Thursday, March 23, 2006

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.

Wednesday, March 22, 2006

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.).

Tuesday, March 21, 2006

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.

Monday, March 20, 2006

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.

Thursday, March 16, 2006

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.

Wednesday, March 15, 2006

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.

Tuesday, March 14, 2006

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.

Monday, March 13, 2006

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.

Friday, March 03, 2006

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.

Thursday, March 02, 2006

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.

Monday, February 27, 2006

think about it before u call me heartless

not 100% on the topic, but think about it

evolution- the theory that charles darwin came up with that basically comes down to the strong survive, the weak die off, the species gets stronger, this has been true since the beginning of time
even humans did that at first
but now, we are almost a de-volving species
technology has helped us to protect the weak and not to reward the strong, both mentally and physically,
now computers can do things in a second that it took genius' years to figure out, machines can do things instantly that before only the strongest of people could do
also, the people with diseases are helped, treated, and given special attention all the time, the government helps people who dont have jobs, almost all of the jobs that still require manual labor are looked down upon and considered 'blue-collar' and the jobs where people jsut sit at their office all day are paid better
in the older days, the men had to be strong to be able to farm, build, and protect themselves
now they just have to be good at computers or selling their image or idea,
and in the ancient days, if a child was born sick or incapable, it most likely died, if someone was unable to hunt and catch food, or if they were 2 weak to protect themselves, they died, if they werent smart enough to figure out how to keep themselves alive, they died, if they were smart and could catch food and protect themselves, they lived
now technology supports the sick, weak, and uncapable, and those less mentally capable

call me immoral, but technology is reversing this process of evolution, allowing those who according to darwin's theory are selected against in the process of natural selection to stick around and continue to contribute to the genetic pool, which in the long term will do nothing at all to help us humans as a species