Final Exam

Response #1
In one of my previous posts, I took Langdon Winner's view of technology and its effects on education. While Winner seems to take a more critical stance, there are many out there with opposing viewpoints.
The Department of Education even devotes an entire section of their website to the benefits of technology in the classroom. According to Ed.gov, "New ways of obtaining and presenting information have given students powerful new ways of analyzing and understanding the world around them."
There are areas in which I disagree with the use of technology in the classroom. I, like Winner, am afraid of the isolation and depersonalization things such as distance learning could emphasize. However, there are relevant positive aspects from those in favor of technology in the classroom. For example, one high school science teacher points out, "Instead of reading about the human circulatory system and seeing textbook pictures depicting bloodflow, students can use technology to see blood moving through veins and arteries, watch the process of oxygen entering the bloodstream, and experiment to understand the effects of increased pulse or cholesterol-filled arteries on blood flow."
Teachers also point out the aid technology has in tutoring students in certain subjects, such as math. CD-roms designed to "spit out" drills on such things as long division or the times table provide instant feedback, and according to one elementary teacher "increase self-esteem."
One benefit pointed out that I hadn't previously thought of was, "Hearing disabled students can master complex problem solving skills on the computer as easily as those without a disability."
Hopefully, educators and administrators will continue to evaluate the positive and negative effects of technology in the classroom, not only to raise standardized test scores, but also to raise "book smart" children.

Response #2
1. A robot must never harm a human or allow one to be harmed through inaction.
2. A robot must obey any command given by a human, unless this violates Rule 1.
3. A robot must protect itself from harm, unless this violates Rule 1 or 2.
Asmov's Laws of Robotics
I wonder what Donna Haraway would think of these "convenient" rules? According to Haraway, "A cyborg is a cybernetic organism, a hybrid of machine and organism, a creature of social reality as well as a creature of fiction. Social reality is lived social relations, our most important political construction, a world-changing fiction."
Overall, Haraway seems quite fond of cyborgs and their implications for the future, but even she, hereself, states, "Cyborgs are never entirely trustworthy creatures." In my opinion, Haraway offers good suggestions when it comes to the integration of cyborgs in society. She points out that, as creators, we have a responsibility to these beings. However, there are those who completely reject Haraway's ideas and suggestions. There are many who insist that the creation of cyborgs should be forgotten and never mentioned. Critics of cyborgs argue, "Technology will intrude into the hitherto sacred space of the human body." In an ideal world, much like the one Haraway describes, it would be nice to say that we should be careful about how much intelligence we put in robots, but in reality, there will always be people pushing the boundaries too far, and to what expemse?
It is important to keep in mind, "For everything computers and technology can do for us, there is something that can be done to us."
"For every vision of digital heaven," warns Arthur Kroker, "there is an equal image of digital hell."

Exam

1)

Cyborgs: I believe even if someone is given an artificial arm, leg, or any other body part then that does not make them a cyborg. They still have a human heart and working brain and feelings. An artificial arm does not change the way one feels about certain things or how they react to different situations. I still think that Frankenstein is a cyborg in that he is human and not human. Frankenstein has no family or kinship which I believe makes him a cyborg. Even if a humans had an artificial limb, they would still have a family and other outside relationships. Humans also can engage in conversation, feel adn express love, and share emotions with the use of an artificial limb, ultimately making them not a cyborg.

2)

My reaction to my first blog of the semester: The blog Foreground of Technology is similar to my research paper: leisure and technology. Technology is delivered by how we experience it. Almost all of leisure and free time is mainly spent consuming. This is not what the promise of technology has held out for us. I believe that technology takes away the real tradition and context of certain things. Especially cooking with one’s kids, cleaning, and playing. Technology can replace all three of these activities, ultimately making us lose the real meaning of work and tradition.

The more work and effort we put into something the greater the results and the better we feel. Technology can make us happy for a short time, but not for ever. We must begin to understand the real meanings of devices so that family tradition is not reduced solely to machinery.

Final Exam

As I listened in class the other day to presentations on cyborgs, I started to think maybe Harraway is right to a certain extent. Some people can be considered cyborgs but not all. Being a nursing major I have had many oppertunities to talk with patients who have artificial body parts. These patients especially the ones with pace makers are grateful for the technology of the modern era. Some patients with pace makers would not be alive if it wasn't for technology. Same for patient's with artificial limbs that help them to function like normal human beings. I guess I would consider these people as part cyborgs because of the use of technology. But I still disagree with the fact that humans even with artificial limbs or pace makers are completely cyborgs. Humans woud not be able to have feelings or a conscious to tell right from wrong if they were cyborgs.
I also agree that steriods can turn a person into a cyborg. When people use steriods they want to become strong in a shoerter period of time. This can make them abnormal to teh reast of the human population because of the domination of muscle strength. These people may be considered in a different catagory.
i still believe that humans have to adapt to the technology advancements. People are who they are by what they are taught and how they are raised. Even though humans use technology in their every day life it is not a part of their actual body, just a part of their life.
However, I do not feel our generation needs to worry about the advancement of cyborgs right now. The closes we can get is to people with artifical body parts and just the usage of technology every day.
Koyaanisqatsi
I spend a lot of time outside. During the summer my family and I go camping using technology such as campers and gas stoves to cook. I have to agree with the creator of Koyaanisqatsi that the environment is technology. A person just needs to look outside a window to view a piece of technology in the environment. In cities tall buildings, factories, lights, cars, and machinery are all part of the environment filled with technology. In the movie I remember one particular scene that I thought was interesting which was the factory on the beach with people laying out in the sun. When I picture a beach I definetly don't picture one with a factory right next to it, however there are a lot of condos. A family on vacation to this beach is there for relaxation but instead of hearing the ocean waves they hear the factory horns.
Because of the technology advancing so quickly in the United States many of the woodlands and farms are being destroyed to build new cities or factories. If technology keeps advancing like it is there will be no more forest for animals or farms to grow crops. People will lose their beaches to factories and there will be no more family vacations. The natural noises of animals such as birds will be over heard by factories and machinery working. It's amazing to see how technology has progressed in just ten years. And soon the environment will be completely full of factories, buildings and machinery in places it was never before.

Final response

1) A second look at The Futurological Congress
Now that I don't have to worry about giving away the ending to all those that didn't finish the book, I can give a full reaction to the book. My thoughts haven't changed since my last response, but now I can give more details as to why this book left me stunned. When Lem first introduced the LTN bombs I thought to myself, "If they can drug the water with that, what is to stop them from just plain drugging everyone to keep them in line?" Well, it seems like Lem fully explored this idea, maybe a little too far. The main problem was overpopulation, that led to the total violation of everyone's rights. They kept them sedated and never let them see the crap-hole they were living in. If the government is able to go that far, then why not start chemically sterilizing people and not letting them know. Then in a few generations the population will be in check. I mean if your going to go so far, you might as well go all the way. The people are fed nothing but lies, so what is the harm in lying even more. Even during the "present," with the sewer raids, if they are willing to bomb a city for no real reason, then why not have mass killing of criminals and other bad guys. I know I would rather be dead than to live in a world that messed up. The only good thing about the future Lem has presented to us is the fact that everyone is made nice. I'm not saying a world without arms, but a world where people have no drive to use the weapons they have. If only we were allowed to do such things, it would be a messed up world, but in some ways it would be better.
2) Problems with Dreyfus
I am still hung up on Dreyfus and his critique of artificial intelligence in search engines. He is blaming the technology for its faults, when really the creators of web pages are to be blamed. They use encrypted words to get their sites to show up during searches, whether that is the info you are looking for or not. They want the hits on their page, so the programmers do all kinds of sneaky stuff to deliberately throw off the search engine as well as the people actually doing the research. They knowingly add things to the page so their illegitimate information will show up instead of the real things you need. Now I can't blame that on AI, it is doing the job it was designed to do, and it does it well that is how you end up with all the bad links. If it is looking for certain topics you type in and it finds it in a strange place, it shows you where all it found your topic. Dreyfus keeps looking to the AI to solve the problem when you really need to be looking to the people. They are the ones trying to deceive the AI, therefore they are the root of the problem. Dreyfus also does not give the researching people enough credit either. If I type in certain words I know I am going to get a lot of off topic hits. It is up to me to chose my words carefully and also to avoid going to sites that seem off. I mean if I type in "sexy" in a search box I can be sure that some sites are going to have more sexy pictures than sexy information. You have to expect that kind of thing with the internet, its people like Dreyfus that don't expect it and are really picky. My dad is one of those people, he can't use the internet because he doesn't know how and he gets upset. Then I get upset with him, and its just a big mess. You can't blame the engine or the internet, you have to blame the creator and the searchers, they are the ones causing problems.

(Final Exam Response 2) Harraway I still disagree but I think she might be onto something about our human nature.....

I strongly disagreed with Harraway on various occasions about her claim that we are all cyborgs. I did feel that her personal experiences in her life were interfering with her thoughts and she was not independently writing her claims about the human nature. I also did feel Harraway as a feminist saw men as beings without any feelings attached to them partially due to her experience with her husband. I still disagree with her but agree with her on limited perspectives. I will not call ourselves cyborgs but beings whose very human natures automatically continue to fight with various outer forces of our humanly created environments from technological to traditional ways of attending events.

