spigot is considered a device; whereas, a well is considered to be a thing. A spigot can be seen as a device because it does not require any outside thought or knowledge in order to procure the water from it. A person using a spigot simply turns the knob and water flows out. A well, on the other hand, requires a process and outside knowledge in order for the user to receive the desired outcome, which would be water in this case. The actual process of someone finding water in the ground, digging a well, using a bucket to get water, and having to stand there and actually do something in order to get the water, all set the well aside as being an actual thing versus a device. Once again, a spigot doesn't even require any energy for its use. A well can also act as a social center where people gather to get water and to talk with a neighbor. A spigot is not thought of as any type of center; in fact, it's rarely even given any thought. Most people have a spigot somewhere in their yard even.
Borgmann presents himself as having a case of nostalgia; however, it is not necessarily a bad thing. Technology does make our lives easier, but it seems to be making us lazier, less knowledgeable, and isolated from other people. Borgmann seems to be missing the days when hard work was admired and neighbors actually talked to each other. Who can blame him for feeling this way?
Emily Linneman :)

Movie Review

Advertising as the "Rhetoric of Democracy"

"Our relations to the technological universe are complex. In contrast, the universe of advertising is entirely one of commodities and consumption. It distills the foreground of technology ideally and thus presents the technical and distinctive side of our age. In this way it has superseded art as the archetypical presentation of what the epoch is about." Albert Borgmann

Borgmann approvingly cites Daniel Boorstin's claim that "advertising is the characteristic rhetoric of democracy." What do you think that Boorstin has in mind here? What is the connection between advertising as a kind of rhetoric and the "device paradigm" supposed to be?

Things and Devices: Borgmann's Challenge

According to Borgmann, a spigot is a 'device' whereas a well is a 'thing'. But in what respects is a spigot different from a well? Don't we use both items for the same purpose? The answer that Borgmann wants to give is that the well invites, and even demands, participation in a "web of relations." A spigot does not. Please comment on Borgmann's distinction. Do you think that he is suffering from an acute case of nostalgia? Is that necessarily a bad thing?

Movie Review Bryan Crowley

When the movie started I thought to myself what in the world am I in for. At first I did not understand what was going on. I thought the movie was just a bunch of pictures. As the movie progressed I could start to see the the beauty in the mountains, oceans and clouds. They pictures seemed pure and untouched. As the movie went on I could start to see a different image, and image of over uses and neglect. The earth is one of the most sacred things we have. It helps to substain our being, and gives use everthing we need to live and flourish. The interview would have been helpfull to see before the movie. I think I would have got alot more out of it.
Bryan Crowley

After viewing the documentary of the film Koyanisquatsi I understood the message that the director was trying to convey. Before the documentary I fell into the group of people who the directer laid out as thinking that the movie was crap. Afterwards though I changed my perspective a little about the movie. The realization that mass technology is just as big as a part of our environment as everything else.
Our culture, religion, and other aspects of our lives exist within the technology just as much as ourselves. Mass technology is intertwinned in our lives as a matrix and is not something we can choose to use. Therefore, it is something that we are forced to use whether we want to or not and is necessary for our survival. Technology is such a large factor in todays society that it has completely changed our thinking and just as mentioned in class our "common sense" today is much more advanced than that of those 100 yrs. ago, just as ours will be less advanced from those 100yrs from now.
Mass technology has developed a life of liezure that is very much desired by those who do not share the same technologies that we do. In Borgmann's book, he tells of how people on the frontier desired to read; much in the same way that people of todays society want to use the internet. He describes a specific example where two men traveled 150mi to spend half of all the money that they had to be able to buy some books to occupy thier time.

koyaanisqatsi

The movie was initially pretty difficult for me to understand, but as I watched I began to fall into the rhythm of the music and the images. The juxtaposition of the beauty and majesty of nature with the harsh reality man has created startled me. It's as if man has refused to continue adapting to his environment and now wants the world to adapt to us. That's a very dangerous thing.