It must be true that we are still humans because our human nature can be very fragile against diseases yet it can be very rough against other environmental conditions. Recently, I was a reading an article about a girl who had an artificial heart because her regular heart stopped functioning. After a certain period of time, her bodies begin not accepting the artificial heart and put her own heart into functioning. Yes, during this process she was definitely a cyborg according to Harraway’s definition. We must also acknowledge our bodies do not always accept things that do not go along with its own operations. Sometimes it approves or disapproves artificially created products by humans. During organ donations, we will from time to time read that certain people’s bodies do not adapt to the organ inserted and they have to take it out and put a new one in. It’s the same thing with our blood types; we can accept certain blood types and not accept others. Again on this context, it might really seem as if we are really cyborgs with certain genetic or other coding inserted in us. But what determines this coding? Well, it’s easy to answer, various environment factors, we are born on this earth and it transforms and shapes our beings through various environmental factors. We get chicken pox and do not ever get it again because our bodies’ memory remembers it and learns how to protect itself. Even robots are nowadays shaped or manufactured to operate in rough environmental factors. Robots that are sent to Mars can be a great example.

Yes, I agree we must be making some sort of advancement in understanding operations of the human body. I see a tiny light present in this advancement. We will never know everything about our human natures. It does not matter how much steroids, chemicals, or other artificially created things we insert in our bodies, it continues to regulate its operations based on our wrong doings. More importantly, it knows how to adapt without any consciousness action. I think a regular cyborg would break down in seconds and not operate during these circumstances. Or it would blow up the whole facility because it can not find love or friendship like that of in the Frankstein movie. We can be “cyborgs” but we will never get the right picture of what does it mean to be a human spiritually. There are other forces in our earth which are not physically and materialistically visible. Like the air we breathe or the space we use to move around to live our lives is absolutely invisible. We can not come to conclusion about our cyborg nature too soon yet it is not wrong to pull out cyborg like qualities of human nature. When exposed to certain settings, we are definitely cyborgs like that of the work place.

(Final Exam Response 1) Technology might have effects on cultures that have long histories...

I have argued on various occasions that technology will not have effect on cultures that have long histories. I do not know if these claims are as valid as I thought they might be after thinking about various cultures that belonged to many centuries old empires. Once I start thinking about countries of Japan and China, I do feel that technology has had a dramatic impact on how people live their lives. As we know one time in history, Japan all of its doors to the invasion of the foreign markets so it could flourish within its own soils but it later saw in order to be a world power, it had to corporate with the world and open its gates especially to the Europeans. In the twenty first century, once we speak of these two great powers of the world, we relate to them technologically. Yes, both nations do practice traditional ways of doing things but after speaking to a Japanese friend, traditional customs seem not to be the way they used to be. Young generations tend to respect elderly a lot less than they used to and elderly are concerned about their own health and use their spending on themselves than on their kids or not for the well being of their families. Many years of traditions, cultures, and respect can be given up for the substitute of money. Everything we use from our desks, computers or the chairs are made either in Japan and China. Not that it’s a bad thing to sit on or use Chinese or Japanese made computers but many people work for low wages in big factories long hours and in bad conditions so they can flourish their countries against other world powers like the Europe and the United States of America. Powers of production and labor have placed the centuries long bloodshed for the honor of being Chinese, British, Japan, American, etc. The game has become the question of how much money do you have so I can recognize you as some sort of national identity of the world. Once we speak of any national identity, we first ask the question of how modern are they and where their economies stand? If they do not keep themselves up to the standards of the United States or other Western as well as Eastern civilizations then those countries are considered less modern or in some sense less democratic.

I do not know if this analysis would vary in different religious contexts or traditions but I do believe that people desire for money because money equals power. Once you have the power, you can insert and pursue your ideals into the culture because you have the money to do so and it will look more appealing than those who do not have the power or the money. I feel that as the world gets more globalized each day, it will be easier to capture smaller tribes or village like countries with the introduction of technologies. People can be thought of the magic of technology which produces money in the market place in order for personal and national prosperity. Those who resist technology and other improvements will be eliminated. Good example of such countries would be Africa where people fight various diseases or other environmental factors because they have not learned “how to master the earth.” They seem to us from a Western stand point as hopeless people. I’d like to ask the question to them, I’m sure most of them are much happier than us because they do not suffer from traumatic effects of living in a stressful technological environment. Yet, we continue to steal from their resources and lives and dirty their worlds which they respect.

Final Exam: Responses to 2 of My Blogs

Response 1

In Feburary I wrote a blog on my reaction to Borgmann, which talked about how we can reform technology and still have it as a part of our lives. My previous blog also talked about how as humans all we are seeking is happiness. As I look back at this blog, I can definitely make some changes as to my way of thinking. The more I think about it, we are not seeking happiness in society, but rather we want success, which success in life does not necessarily mean happiness. There can not be a society without technology, and I do not even think we can decrease its existence in our lives. We have become so accustomed to a way of living where practically everything is at our fingertips, and the pursuit continues of an even more technologically advanced society. This reliance does not leave much room for reform in the way of technology being less apart of our lives. People today do not want to take the time to even think about how they would live without some technologies as they are not used to taking the time to do anything. Everything is so fast-paced in society today that people forget about cultural values that had meaning before the techonological age. Technology is so overwhelming, and it gets us what we want fast, as we use it for a means of success. People are so wrapped up in having the best life as far as success and money that they are willing to sacrifice the true happiness which can be found through ones cultural values. Techonology then will never truly be able to be reformed as it continues to advance. It will always consume our lives, as to most people success is what matters because it gives us a status and even easier access to technology.

Response 2

At one point, in the latter part of the semsester, I chose to write a blog on distance learning, rejecting its recent claim to fame. Distance learning, however, can be ever powerful for the fact that it allows students access to information that was otherwise not as easily available to them years ago. The times have changed as far as who goes to school with more and more non-traditional students enrolling into college. Non-traditional students being those people who are older and, most of the time, have kids as well as full-time or part-time jobs. On-line learning could be a benefit for such students as it offers flexibility and convenience. Time management and self-motivation may be an issue for those students enrolled in on-line classes, but then again, students attending tradtional classrooms can have the very same problem. We are thus in control of our education: we can make online learning just as effective as the tradtional classroom, though it may take some type of extra effort and time. We control our lives, and we thus control the role technology plays in it, which means we can put on-line learning to good use when used in an effecient and effective manner. The advancement of technology can make so much more available to us, expanding our knowledge, thus making it seem senseless to let it go to waste. The convenience and felxibility offered by distance learning could make the choice of getting a college degree even more appealing to those people who would otherwise pass on extra schooling. In conclusion, distance learning is not so negative, as it can provide more opportunity in some peoples' lives.

education

Emily's stories about the accelerated reading program for 3rd graders horrify me. It seems to me that the educators are trying to acheive a two-fold goal and in the process causing only harm.

A good friend of mine is an English teacher in high school (and has been for many years) and she and I discussed the shift in the role that parents play in the education of their children. She complained to me about how if a student has not been doing well in her class or if the child has been disciplined, she gets an irate call from a parent blaming her for their childs faults. "My Johnny isn't doing well in your class. What have you done wrong?" or "Johnny would never act that way!"

It seems as people in the U.S. become busier, less time is spent with their children--working with them and raising them and that more and more families have to rely on schools to both raise and educate their kids. Perhaps this new (and terrible) reading program is an attempt to alleviate this trend by both forcing kids into the higher levels of scholastic aptitude necessary to function in the "modern world" and forcing parents to spend time with their kids. The fact that neither of these is done voluntarily or happily and that that can ruin a child's love of reading seems to have escaped the administrators.

lem

I enjoyed reading the Futurological Congress. I didn't understand some of the jokes or references and had a hard time keeping track of characters, but i don't think that was the point of the work. I'm worried that the need that people today have for everything to connect and makes sense (and sense is a relative term, anyway) prevents them from enjoying new experiences. We recently studied poetry in my Spanish class and about half of the students spent time complaining that they "didn't get it" instead of just relaxing and enjoying what they could. My point is that not every line of every poem need make sense. The point is the overall impression you get from a piece or the feeling that the work leaves you with.

Is this need to know everything widespread and symptomatic of our technological age? Or am I just picking on the Biology majors without meaning to?

The Futurological Congress

When I started reading this book, I had to occasionally reread a few sentences. I often felt confused. Why are there naked women in the hotel hallway? What does that have to do with Lem's point? Does Lem have a point? Luckily, the second half of the book was a little less far fetched. Given the fact that Lem wrote this book in 1978, a time when "pharmacologic alterations" were common, it makes sense this theme would appear throughout the book. As one reviewer of the book wrote, "Tichy's reluctance to experiment with the various drugs, and his abhorence of their effects, serve as Lem's warning about the drug culture which was flourishing at the time he wrote the novel. These warnings, made nearly thirty years ago, still hold true for any addictive substance, whether drugs or technology. " Another interesting facet of the book was Lem's portrayel of women, "In The Futurological Congress, men are equated with the active and creative, while women are consistently passive and objectified, the possessions of the men. For example, the secretaries of the Society for Liberated Literature are there to act out the fantasies of the professors, the men. Or this: "the bar on my floor had now been seized and occupied by the student protesters-dynamiters and their girls" (17). These statements,hopefully, represent the year 1978 rather than 2039.

A "Winning" Idea?

After watching Langdon Winner's Internet clip about the future of education, it became obvious that his ideas aren't so far fetched, unfortunately. Winner's parody is ultimately all too real. When Langdon compares distance learning to an ATM, education can be thought of strictly as a commodity. We, as students, are the consumers, but is our satisfaction really guaranteed? In The Handwriting on the Wall: Resisting Technoglobalism's Assault on Education, Winner says, "Another strategy of cost-cutting is simply to computerize more and more of the activities of education. Innovations here arrive under a variety of glamorous labels - - interactive learning, distance learning, the virtual classroom, and the like, but the ultimate result is always the same: replacing people with technology. To an increasing extent, information machines now convey the texts, lectures, lesson, exams and the like, becoming the real media for downsizing and outsourcing in the education industry. As such innovations proliferate, conventional schools and colleges face the distinct possibility that the "services" they provide will be taken over by high tech "alternative service providers" in the commercial sector."
Langdon jokingly defines education as the "transfer of knowledge from point A to point B." Although he says this in jest, this is yet another comment that hits too close to reality. I recently saw that a public school in Florida is offering teachers bonuses based upon how well their classes perform on the mandatory state standardized tests. Is this what education has come to, teaching to the test? If that's the case, Winner's automated professor machine will be in high demand in the not so far off future.
Hopefully, as Winner has suggested, "teachers might raise their hands and announce: Excuse me! On whose authority has the future been foreclosed? Who decided that one peculiar model of a global economy, is the only one possible? Why must we accept this misshapen vision of the human prospect? And who decided that the changes ahead lie beyond our ideas, voices and participation? We watch in stunned amazement at the naked effrontery of initiatives launched in the name of "globalism," "flexible production," "free trade," "reengineering," "total quality," "interactivity," "distance learning," "wired education," and "the virtual classroom". We've discussed these bizarre agendas with our students and, frankly, they are not much impressed. In fact, the students insist on being included in the discussions, plans and decisions about what the future holds. As their friends and scholarly mentors, we are committed to working with them to realize their dreams for a better world. Now, show us our place at the table."

We should not generalize the concept that robots will take over....

During today's discussion, it came to my attention that we began speaking how in the future there is a slightly great possibility that robots might take over and we will begin this war between technology and human race. If you think of this state of war in a more radical content this war already began. Sometimes technology strikes againist us and we try to fix it to get it running again. There are various fields where technology does not always take orders; airplane crashes, space shuttle mission failures, failure of hospital equipments to treat patients,etc.

When we speak of technology taking over our lives, we must take the world as a whole which would be impossible to do. As I have brought this up before, there are various regions of the world maybe majority of the world where technology has not touched and is not capable of touching because of environmental conditions. North Pole and desserts of Africa and Middle East are some of the examples of various other earthly conditions.

Yes, its very good to look at various uses of technology especially how it can be destructive but our human lives are very fragile. I TOTALLY DISAGREE we are all cyborgs. I think Harraway is sort of caught up with the state of men and how they are all robots with no emotions. Im sorry for her experience with her husband and it did not work out. Going back to the fragile human nature, a small disease which is unknown to human knowledge can wipe out a whole human race. A small example of such crises like bird flu can be one of the greatest example of such.

In the eastern world culture, eastern europe, middle east and asia, many people believe something called kader(destined future) your future is already written out for you and you will leave your lives exactly as it states. There are so many other risks in our lives which can end all of our lives in seconds and at this stage especially when we know a lot more about the world, it would be wrong to state that technology will be the main factor to do so. Many people rather majority of the people are not exposed to technology as much as the people in the states. Their cultures, histories, or environmental factors do not allow them become one with technology but disengaged bodies which humans see it as a tool. Its very valuable to learn to not become the toy of technology especially as the citizens of the Western world.

Reflection on Idhe

Idhe, like Borgmann and Dreyfus, is a philosopher who does not believe that technology is a value neutral tool that can be applied to just one thing. Idhe views technology as several small manifestions (techonologies) rather than one huge force (Technology). He talks about a sensory perception or micropercetption, meaning technology is always there whether we are aware of it or not. I agree with this aspect of his view on technology as I often find myself doing or using things without technically realizing it. Idhe provides the example of someone who wears glasses, which overtime become apart of them and the person does not even realize they are there anymore. I am one of those people who has to wear glasses and after they have been on for awhile, I forget they are even there and I can't even feel them. I also wear contacts more often and though they help me view the world in a new way as I otherwise could not see very well, I don't even think about them being there. According to Idhe we are mediated to the world through technology, which shapes our environment. Though it is out of our control that we relate to the world, we can change technologies by conducting experiments which then allow us to reflect on how technology shapes our relation to the world and others. It is through these experiments that Idhe believes we can make any needed changes in technology. I tend to agree with Idhe on this aspect as well, as experimental results can make an impression on the way in which we are living, providing us with information to make changes.

Lem Book

Well, I just finished the book, and wow! That was crazy. I don't want to give away the ending, but I wish we had narcotics like those people did. If it weren't for the fact that overpopulation ruined the earth that might actually be a really cool place to live. Except for the whole panting thing, I was wondering if Lem was ever going to tell us the reason for that. I don't find this book creepy, more eye-opening really. What better way to control people than to sedate them and let them think they have everything. Whatever Lem was on when he wrote this book, I think we need to give to Borgmann and Dreyfus, maybe it will calm them down a bit.

Futurological Congress

Today I started reading the Lem novel, The Futurological Congress, and it is extremely strange. The crazy thing is, though, I didn't expect to like it, but I have almost finished it in one day. Lem's vision of the future is so colorful and wild and it's supposed to take place in the year 2039, which is not even that far away. Some of the thoughts in the books are quite scary, such as being able to eat books in order to consume knowledge, the ability to reinvent oneself completely if unsatisfied, and characters that can come out of the television and hurt the viewer. The most frightening idea in the book so far is the concept of eternal life. In the story it is common for the dead to be brought back to life or to have their brain transplanted to a healthy body. I can't imagine going on forever and never being able to die. I still have more to read so I will continue this later...

Comment on second view of video

Unlike some of the previous posts, the second time seeing part of this movie wasn't anymore enlightening to me because I think the message the first time was obvious. Nature is good; technology is bad. I think the main element of the picture that really make the message clear is the music. If it was a silent film and only the images were shown, I know it wouldn't have been anywhere near as clear, but I'm still not sure that just seeing the images wouldn't have evoked some of the same negative feelings that the music helped in evoking. There was an image of some metal being melted and reshaped (I think) that had a negative connotation. Especially when there was what almost seemed like an explosion towards the end of the metal shaping did it become the most negative. So.....music or not, the message to me was clear the first and second times we watched it: Nature is good; technology is bad.

Education and Technology,

I thought Winner's video was good but typical. I tend to watch such things during my leisure time. I do believe we are certainly headed where Winner thinks we are going with the comical video and the equipment he has shown related to the future of education.

Why do we seek the need for technological education (distant learning)? Since I come from a different nation Im more exposed to experience because everything around me is different than my own culture and I can relate everything that I learn in my courses to the so called "real world." Why does the education not seem so interesting to a native American student and why are they disinterested? It has become a systematic teaching method. Most students are craving to gather information that would relate to the real world and help them out once they complete their education. In courses like Ethics and Technoloy, many are interested because computers are something we are exposed to. There are various courses as such on the one hand but there are other courses that are based on technical, memorization based concepts which you can not attach to the real world and therefore make it something interesting and useful. Another good question to ask is do we have the leisure and the time to learn courses that are systematic and memorization based just for the fun of it? I would say no because my life might be so much different than somebody else, I might be rich and other person might be getting education so he can have a diploma to survive in the real world.

It always interests me that education and the real world are totally to different worlds of institutions. What you learn in school can not be applied to "real world" in most cases. Once you are out of school, you start a new school so called the "real world" I do think that education is based on experiences and the risks you'd be taking (Dreyfus) but one can not deny the fact that these risks and experiences are a lot different in the so called "real world" and one has to learn the language of that world. Even in our school think of how many students are business majors and why not so many are philosophy or communication majors or even art majors? Some of the questions I receive from peers are what will I do with my communications and philosophy degrees? I really do not think I should be able to do anything with them rather than grow my own personality and most importantly my human nature. In fact, I will not do anything with any of my degrees but will apply them to my life so I can communicate with other beings and use my philosophical knowledge to shape my life in a peacful state. They will be great treasures I have gathered by taking huge risks which are traveling and exploring new thnings in a new culture.