Because we live in the sterile environment that we've created for ourselves, it becomes difficult to see just how alien that landscape is. Koyaanisqatsi shocked me in that it gave me a new view of something very familiar. I know that in the documentary about the film one of the men said that these images were no longer startling, but I disagree. In high school, when we had one of those crazy schedule changes for a pep rally or an assembly or finals or testing, I often wondered to myself how long it would take an alien who was just observing our behavior to figure out what exactly was going on and how erratic our daily behavior must seem to an impartial eye. Koyaanisquatsi gave me the feeling of being that alien. It left me wondering how much sense there really is to our daily routine and the things we find important. How self-important we are to think that we can improve on nature. And how hard it would be for me to live without this modern technological environment in which I've been raised.

Nature is beautiful and powerful, but I couldn't survive in it. My dependence on this ugly, harsh technology scares me.

Reaction to Film

When first veiwing this film I did not know what to expect. But as I was taking notes, my first thought was this movie was about how technology had affected people over time. However, according to the creator I was wrong. The actual message he was trying to get across was the fact that the environment is technology. Everything around us, including ourselves, exist within technology. People only see the surface of things and they do not look deeper for the main event.

Even though there were no narrator or actors in the movie, I felt that the music told the story. With each scene the music would depict if the technology shown was good or bad for the world. At the begining the music was slow and peaceful with the sites of natural environment. Towards the end of the movie when more machines, factors and cars were viewed, the music became gloomy as if there was doom to come. It made me realize that not all technology is good and one day it may take over and destroy the environment. Our society is moving at a much faster pace today, but is this a good thing? We let technology run our lives which causes us to be less useful. With people allowing technology to do everything for them we lose the meaning of life. Lossing the the meaning of life is what I believe the movie eventually gets to in the end, and this will happen if we decide not to change how we are evolving.

Life Out of Balance

I have to admit my first reaction to Koyannisqatsi was confusion. I wasn't quite sure where the film was going or what message it was trying to convey. However, as the film continued, the message became clearer. As the images shifted from serene scenes of nature to images of dilapidated buildings and weapons of mass destruction, the music became almost eerie and more ominous, perhaps predicting the future of civilization if we continue to destroy and consume our natural resources to make our lives easier.
Even without the use of dialogue, I think Reggio effectively conveyed his proposed point of view. That point of view, in my opinion, being that we take for granted the everyday technology that surrounds us. For example, for most people, it is usually automatically assumed that the primary mode of transportation is the car or with the simple flip of a switch, light will always be available.
Another interesting point raised in the film was in alignment with the substantive approach to technology. I think Reggio wanted the audience to really think about the ways in which technology "controls" us. Does technology always make our lives easier? Although the film was a bit hard to "get into" at first, I think it was effective in forcing its audience to think more abstractly and deeply about technology and its effects on our everyday lives.

Comments on Koyaanisqatsi

As I watched the film I was mostly confused at first with all the music and no commentary, but as the music changed tone and melody and the images became increasingly less attractive I could tell exactly what was going on. It seemed that the producer of this film wanted to show the transformation of the environment of nature to the environment of technology. We live with so much technology and sometimes we forget to look at what nature has provided us. He takes nature which is in the background these days and makes it the foreground. I found the interview to be very helpful in aiding my understanding of the film because I learned that he didn't want any commentary in the film because he didn't want any cultural baggage or allow the words to have any meaning to the audience. The way that he entitled the film was very intelligent as well Quatsi=way of life and Koyan=crazy or out of balance. So the film means "a crazy way of living." Technology will never go away and people can't just do without it because technology is who we are and its a lifestyle. Is it true that we are becoming disconnected with life because of technology?? I don't know maybe we are; but it's hard to know what it means to be connected or disconnected when I've grown up with technology my whole life. I do believe that people are lazier because of the rising amounts of technology that occur with each passing day. We cannot allow technology to be an excuse for our laziness. The best way to combat laziness is to be constructive with the time we are saving from the enhancements that technology has given us. I mean instead of playing nintendo with our extra time from not having to chop wood for warmth we should read or increase our knowledge about something useful. But I enjoyed the movie, and after seeing the interview it made great sense.