One must ask where education is headed? Grading systems, systematic course requirement to get a diploma, professors or teachers who enjoy teaching the subjects or are just teaching just to teach and for their own survival. Im not saying our education system is bad but students need to be exposed to exploration and traveling a lot more so they can be more interested in what they are learning. Once we limit their perception or what they are exposed to they will not seek to need to learn the points many philosophers and communicators are making about today's world. They will continue to be locked up in their towns or houses without a passion. We will see more of the computer based distant learning. How can one expect college students to deal with the problems of the world if they do not learn much about it or provided the passion to do so? The simple answer comes out we just do not care and its their problem! With education, lets do it without thinking and some will survive and others wont and they will absorb the so called distant learning.

film

i think after learning more material about the film before seeing the film the second time and getting a better background base of knowledge about the subject, the film was easier to grasp
it was also easier to understand because i could relate the images to some of the ideas from the various people we have read about and how they are saying the same thing or contradicting the image the film is trying to portray
i think the message the film is trying to bring across comes to the mind more naturally after we have had a more educated background in the topic
the first time we watched the film, you really had to think about everything you were seeing and it was almost like a puzzle trying to figure out everything thats going on and how it relates to everything we have been studing and now that it comes easier as a concept it was more benefitial the second time around

i dont think it is fair to consider the monster as a cyborg
i agree with the idea that they are both in a sense borderline cases, but its still 2 completely different things. thats comparing 2 things that are on the opposite sides of humanity if you think about it
although the monster is artificially made, it does not fall into the category in which we are considering a cyborg
i think the monster could be better compared to a human because i dont think that in this case the fact that he was artificially created has as much effect as the fact that physically he doesnt look like a normal human and cannot function like one but still possesses human qualities and has the instinct for survival, companionship, etc
the problem in comparing a cyborg to a monster would be in that the normal idea of a cyborg is a fairly extreme definition of one, in that the machinery plays a very key role in the body, mostly the mind
the monster has no machine mind, it is purely human in that sense, and all his parts are also human parts
so in conclusion i think the monster should not be considered as a cyborg because it has no machinery, and although artificially created, it is physically 100% natural and has the same instincts as anything in nature of survival, seeking companionship, and fear

Comment on the movie

After watching the movie the second time, I was able to understand it alot better. It made more sense in the relation between nature and technology. It made a point that technology is starting to intervine with nature. The director points out the fact the people can not even go to a beach and there not be a factory right behind them. Technology is starting to become apart of every aspect of our culture. As the movie showed the people seemed to not even notice that the factory was behind them. This is seeming o be the way our nation is turning into. We are now used to things like that being around us all the time. This may be the sign of change in everyday life.

Cyborg Campfire: Ethics and Technology

Cyborg Campfire: Ethics and Technology The film that we watched on Wednesday morning having to deal with nature and technology. This was the second time that we watched the film. I think that I understand the film and where the director was trying to go with the film. I found it a lot more interesting this time around. The family was laying on the beach in front of the huge factory, now that is not what I think of a vacation. Apparently now a days you can't even get a way from the city and factories when you are on the coast. Is this what our nation is coming to. Our need for advancement in technology has now become part of our leisure life as well.

Langdon Winner

Langdon Winner begins by talking about "The Whale and the Reactor" essay in which he was overwhelmed by the contrast between the two powerful symbols in which they were in such close quarters of each other. The first of which was the power of nature while second was the power of human artiface. When he saw these two images it truely hit him that the moral and political dilemmas of technology were closer to his itellectual roots than he ever imagined. Winner was often uncomfortable with the uncritical acceptance accorded all the latest technologie sand devices. I feel the same way as Winner on a lot of issues because I often wonder if the new technologies are in fact a mixed blessing rather than gifts sent from God. I questoin whether certain things are better the way they are now much like Winner questioned the milk in the reading. I like the part where Winner talks about technologies and how they often affect not only everyday behavior but also norms and values, our self-understanding, our perception, and our ideas about space and time. As we were discussing in class on Monday we would not know how or when to end class without the technology of the watch, we wouldn't know what type of clothes to wear to school if the thermometer was never created. As Typhun mentioned in class we would not even be able to discuss anything without the English language. So many things came from technology that are necessary that we could not even begin to dig ourselves out of technology. An example that Winner uses is medical practice and the fact that technology has not only changed medical practice, but also the very definaition of medical care and human health. We are much healthier with the new vaccines that have been created, and some pills have been a goodthing, but others have just caused more damage. I think one of the best lines in the chapter in the book is "we must avoid the depths wothout direction and details without meaning. A lot of times philosophers will make a pretty good point and you question them on it and they really have nothing to go along with what they had just said. People like to make general statements without having to be held accountable for the repercussions of the statement. The prestige of technical activities has risen through the belief of progress through reason; while politics has fallen because of the things it has caused like wars and social disruption. Many times people fight when there is an idea that is thrown out there without anything behind it because people read different things into what is said. The best argument is one that has a lot of support because then the opposing person knows exactly what is being said so nothing has to be read into the statement.
Winner goes into the topic of Frankenstein and how if technology is not carefully and completely supervised, technology can lead to harmful and horrible outcomes. There is a moment in Frankenstein where Victor Frankenstein realizes that the monster has come to life and he flees in fear realizing what he has done. The reason that the horrible deeds are committed by Frankenstein are because Victor did not carefully watch over his creation. By Frankenstein Winner does not mean that technology is monstrous; but that the monster became what he is by unnurture by his creator. A great point that has to be pointed out is the fact that when a new technology is introduced people immediately take the technology and run with it without completely finishing it to see what could come of the new idea. It happens all too often that people are on to something and then they forget about trying to continue their technology because they are in such a hurry to use it. I compare this to getting a new toy that needs assembly. I mean as soon as yo get what you essentially need for the toy to function you begin playing with and you forget about putting the final touches on it. Although if you wait and finish the directions the toy would be significantly better you cannot wait and the toy ends up falling apart at an early age because it wasn't put together properly in the beginning. Winner wants to dismantle former technologies in an approach called "epistemological Luddism". Not a literal smashing, but a deconstruction of social and political conditions of technological systems. He would like to see what happens when we do without different modes of technolgy such as the automobile and television, and telephone. This would allow people to understand the way we use technology in the way of communicating with each other and the dependency that we have on technology.

monster = cyborg?

The definition I have come to understand is of a cyborg is that it is part human, part robot/technology. Frankenstein's monster was made up of all human parts, enough to classify him as human, but the parts at the time he was made up were inanimate objects, despite the fact that they were connected and functioned as something alive at one point in time. I guess that could make him a cyborg. Some of the conflicts he found himself with were trying to find out where he belongs, or what his purpose would be, given that he was created by a man from some spare body parts rather than the good, old-fashioned way. Those could be some turmoils suffered by a cyborg, if he was mostly robot rather than mostly human. I'm sure a grandmother hasn't begun questioning her place in life now because she has just had a pacemaker 'installed.' It just depends on what kind of cyborg Frankenstein's monster is compared to when trying to determine if Frankenstein can be considered a cyborg.

The Myth of Cyborgs

The similarity between Haraway's cyborg and Frankenstein's monster that is much less on the surface is beneath the way the cyborg and the monster's feelings about the human world. Haraway's cyborg was one, which was devoid of a human history so that it was the embodiment of nothing but social progression and social equality. The monster was not created with this intent but with the intent of overcoming death and the promise of being able to create humans. However, Frankenstein quickly learns that his monster like the Cyborg was without a human history and could not function within society. Haraway would only see this as a positive and this conflict as just one of many on the way the way to true equality by way of Cyborgs. But, is it really the myths and shared human history that forces upon us old social structures? From the beginning of Myth, it has played the part of explanation of forces not understandable not a religious purpose (the Golden Bough is about this and I agree with it). Yes the myths bring people together but they bring people together in the realization that we in fact know nothing about the world and so there must be some greater force controlling. Myths do not perpetuate social structures because most of us (except fundamentalists) are smart enough to realize that slavery is wrong regardless of what the Bible says (For me myth is a fantastic exaggeration of concrete event so it doesn't bother me to place the Bible in this context.) What's interesting is that the Monster disproves Haraway's thesis that Cyborgs will bring about true equality because it too falls prey to human acts of kindness and love; not because Frankenstein has told him any stories of Zeus and Leda but because he has observed other humans interact and wants to be the same way. In this manner Frankenstein seems more human than Cyborg because he is able to observe and feel others but in the end his Cyborgosity prevents this from ever fully taking shape. I read an interesting article Foreign Policy that said patriarchal structures are doomed to still rule the earth even after feminism because feminists, environmentalists, great thinkers of our time etc... Are less likely to reproduce than say a patriarchal evangelical family. Thus, Cyborgs aren't the key to equality as Harway theorizes but the willingness to think about the future of our humanity is. One has to ask the question, "Do I want intolerant people to undo 50 years of social growth in one generation?"
N.B. The article in Foreign Policy is called The Return of Patriarchy. There's also a companion article called The Geopolitics of Sexual Frustration, which gives empirical evidence for the previous article. I would link the articles but the site won't let me however they're both on ebscohost and not in the library because it doesn't stock Foreign Policy.

Of the philosophers we've studied so far Haraway has been the most difficult for me to understand. To be honest it's probably because the minute you start throwing around wildly feminist rhetoric, it is my nature to tune it out. I've never bought into the whole notion of "men bad, women good"...I know too many women!
In terms of comparing her ideas on cyborgs and Frankensteins monster, I'm not sure where I stand. Both things were created not born, but the monster was created from human parts and would therefore, I think, be more susceptible to human understanding and behavior. According to the movie the monsters behavior was reactionary, but does that really excuse it? Ultimately does it matter why, for example , the arsonist burns down the building murdering its occupants, or does it merely matter that he chose to do it? The opinion that we are all cyborgs is also difficult for me to grasp. I believe in free will, so to be told that because we use technology we are cyborgs, and that living without technology is impossible, seems to me to be discounting what it is to be human in the first place...the ability to make choices.
I think Haraways idea that if we are all cyborgs then we will no longer have an "us and them" issue is a bit idealistic, not to mention unrealistic. Everything evolves eventually, and not always for the better. She even says that, "illegitimate offspring are often exceedingly unfaithful to their origins", so I'm curious as to how the assumption can be made that the outcome will be positive. I mean really, didn't she see The Terminator?

Frankenstein and Cyborg Relation

After viewing The Bride of Frankenstein and reading the article "Gender in Monstrosity, Cyborgosity and (Post)Humanity," I have finally been able to come to my own state of beleif that Frankenstein too is a cyborg. The article suggests that if Frankenstein would have been created by a woman than his life may have been different. However, I beleive the author is more correct when she states that Frankenstein was created and that procreation would have made a difference. Because Frankenstein was created, reguardless the fact of by a male or not he is still a created monster of the western culture due to his actions, which stemmed from the treatment that he received due to his appearance. He is turned into a fiend/monster of civilization that is due to the perversion of the actual creation as the article states. However, despite this monster is the softer side of Frankenstein where he does not master but rather dabbles in the arts of language and music. Due to this dabbling the article tells us that still visually he is a monster, but verbally he has become rather sympothetic and has developed feelings one of which just happens to be "hate" which he repeatedly proclaims throughout the movie and continues to drive the western personification of the monster. Therefore, Frankenstein the monster has actually been turned evil by the people that he encounters and the misery he experiences due to these encounters. Even the creation of a bride doesn't help, he is even despised by his own kind. He actually desires feelings of understanding, bonding, and connection. The article states that these feelings are the same ones that a cyborg would need as well.
Nonetheless Frankenstein is still a cyborg. He is a product of technology and science and his actions and personality are dictated by society and culture. However, he is just an embodiedment of man and not really human nor entirely machince therefore a cyborg. Both Frankenstein and cyborgs have no true origins and thier nature and culture are reworked due to thier surroundings. Both are truely a whole of parts as the article suggests and their behavior in Frankenstein's case especially are dictated by these parts one of which being the environment where they are created and live. Frankenstein much like ourselves is a "theorized and fabricated bybrid of machine and orgaism."

I am cyborg...Hear me roar!!!

After reading Donna Haraway I feel very confused. I am not sure where some of her thoughts come from, but I must say that her thoughts are very interesting. Borgmann was very clear cut in his ideas; whereas, Haraway is more difficult to read and understand. The main point that Haraway is trying to get across is that every human being on this earth is also a cyborg. I agree with many of the other posts in that at first glance of this concept, I totally disagreed. I know that the true definition of a cyborg or "man machine" is an individual who has some sort of machine part on them, such as my fiance and his insulin pump, which he relies on in order to survive. After opening my mind a bit; however, Haraway is correct in saying that we are all cyborgs. Technology was once thought of as a luxury or something nice to have around. Then technology became somewhat necessary for most people and now...technology seems to be indespensable. We have come to totally rely on technology and use it for just about everything such as: work, transportation, communication, pleasure, cooking, and even survival. It is kind of frightening to think about how much our lives depend on technology. For example, people thought that the world would end when the year 2000 arrived mainly because they thought all computers would shut down. It is strange to think that there was once a time when nothing was done on a computer. In fact, I am being a cyborg right now because I am using a computer to type this!!

Cyborgosity vs. Monstrosity vs. Humanity

After reading Donna Haraway's thoughts on cyborgs, I was left a bit confused. I ultimately had more questions than answers. Then, I read the article comparing Frankenstein's monster to Haraway's cyborg. I think the article's authour took a very interesting and unique viewpoint. There were times, however, I felt she was stretching things a bit too much to prove similarities between the two. I think she raised some interesting points about the emotional side of monsters and cyborgs. The author points out that we are afraid to be labeled as monsters, yet we are perfectly content with being calleds humans. Why is this? Are humans that much different from Frankenstein's monster? Of course we weren't created in the same way as the monster, but I believe we all contain the want and need for human companionship and we seek to find others who are like us and understand the hardships we face. Humans, in my opinion, are just as capable, if not more so, than monsters of doing some pretty awful things, yet we are the ones with the conscience. It seems a bit odd that some people are so afaraid of the implications of monsters, or more realistically, cyborgs. I do think, however, before society advances to create the ultimate cyborg, we need to think of the effects this would have. Like Frankenstein's monster, would the cyborg be able to feel? Would the cyborg know right from wrong? Could you kill a cyborg? Could a cyborg kill, and if so, how would it be punished? These are all questions that need to be discussed before technology advances any further. We mst first be responsible as "creators" before "bringing to life" cyborgs.

Frankenstein

After watching this movie and reading the original Frankenstein, killings aside, he was an outcast from the beginning. Everyone was scared of him just based on that fact that he looked different and did not act like everyone else. It took a blind man in the movie to realize that Frankenstein was a "person" like anyone else and the blind man befriended him. That point in the movie was the only time that Frankenstein trusted someone and was not scared. Even when the Bride was made for Frankenstein, she did not accept him as a friend. She herself was scared of him.
As far as a cyborg, Frankenstein as a good example in that fact that he was created of parts. At that point in time he would be compared to a walking and talking robot in our near future. And if you think about it we all can relate to Frankenstien. There are times that we all feel left out and the outcase. He had showed emotion just like we do, even though he may have expressed it differently then what we would have done. So if you think about it we may not be too much different then this monster in the movie.

Frankenstein

After watching The Bride of Frankenstein I began to realize that such a creature can develop feelings, love, and friendships. Frankenstein developed a connection with the old, blind man and grew to love music. Even thoughFrankenstein is unaware of his killings, he still develops tender emotion through the old man's music. Frankenstein recieves moments of kindness which suggests that there is some religious meaning to the monster.

Frankenstein is like a cybord in that he has no family or kinship. They both have a mixture of artifical and human parts. Both are also in between categories: natural and not natural. Cyborgs might have a human hand, arm, or leg but the way they are put together is non human. For both cyborgs and Frankenstein there is no hope for completeness because they can't share human history.

Frankenstein the Cyborg

According to Haraway, cyborgs are any combination of animals, human beings, and technology: they are borderline creatures. Cyborgs blur the line between what is really human, animal, and/or technology. Frankenstein truly breaks the essence of the orgin of human beings as he is created from the dead and has no kin. It is this kin that relates all other human beings, however at the same time, Frankenstein exhibits human qualities as he begins to show emotion and can talk. Frankenstein expresses his yearning for a mate and shows despair when he loses his blind friend. Are this not qualities that make us all human: love, affection, yearning to be accepted? It is the fact that Frankenstein shows these emotions, which confuses us as to what he really is, as he was created by a scientist yet he can talk, walk, and show emotion. Cyborgs are seen as being marginal and Frankenstein is just that, as he is half human and half technology. He is real yet his origin makes him artificial as he ought not to exist. In true reality we can not make a human being from the dead which makes him unhuman and alien-like. Frankenstein is viewed by those who can see him as a monster, yet the blind man becomes his friend. The blind man has no sense that Frankenstein is alien-like based on the way he knows him. It is almost as if we view someone as human based more on the fact that they look like everyone else rather than if they act like everyone else. Frankenstein was treated as an outcast because of the way he looked. He was not a normal human thus he was considered not human. The fact that there are cyborgs, though, shows potential for society based on Haraway's belief that it is cyborgs who allow us to understand the world in terms of there being no single human essence. Without this essence we are all cyborgs, and there is no longer the distinction of the so called "others."

Boundaries: Animals, Machines, and Death

The boundaries that Haraway speaks of are represented quite well, I think, in the movie Van Helsing (2004). There are characters that obscure every one of these boundaries. Werewolves blur the animal-human separation. They aren't quite animal and they definitely aren't human, even though at times they share the same appearance. Dracula is a violation of nature because he is not quite living and he is not exactly dead. This movie also includes and updated form of Frankenstein, where he really is a cyborg. Not only does he use a hydraulic leg to walk but also his heart and brain are swirling green snow-globes of energy. I suppose this is his life force, and how appropriate that in this instance he really is a cyborg. Haraway would be proud of this refurbished Frankenstein. Anyway, because all these creatures are violations of nature they are considered monsters. All the violations are killed, cured, or banished so that society does not have to deal with them. It really is quite sad since Frankenstein is such a nice guy/monster.
After thinking about what Haraway said I believe it is true that if we all become part machine then cyborgs won't be monsters because we will all be on an equal level. I have seen a few monster movies where the human characters become part monster and are no longer afraid of the real monsters because they are matched for competition. If this were to happen in real life I feel the same thing would happen, we would all be unnatural and in turn give new meaning to the word natural. Well, I just thought I would mention this movie since it seemed relevant to our topic. If you are ever really bored you might want to watch it, it's entertaining, but by no means is it movie masterpiece.

Monsters and Cyborgs: Is there a difference?