reaction to movie

When first watching this video I did not understand the point of all the images and what they meant. But after watching the interview at the beginning of the movie I began to understand the meaning and point of the images.
The goal of this film was to bring the background into the foreground. This film did a great job in doing that because there was no actors, plot, speaking, etc. The cars, mountains, traffic, and other images are things that we take advantage of. This film did make me realize that we are technology and that we are missing the real point of life.
Technology does not always make life better. The more we use it the more we take advantage of it and become lazy. We should not allow it to take over our environment. Americans need to start realizing that technology does not solve our problems and that we need to rely on doing somethings on our own.

Technology...is it good or bad?

Technology includes a vast number of devices that have contributed to the advancement of our lives; however, it also seems as though technology has detrimented certain aspects of our lives. Watching the video in class helped me to realize what technology makes us miss out on our roots in nature. It also really enforces Borgmann's idea of our society losing its touch with focal activities, which were at one time a major part of our lives. The technological revolution has changed this connection we once had with each other, though.

I found it difficult to watch the movie at first as there was no dialgogue; however, the reason for this soon became evident. Technology is inexplainable, and no words are needed to describe the pituresque nature that once ruled our lives. Now our world revolves around high paced societies controlled more by machines than man. I found it interesting how the video used peaceful music in the beginning when it reavealed several pictures of nature, and a more fast paced beat when it switched over to scenes of the city and traffic. Though words are not used in the movie, the music and the pictures are enough to tell the story of our changing lives.

Our lives maybe changing by society; however, the fact of whether this is a total benefit still remains unclear. Of course the advancements are good in that they make some aspects of our lives easier, but as stated before, we are also losing touch with those activities that used to bring us together. The movie really makes you think about this aspect of technology. The fact that there are no words to tell you anything makes the interpretation of the film open, just as the interpretation of the affects of technology on our lives is not concrete.

Though I have never watched a movie without dialogue, Koyaanisquatsi was rather informative in the way that it made you think. I had to analyze and concentrate on the images I saw rather than what someone was saying to interpret the direction and purpose of the film. The real beauty of nature definitely came through with the powerful images used in the movie.

As the mother of three boys, it was impossible to watch this film without thinking about how technology does, and will, effect their lives in particular. The battery in our cordless phone died a few weeks ago, and until I could get a replacement I plugged in one of our old phones. You know, the kind that actually has a cord and no screen to display caller ID. I think my children now need therapy to deal with the stress of having to figure out how to cope with that "old fashioned" phone, not to mention the quickly approaching battle of whether or not my thirteen year old needs a cell phone "like the rest of his friends". For me, these are just a couple of tangible examples of how we are all immersed in technology as the film suggests, and also of how it consumes us before we have a chance to choose for ourselves whether or not we want it or need it. The filmmaker appeared to have a pretty bleak view of the future, but I choose to remain ever hopeful (as ridiculous as that may be) that humans are smart enough to eventually realize that while technology is valuable in many regards, there is also value in preserving the beauty of experiences without it. Balance...

Technology what an incredible thing but still dissatisfies us!

I really enjoyed watching the documentary and as a communications major I have been taking courses on analyzing productions of such, I found this work as fascinating and serving its purpose. I will not deny there were cases where I felt as if the points were made too strongly and I felt depressed.

I think the whole logic behind putting the video clip together is that the truth hurts. We are very good at denying the certain facts about our very own lives. They do not have to be scientific facts but can be towards feelings, beliefs, etc.

My home country is Istanbul, TURKEY and I have seen drastic differences between how we use technology and how its used in the states. Back home, people have access to technology but they tend to say whenever they use a piece of device "oh good old days" This tells us that people are aware of the changes that occur around them. I think this is what counts although we might not have control over the extend of technology used.

I think most of us do lack and do not think or prefer not to think of our never satistified desires of the use of technology and always wanting more. The whole point behind the video was not that how technology affects us but lets look at around us to see how our very fragile own human nature is affected.

I hope I am replying to this in the right spot!