After viewing the film The Bride of Frankenstein, reading Haraway, and reading the paper by Theodora Vacarescu I believe there is a difference between the monster and the cyborg. There are however many similarities such as they both do not have the relationship with parents particulary the "father", both are creations of a woman, and are products of technology and science. Also in the paper by Vararescu she discusses that there is a possibility that the monster and the cyborg are not a male but could also be considered a female. But the western culture has characterized the monster as a male. Since the cyborg and the monster are creations they have artificial intelligence.
Despite all the similarities between the two, the film tells a different story of the monster. Frankenstein wants to become human like and tries to find one he can become friends with. But the people of the town will not accept Frankenstein because of his scary and hideous appearance. The only person who does come to accept him is the blind man because he does not know of the monsters appearance. I believe Frankenstein becomes evil in the film because of the people wanting and trying to kill him. Frankenstein was just looking for someone to care for and he recieved hatred instead. I believe he could see and distinguish the difference of good and evil at the end of the film. He allowed the one scientist and his wife go but kept the evil doctor, the bride and himself behind to be killed becausee he realized that is were evil belongs. Haraway, on the other hand, describes cyborgs as not wanting to become human like as Frankenstein did. For cyborgs would not be able to recognize the Garden of Eden. Therefore, no matter how many similarities are between the cyborg and the monster, I do not believe one can say the cyborg is a monster.

Cyborgs and Frankenstein

At first glance at Haraway's theory of everyone being a cyborg, I could not have disagreed more. But after some thought, much like Sarah's post, I believe that we all do have an element of cyborg in us. We rely so heavily on computers, cell phones, television, and other forms of technology and machines that we are dependent on them for our survival, thus making it almost an impossibility to live without these things. In this sense, we are cyborgs; half human, half machine. Frankenstein's creation, too, is a cyborg; on the borderline between human and monster, life and death, and the natural and unnatural. However, some of the characteristics given in the Achterhuis book on Haraway's theory I find confusing. She claims that, on page 105, "A cyborg is radically excluded from Paradise, and is untroubled by that fact." This part struck me as contradictory when thinking about Frankenstein's monster as a cyborg. The creature longed for human companionship and love; he longed for a place to belong and for someone's kindness. He was excluded from Paradise, but was always troubled by that fact. I am not sure if I am reading this wrong, but I took Paradise to be a place of eternal happiness where love abounds. The creature was never able to be a part of that paradise and was all the more monstrous for it.

Haraway, not so interesting claims,

It was really interesting to read the work of the graduate student Theodora Eliza Vacarescu. She makes very good points in her thesis but I'd like to point out some of my own understanding expanded from some of her ideas in the thesis.

As I was reading the Haraway text, it was dissapointing to get a feeling that she is speaking more of her relationship with her husband than cyborgs. Her husband was a homosexual and she got separated. It is very likely that she has many remarks made on cyborgs based on how are men seen by many feminists. There are many other points as such made like we are all cyborgs is something I do not agree. My overall understanding not based on Haraway is that men are monsters, through out the years they have become cyborgs with the intervention of technology to improve their monsterious status. In the movie Franskenstein, we got to see how the Bride of Frankenstein screamed when the bride saw Franskenstein. Men are scary therefore they are monsters and they no other desire than sex. But if you recall Franskenstein just wanted to be friends and Frankenstein did not have any other desires than bonding with the Bride. I really would not think that the theme of the movie, Franskentein, would be stretched this much other than speaking of monsters and cyborgs. It went as far as discussing the status of men and women in today's society from a monster or cyborgs perspectives. Since monsters and cyborgs are not pure human beings, how are we to call them male or female beings? We are not provided the definite details of such information either by Haraway or by the director of Frankenstein. So it would be wrong to make further claims by Haraway. These things are created and produced rather than naturally born. So they can not be compared to humans but only be contrasted between monsters and cyborgs.

Please feel free to comment on this topic as I'd like to know if someone else agrees with my suggestions on the matter.

Monster vs. Cyborg

As I read the article about monsters and cyborgs I found it very interesting in the abstract how it said "since we are all cyborgs and cyborgs is in the modern version of Shelley's monster, then we are all monsters." And I agree with her that this is a very hard concept to understand. It's stated that we could use "humans" and "monsters" as interchangeable terms. The argument is that people would not like to be called a monster just because of the way we traditionally think of the word monster to mean. I don't think this is a huge deal because if we all began calling each other monsters eventually the bad connotation of the word would go away. I completely agree with the striking similarities between the monster and the cyborg. Both of them are woman's creation, they are products of science, they both have problematic relations to their "fathers" and they both transgress.
The monster has the combination of a hideous body, and a persuasive tongue. The point s made that at the beginning of the Frankenstein movie Frankenstein was not evil at all but very good and he glowed with humanity, but after a while misery made him upset. It was the interaction with other human beings that made him so upset and cause the trouble that he did. I believe that Frankenstein was not made a bad person, he was turned into one, and so everyone can say that the monster in inherently harmful.
The question comes up was he tainted with monstrosity or humanity? I would have to side with the fact that he was tainted with humanity rather than monstrosity. It was the humans that were always hunting him down and causing so much trouble for him. In general he was a good being. When the old man had him in his home and the old man was being nice to him he responded in a very sensible way. Then the other humans came and started yelling bloody murder for no reason and Frankenstein went haywire. I think one of the biggest problems was the fact that his physical presence caused people to think he was a worser monster than he was. His physical presence erased his verbal eloquence as the author puts it. The last point that the paper makes is the fact that the creator of the monster may be the one to blame for everything in which case she would rather be considered a monster rather than the creator. I would also have to agree with this because the creator was just doing this for his own good and not looking out for the monster or the rest of society. Frankenstein was thrown into a society that he could not come to terms with and that was not fair.

Harroway and Cyborgs

Though the pessimistic views of Borgman and Dreyfus were enlightening, it is refreshing to hear the optimistic point of view from Harroway. Her claim that we are all cyborgs is, at first, one that I would immediately disagree with. If the definition of a cyborg is a human with at least some piece of technology or machinery in him or her, then the only cyborgs there are today are those humans who have had mechanical transplants of limbs or pacemakers inserted for their heart. But then I thought further. This cyborg theory could be taken metaphorically. Everyday we live with computers. That is how our lives are run. They have become part of us. We would not live the same way without computers. If this is taken into consideration, the only humans left on this earth that are not cyborgs are those that live without access to any piece of technology. And if technology is thought of as any tool (The use of tools is what separates us apart from most of the rest of the animal kingdom), then none of us are human (This is going on the assumption that those who live without computers use tools to catch food, make shelter, etc.).

Another interesting news yet from a Turkish newspaper, Hurriyet;An artificial muscle?

Here is the translation of the news; (To view the picture go to “view”)

100 times stronger muscle is produced

Scientists have created artificial muscle which works with the combination of alcohol and hydrogen. The artificial muscle is hoped to be used for those who have disabilities. It’s also believed the physical qualities of soldiers, firefighters, and astronauts will be improved. The muscle is 100 times stronger than an ordinary human muscle.

Scientists in Nanotech Institution located in the Texas University produced muscle which works with alcohol and hydrogen. Two different types of muscle produced; like the natural muscles; can use chemical energy of a source and can turn it into mechanic energy. Artificial muscle will enable astronauts and military personally to gain additional skeleton (layer of muscle) and gain power that is beyond human capacity and will improve the studies of robotic world.

Muscle which is 100 times stronger than a normal human muscle can gain its energy similar to the natural muscle. Artificial muscle can turn the fuel within the chemical energy as well as the fuel and oxygen within the air with the help of catalytic reaction into heat.

The artificial muscle is hoped to be reduced to micro levels so it can be used in submarines and spaceships as a smart surface. (I think as a layer protection). According to the scientists, besides using metal catalyzing, enzymes can be used in substitute for the fuel production for the artificial muscles. This will enable humans to use artificial muscle in a more comfortable fashion.

I hope the translation of mine gives you the idea from a Cyborg perspective. Maybe we are really headed where Haraway thinks we are going with Cyborgs.

Haraway

After reading this chapter I was blown away, I have not been in class for a week, so I feel very behind, but Donna Haraway seem to truly believe the we are all cyborgs. I think it is safe to say, after taking this class that we all believe that technology effects our day to day lives. Technology contains strengths and weaknesses and it is important to be very aware of these. On the other hand, to go as fare as saying we are all cyborgs and completely embodied by this technology, I think that is a little extreme. It is important however to always look at the extreme of any situation, also it is unlikely, it could happen. It may give you a new understanding of something, or help you to better understand your own beliefs. Although I do not believe that we are all cyborgs, technology can keep us alive, it can breath for us, clean our blood, pump our heart, ext. Although technology does not have the ability to have emotion, gather beliefs, and cognitively think.

Thoughts on Haraway

I agree with some of the previous posts about the "readability" of this section. I found it to be the most difficult section to read, so far. Sometimes the details became so extensive that it was hard to comprehend the main point of the argument. It was a nice change, however, to read a more optimistic view of technology, compared to previous authors' more dismal views about the future implications of technology. I also understand why some critics would label Haraway's ideas as political. In her opinion, if humans are all cyborgs, there is no need for a weak or oppressed group; there is no need for class divisions. Hopefully, as we discuss Haraway further, her ideas about the future of technology, especially cyborgs, will become clearer.

Shakespearean Cyborgs...eep

Haraway wrote that, "illegitimate offspring are exceedingly unfaithful to their origins." And so, for Haraway illegitimate children are in between barriers; not a part of the mother or father's family or culture. However, Cyborgs have never had a culture in order to enter into this limenal space between cultures where it simply doesn't exist for illegitimate children. The means of getting to a place without culture or social norms is the difference between a Cyborg and an illegitimate child because the child made a choice to not take on either way of life fully. For example, in Shakespeare's Much Ado About nothing (a great play and a surprisingly good movie) the character of John the Bastard is evil and obviously illegitimate (thus the name). Of course, as the one character with no emotional attachments to any one of the others he causes havoc and ruins the marriage of Hero. If we are in fact going by Haraway, John the Bastard is in fact a Cyborg ruining the lives of many because he is free of the chains, which an unequal society had placed upon. First, if someone had just told Benedict or even John's brother either 1) we wouldn't have a play or 2) John would have found out that every one else had found out that he was a Cyborg and in the night he would have stolen Hero away and climbed bare handed to the top of the chuch tower, beating his chest like a mourning Roman woman vowing to keep the woman for himself. Personally, I like Shakepeare's plot much better because John the Bastard isn't a Cyborg. John is simply jealous of his brother because John will inherit nothing of value and has no social standing. He has a knowledge of the culture (the upper class Italian culture), which he is fighting against unlike a Cyborg, who wouldn't have a historical basis to fight against. Moreover, the entire view of Haraway that Cyborgs are in a middle place between human and machine is absolute ridiculousness. If anyone can name many times in history where people were in perfect balance with nature, government, themselves (excluding the philosophy of Stoicism and the religion of Buddhism, which guide human life but are not integral to human nature.), then please tell me I'll write my senior thesis on it. Until then, there's that cliche symbol of the pendulum (which I completely believe in) that guides movement in history. Thus, in 1789 when the French Revolution started no one could have predicted that the pendulum would swing and Robespierre would slaughter thousands and start a state God (Maybe Robespierre was a Cyborg...hmmmm...). Moral of the story, humans don't stay in the middle road, gray area, limenal space, or whatever you want to call it too long because of emotions and uncontrollable outside forces (going a little Naturalistic... I hate Naturalism...too many predictable characters and endings). Thus, John the Bastard was in fact just a Bastard not a Cyborg, Robespierre was also not a Cyborg (he's a tricky one), and just because illegitimate have a lack of cultural exchanges within the community does not make them Cyborg.
N.B. Because I am in an and especially terrible mood, I can't hold back my anger at the pun Haraway cracked about monsters and the verb demonstrate. Demonstrate and monster come from the Latin verb monstro, monstrare, monstravi, monstratus (1035 things--and counting--that 4 years of Latin is good for, which is 1034 more things than a physics class is good for...eep...Physics), which means to show. Obviously monsters show us their characteristics very violently. And so, there is no need to say that monsters do things "about showing" because it is already embedded in the meaning of the word and there is no reason for a woman, who is so well respected, to be so redundant. (I can picture my best friends giving me the evil stare for letting my geekness shine so brightly but I must put that aside for this pun-maker must be stopped before she bungles more than two languages at once.)

Haraway Opinion

When I think of Cyborgs I picture them as a monster trying to disguish as a human. Never did I think twice about how a person with an artificial heart vavle could be considered a cyborg. It is true that there is a piece of technology inside of a human being but does that really mean human beings are all cyborgs? I disagree with Haraway when she states that all human beings are cyborgs. Yes it is true that we all do use technology but I do not feel it is literally a part of us. When discussing cyborgs I believe one must consider their religion to defend themselves. I am a Catholic which I believe all humans were made by God and there is only one human essence unlike Haraway were she believes there is not one human essence. I believe that human beings have to change with time because of all the different technology out in the world. We must adapt to these changes. When Haraway discusses how human beings social relations, and self-interpretation are permeated by modern technology, I have to disagree. I feel that my social relations and self interpretation is reflected through how my parents have raised me and what I was taught. Modern technology I believe has nothing to do with who I am. A human being has qualities that differentiate them from other creatures because of the way we think, the way we act and the way we are taught. I reflect back on Dreyfus and think we must not let technology take over the human race we need to keep our focal activities close.

oncomouse

When first reading about the OncoMouse I thought it was a quite odd invented thing. After learning and listening to what it could do for us in the near future I began to feel it was a clever invention. We want OncoMouse's to exist because they can help us get to the underlying reasons and facts about medical diseases and cancers. Being able to test different drugs and therapies through a OncoMouse is good because we are protecting ourselves from being severely hurt or sick from that drug, disease, or cancer. It embodies the condition of everything.

Reflection on Haraway

To be honest, I found this chapter to be the hardest, thus far, to understand, and I find Donna Haraway's beliefs and ideas to be quite beyond what I would ever consider thinking about. I can understand her idea of a cyborg and how it shares many characteristics with those who are considered "outsiders" in this world. I do not believe in her idea that we are all cyborgs, though, as I think that human beings have their own distinct qualities which make them human. In my opinion human beings do change with the development of technology and with advancements, however, I still see humans as coming from the same beginning despite these changes. I would not go so far as to say that we are all cyborgs as Haraway does, as I would tend to agree more with essentialism. In my opinion, even humans who have a plate or a pace maker put into them are not truly cyborgs as we all essentially come into this world in the same way. Aside from what Haraway says about human nature, I believe it to be both given and constructed, as humans are rooted from the same beginning yet we can change over time. I also believe that the idea of outsiders should be explained based on values, ethics, and practices within society, rather than trying to explain the idea through cyborgs and technology. In conclusion, Donna Haraway has some radical ideas and explanations, that most likely raise more controversy and confusion than anything.

Taken from a Turkish Newspaper, I think you will find it interesting.

Here is a translation of the brief news statement from Hurriyet one of the biggest Turkish newspaper in Turkey. (Picture of the robot is attached, go to "view" to see the robot on the blog page.)

As the population of Japan ages, scientists have created a robot to take care of the elderly. The name of the robot is Ri-Man which is manufactured in a Japanese institution named Riken Research Facility. The robot was seen in front of the public eyes in Nagoya. Ri-Man, a silicone covered robot lifted a 12 kilogram model (not real person) without losing its balance and proved that it will be able to carry heavier objects.

Ri-Man can carry up to 35 kilograms.

Ri-Man is about 1.58 cm and weighs about 100 kilograms with wheels attached to it. Ri-Man regulates its movement and its strength based on the sensors on its arms. Riken Research Facility said in a press statement,"Ri-Man for the time being can only carry 35 kilograms, in about five years, Ri-Man will be able to carry a person up to 70 kilograms. "

Hopefully, my translation is good and can be used as a useful information for our class.

From my own knowledge, Japan is one of the fastest growing nations around the globe especially in Asia in its technological advancements. There are many other kinds of robots produced in this particular country.

Technology for Government

I was having a discussion with my barber as I was getting my haircut over the break about Technology and how it is changing our lives. He actually told me that our government is now catching live sharks and putting them in an unconscience state while they implant a camera device in the head of the shark. Then our intelligence crews can control the live sharks and follow other nations ships and find out where they are headed. The sharks look real because they really are live sharks, but they have this device in them that the U.S. can control them with. I asked, wouldn't the people on the ship realize that the shark was following them and he said that there is always large fish and sharks in the ocean and the crews are not going to kill every shark that they pass on their voyage. So this is an example that I found very interesting of how the U.S. is using technology to our advantage. When we find out that things like that are possible it kind of opens up our minds to what other things are possible in the use of technology. Then I told someone else about this and they said that it might just be a rumor that the United States have made up in hopes that the other nations stay in line and don't try anything. But with the way that technology is progressing I wouldn't put something like this in the rumor category so soon.

The Master of Misinterpretation

Freeberg uses the example of the Kawabata novel the Master of Go to support his thesis that many realities can exists at once in a technological world and that's fine. Personally, I think he misinterpreted the novel for his own purposes, which illustrates the failings of New Criticism (that was a random tangent). Sure, I could take five passages from Huck Finn and say, "Mark Twain was a socialist. Everyone should be a socialist," which is exactly what Freeberg does to Kawabata. As many post-war Japanese authors, he was lamenting the change to his society brought about by technology not subconsciously writing in support of technology diluting culture. Diluting his culture is exactly what Kawabata is writing about and I think that's evident in his other writings such as The Boat Women. The Go match between Shusai and Otake was less about the old vs. new master and more about the loss of art and the destruction of it by a calculating (or possibly naive) move on the part of Otake. The master quits the game because he knows that the beauty and art it embodied is lost and so there is no sense in playing anymore. While, the narrator shows some feeling for Otake, as one who writes, it seems as only a device for characterization. Even then, Otake only gets understanding from the author as a person, as one who exists as aperson outside of technology. He doesn't mean to give understanding to the cause of a varying reality.
The other point brought up by Freeberg comes as a result of the game Kawabata plays with an American, who has a whole different style of play. He says that Japan stole the game from the Chinese and has since evolved the game. However, let us not have such a superficial reading of Japanese history as Freeberg does (I am in fact calming down from Freeberg's slight to all of Japan). Japan "stole" not just just games such as go but also cultural elements of China including many sects of Buddhism, their writng system, and even Kyoto's layout modeled on that of Chang An. The Japanese did take elements of China but they also took the context; if you write in China and in Japan the Kanji still mean the same thing (not the Hiragana or the Katakana, which are of Japanese creation), if you are in Kyoto or Chang An you can see that both formed the same purpose as capital, and if you played Go in either Japan or China, the game was still an art that held respect. The master formed rules for the operation of the game not as a scientist but as an artist. Thus, Freeberg has managed to misinterpret a great allegorical novel and manages to make himself symbolic of what he talks about. Freeberg has become representative of one who lives in a contxtless without any regard for meaning or history just as Otake.