When watching "Koyaanisquatsi" in class this morning, I thought it was very strange, to be honest! I think the main point was to understand the rising problems of urbanization and industrialization. The film started out showing various scenes of nature and the beauty of nature. The scenes were tranquil and the music was serene and peaceful. However, as the film progressed, the music sounded a little "scarier" and the scenes felt depressing to me. It seemed to be illustrating the stark contrast of nature and industry and the problems that come along with modern society. The film started out showing nature and then it showed various forms of technology, such as airplanes, cars, and tanks. The director also focused on people, explosions, abandoned buildings, and pollution. It seemed to by trying to tell a type of story, such as how the world began and eventually, what is has become over time. Machines and technology are taking over and not necessarily making the world a better place to live.
As a whole I though "Koyaanisquatsi" was a bit creepy. The combination of music and scenes (without dialogue) gave the film an eerie atmosphere. I do think the director made some good points by showing footage with such drastic contrasts, such as a peaceful field, and then the field being trampled with huge farm machinery.

Please Reply

I forgot to mention in my last post that I would like your reactions to Koyaanisquatsi to appear on our blog by Monday of next week (1/23).

Next Wednesday, Dr. Sherron will be showing you Koyaanisquatsi, Godfrey Reggio's "documentary" on modern technology. The film attempts to highlight aspects of technology that we take for granted because they have become the environment in which we move. According to Reggio, we cannot understand the radical nature of the transformation of our culture by technology if we assume that technology consists of value neutral 'tools' that can be used in better and worse ways. Reggio believes that human nature itself has been altered by technology in profound and fundamental ways. In terms of our readings so far, Reggio is an example of what Borgmann calls the "substantive" approach to understanding technology. Reggio cites Jacques Ellul, who is discussed in both the Borgmann and Achterhuis books, as a major influence on Koyaanisquatsi. The film's approach is innovative in that there is no narration at all that might tell us how to think about the images of technology that we are shown. Instead, Reggio relies on the juxtaposition of powerful images and music to prompt the viewer to reflect about the central themes of the film.

It worked?

I guess we're supposed to post a message or somesuch letting you know who everyone is and who got connected and everything. So this is Nicholas Laux. And if this post actually goes through, then I got connected. If it doesn't, then you won't be seeing it, so it's a bit pointless to put in a conditional if I didn't connect. Oh well.

Hi!

Welcome to Cyborg Campfire

This will be the class blog for Philosophy 215D (Ethics and Technology). The course description is as follows.


Course Description and Objectives: The main goal of this class is to deepen our understanding of the impact of technology on various aspects of human life and experience. Using the works of philosophers, sociologists, and artists as our point of departure, we will critically examine a wide variety of approaches to coming to terms with the “age of technology” in which we live. Topics we will examine include the relationship between humans and machines, the cultural implications of technology, the arts and technology, and the possibility that we are entering a ‘post-human’ age.

Upon completion of this course students should be familiar with, and be able to critically discuss, at least the following themes and ideas:

The relationship between science and technology.
The classical approach to the philosophy of technology represented by Martin Heidegger, Jacques Ellul, and others.
More recent ‘empirical’ accounts of technology.
The worry that technology poses a threat of some kind to ‘human nature.’
The philosophical implications of recent developments in AI technologies.
The transformation of culture by the Internet.
The way that various technologies have impacted the arts.

Texts: 1. Hans Achterhuis, American Philosophy of Technology: The Empirical Turn. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2001. 2. Albert Borgmann, Technology and the Character of Contemporary Life. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1984.
3. Hubert L. Dreyfus, On the Internet. London: Routledge, 2001. 4. Stanislaw Lem, The Futurological Congress. New York: Continuum, 1974.

Films: Koyaanisquatsi (selected scenes), Metropolis, Robot Stories (selected scenes), Alphaville (selected scenes), The Bride of Frankenstein. These films should be considered the equivalent of course texts. You are responsible for viewing them carefully and critically, and being able to discuss their main themes in detail on tests and quizzes. If you miss a film you must make arrangements to view it outside of class.