Education and Technology

I read this article from the NYT last week and thought it went along really well with what we've been discussing lately.

To: Professor@University.edu Subject: Why It's All About Me
By JONATHAN D. GLATER
Published: February 21, 2006

One student skipped class and then sent the professor an e-mail message asking for copies of her teaching notes. Another did not like her grade, and wrote a petulant message to the professor. Another explained that she was late for a Monday class because she was recovering from drinking too much at a wild weekend party.
Jennifer Schultens, an associate professor of mathematics at the University of California, Davis, received this e-mail message last September from a student in her calculus course: "Should I buy a binder or a subject notebook? Since I'm a freshman, I'm not sure how to shop for school supplies. Would you let me know your recommendations? Thank you!"
At colleges and universities nationwide, e-mail has made professors much more approachable. But many say it has made them too accessible, erasing boundaries that traditionally kept students at a healthy distance.
These days, they say, students seem to view them as available around the clock, sending a steady stream of e-mail messages — from 10 a week to 10 after every class — that are too informal or downright inappropriate.
"The tone that they would take in e-mail was pretty astounding," said Michael J. Kessler, an assistant dean and a lecturer in theology at Georgetown University. " 'I need to know this and you need to tell me right now,' with a familiarity that can sometimes border on imperative."
He added: "It's a real fine balance to accommodate what they need and at the same time maintain a level of legitimacy as an instructor and someone who is institutionally authorized to make demands on them, and not the other way round."
While once professors may have expected deference, their expertise seems to have become just another service that students, as consumers, are buying. So students may have no fear of giving offense, imposing on the professor's time or even of asking a question that may reflect badly on their own judgment.
For junior faculty members, the barrage of e-mail has brought new tension into their work lives, some say, as they struggle with how to respond. Their tenure prospects, they realize, may rest in part on student evaluations of their accessibility.
The stakes are different for professors today than they were even a decade ago, said Patricia Ewick, chairwoman of the sociology department at Clark University in Massachusetts, explaining that "students are constantly asked to fill out evaluations of individual faculty." Students also frequently post their own evaluations on Web sites like ratemyprofessors.com and describe their impressions of their professors on blogs.
Last fall, undergraduate students at Syracuse University set up a group in Facebook.com, an online network for students, and dedicated it to maligning one particular instructor. The students were reprimanded.
Professor Ewick said 10 students in one class e-mailed her drafts of their papers days before they were due, seeking comments. "It's all different levels of presumption," she said. "One is that I'll be able to drop everything and read 250 pages two days before I'm going to get 50 of these."
Kathleen E. Jenkins, a sociology professor at the College of William and Mary in Virginia, said she had even received e-mail requests from students who missed class and wanted copies of her teaching notes.
Alexandra Lahav, an associate professor of law at the University of Connecticut, said she felt pressured by the e-mail messages. "I feel sort of responsible, as if I ought to be on call all the time," she said.
Many professors said they were often uncertain how to react. Professor Schultens, who was asked about buying the notebook, said she debated whether to tell the student that this was not a query that should be directed to her, but worried that "such a message could be pretty scary."
"I decided not to respond at all," she said.
Christopher J. Dede, a professor at the Harvard Graduate School of Education who has studied technology in education, said these e-mail messages showed how students no longer deferred to their professors, perhaps because they realized that professors' expertise could rapidly become outdated.
"The deference was probably driven more by the notion that professors were infallible sources of deep knowledge," Professor Dede said, and that notion has weakened.
Meanwhile, students seem unaware that what they write in e-mail could adversely affect them, Professor Lahav said. She recalled an e-mail message from a student saying that he planned to miss class so he could play with his son. Professor Lahav did not respond.
"It's graduate school, he's an adult human being, he's obviously a parent, and it's not my place to tell him how to run his life," she said.
But such e-mail messages can have consequences, she added. "Students don't understand that what they say in e-mail can make them seem very unprofessional, and could result in a bad recommendation."
Still, every professor interviewed emphasized that instant feedback could be invaluable. A question about a lecture or discussion "is for me an indication of a blind spot, that the student didn't get it," said Austin D. Sarat, a professor of political science at Amherst College.
College students say that e-mail makes it easier to ask questions and helps them to learn. "If the only way I could communicate with my professors was by going to their office or calling them, there would be some sort of ranking or prioritization taking place," said Cory Merrill, 19, a sophomore at Amherst. "Is this question worth going over to the office?"
But student e-mail can go too far, said Robert B. Ahdieh, an associate professor at Emory Law School in Atlanta. He paraphrased some of the comments he had received: "I think you're covering the material too fast, or I don't think we're using the reading as much as we could in class, or I think it would be helpful if you would summarize what we've covered at the end of class in case we missed anything."
Students also use e-mail to criticize one another, Professor Ahdieh said. He paraphrased this comment: "You're spending too much time with my moron classmates and you ought to be focusing on those of us who are getting the material."
Michael Greenstone, an economics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said he once received an e-mail message late one evening from a student who had recently come to the realization that he was gay and was struggling to cope.
Professor Greenstone said he eventually helped the student get an appointment with a counselor. "I don't think we would have had the opportunity to discuss his realization and accompanying feelings without e-mail as an icebreaker," he said.
A few professors said they had rules for e-mail and told their students how quickly they would respond, how messages should be drafted and what types of messages they would answer.
Meg Worley, an assistant professor of English at Pomona College in California, said she told students that they must say thank you after receiving a professor's response to an e-mail message.
"One of the rules that I teach my students is, the less powerful person always has to write back," Professor Worley said.

I found this article interesting. Some of the professors' reactions were a bit surprising, however. I understand the annoyance if students took too informal of a "tone" with e-mails, but I have often e-mailed professors. I think it is much more convenient to e-mail questions. For example, if I'm up late studying the content and have a question about the material, I can easily e-mail the professor and later, receive a response, something I can print out, as well, for later reference. In my opinion, if professors find e-mails an inconvenience for them, they shouldn't provide their e-mail address to students or explain they won't respond.

Technology will not effect cultures that have long histories...especially the European,Asian and African...

I have been thinking about the effects of technology for a while now. I think taking a lot of philosophy classes have helped me clear my thinking about the process. Also being a citizen of a totally different nation than the United States has helped me draw these distinctions. The country I come from has great modern advancements from computers to advancing in producing Turkish made automobiles that are sold in Europe and Asia. Turkish culture goes as far as the Ottoman Empire. We are speaking of centuries old empire. Although there is a vast amount of influence of technology, people are still able to preserve their old traditions. There is a clash between the modern and the ancient world and it seems to me that the ancient world takes control of the modern world and the ideals that are produced are based on the ancient values. So technology is made to revolve around the ancient world and its the center for every ideal. At least there is so much value given to the focal pracitces which diqualifies the extensive practice of technology.
What is different in the states? My assumption is that we do not have the time to practice focal practices or we have not created or learned to create such practices in certain settings whether with the family or with friends. Or maybe we have not had the history or maybe we did but our older generations did not do a good job passing it on? More advanced nations like the United States and other western civilizations do absord other material things as more important and substitute them for the actual reality. My favorite philosopher Kierkegaard says, this is why our lives become more like plays rather than realities because we accept other things as absolute realities. When there are more distractions as such I do not think people can be blamed as well? Once you get caught up with the stream of a river it takes you with it you must learn how to swim in it.

Depression and Technology

I recently heard a news headline about cell phones (text messaging) possibly being the cause for depression in those who use them. Though I did not get to hear the details of the news story, I found the headline interesting enough, as it related to what we have been learning in class through Borgmann and Dreyfus. Dreyfus talks about internet use causing isolation and depression in those people who rely on it more than anything else. This too could prove to be an outcome for those who rely more on cell phones for communication than face-to-face communication. I totally agree with Dreyfus that the risk and adventure are being taken out of our lives because of our over-reliance on technology. As we continually set aside human-to-human contact using our cell phones and internet instead for communication, we lose the true meaning of life. Our lives become a repetitive process, and we become isolated within ourselves, never realizing the true cause of our depression becuase of the continued hype put on techonology. How can we ever hate something that the press and the public continuely rave about? It almost seems like an endless cycle as the more derpessed we become the more we want to isolate ourselves, staying inside of our homes and relying on the convenience of the internet and other technology. Unfortunatley, though Dreyfus is hopeful, we will probably never find that happy medium, where we respect our capacity as human beings along with technology.