In class today we discussed how Borgmann was a fan of baseball. In comparisons to the modern day form of the sport versus the 1940’s version, the rules are generally the same, but everything surrounding the game has changed drastically. If you attend a Reds game, it often seems as if the game is in the background of everything else. With events such as the Kiss Cam or picking if Mr. Red can beat Rosie the Red in a video race; it seems the sport is lost. If you are a baseball fan or just a sports fan in general, I would highly suggest going to either Fenway Park or Wrigley Field. I’m sure Borgmann would greatly approve of the atmosphere at both of these ballparks. In fact, the main scoreboards at both of the stadiums are not digital, something that really adds to the essence of the game.
As was discussed in class, with Free Agency now, a player is a consumer item. It would be unbelievable to picture players such as Ted Williams, Joe DiMaggio or Mickey Mantle in any other uniforms that their respective teams that they played for. Now, players like Alex Rodriguez and Manny Ramirez are not really known for the jersey that they wore for all those years, but as individuals. It also seems clear that with the advancement of Performance Enhancing Drugs, that the game is watered down and the fans don’t really care as much as they did in the 40’s and 50’s.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Lighter Side of Technology
So far in my posts I have been pretty harsh on technology. So I thought I would take the time to list some of the better attributes that it has. So here are my top three positive attributes that the internet brings.
1. Through social networking sites people that I have avoided for ages can suddenly corner me into a conversation.
2. Through things such as twitter I can find out when people are using the restroom. Lord knows how valuable that information could be.
3. Through youtube I can watch as a heavyset girl finds the weightlimit on a table. (Scarlet Takes a Tumble)
P.S. As you might have guessed I am not completely serious here. But being serious all the time is not good for your health. Just watch the last batman movie for proof.
1. Through social networking sites people that I have avoided for ages can suddenly corner me into a conversation.
2. Through things such as twitter I can find out when people are using the restroom. Lord knows how valuable that information could be.
3. Through youtube I can watch as a heavyset girl finds the weightlimit on a table. (Scarlet Takes a Tumble)
P.S. As you might have guessed I am not completely serious here. But being serious all the time is not good for your health. Just watch the last batman movie for proof.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
The Internet and Community
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Blog 4- "It's Not Science Fiction"
I'm sure most everyone has seen the new Air Force Paratrooper commercial; if not, click here:
Of course the army will invent and own most of the newest technologies in the world, but I have to say what is shown on this commerical is pretty awe-inspiring. Aside from the obviously computer generated environments and backgrounds, the soldier's headgear is able to go thermal, standard, among other views. Apparently, it also has the ability to identify a person and throw a picture of them along with a name, rank, etc. on a heads-up display (HUD). That capability is pretty amazing.
If technology like this exists, I wonder how long it will be before it is adapted by law enforcement personnel? By security devices? Even though I am often worried by what technology may pose to our lifestyle, at the same time I am relieved that newer technologies are being invented for the betterment and safety of mankind (including saving our brave soldiers in the military).
Monday, March 08, 2010
The Media Cart
(Pierce tried to blog earlier but the interwebz were down; silly devices)
This is a silly post, but it's spring break, so we don't have to be super serious. I am proposing that the media cart used in class constitutes a focal thing and not a device. I offer the following proof:
1)The use of class time is centered around how long it takes for the media cart to work.
2)The cart's finicky behaviour engages the class and focuses their attention on it.
3)The cart itself is the result of our culture; it would be too difficult if the projector and the laptop had to be carried around separately.
The floor is yours
This is a silly post, but it's spring break, so we don't have to be super serious. I am proposing that the media cart used in class constitutes a focal thing and not a device. I offer the following proof:
1)The use of class time is centered around how long it takes for the media cart to work.
2)The cart's finicky behaviour engages the class and focuses their attention on it.
3)The cart itself is the result of our culture; it would be too difficult if the projector and the laptop had to be carried around separately.
The floor is yours
Tuesday, March 02, 2010
Technology= Decline of English
It seems that technology is slowly putting a deathgrip on society. We are losing our basic abilities to communicate. I know I am guilty of putting "u" instead of actually writing out the word. IM technology and text messaging has caused a degradation of the English language leaving us with a bastardized version of it. I was spurned to comment on this fact when I was proof-reading one of my own papers and discovering many mistakes where I had used IM jargon instead of traditional english. Lord help us all and the english language!
Monday, March 01, 2010
Blog= Into Great Silence
Even though we did not get to watch all of this film last week I began to see what this film provokes and found myself attaching things to the film that maybe related to what our society teaches us today. As every had noticed this film lacked everything but picture, ranging from no sound and sometimes even the lack of movement. So I found myself immediatley critiquing the movie and trying to place that original five point plot that we always seemed to use in junior high english. However, I found it extremely difficult, and in today's society language is so important and I tried to sit there and interpret the film by what I saw. Yet, I found myself asking the question, "If they were "allowed" to speak what would they say?" This made it very difficult because there was no emotions that seem to come from this film either, these monks seemed to have one purpose and that was based around religion. I came to the conclusion that they were what I claimed as "pure." I only use this because they have yet to taste or use many of the devices or become corrupt by greed for monetary materialistice desires like most are today. I am not making a generalization about all people because there are many who would agree with Borgmann and want the focal points in their homes rather than the devices we have today, yet, those seem to be slimming as more devices come out. I myself am one of those who use devices on a daily basis and finding myself almost relying on them. I am not ashamed to admit this and I feel as if I am one of those cyborgs, but I do find that making a dinner with a family is better than popping a delicious microwaveable dinner in the microwave then thirty seconds later it is done. So in regards more to these monks I believe they are what some people would call more human than most of society today, yet are they lacking the opprotunity to become more than just human?
Sunday, February 28, 2010
After Hours
Have you ever found yourself bored and wanting to do something? Do you have a late night craving to move around or look or think when everyone else is asleep? I do all the time. I find myself enthrawled with television or the Internet after hours. I think about what I can do when I have time to spare. Technologly is at our finger tips twenty-four seven, so why not take advantage of it? Some say that Google and the Internet are making us stupid, but how can it. When we are awake alone and have noone to converse with, we turn to our facebook friends, the customers of Walmart, or YouTube. We can learn so much when we least expect it. On the contrary, it is true that we can sit in our comfy chair in our living room and research and entire paper and print it off without the slightest movement in our feet. So, is the Internet helping or hindering the develpment of the human mind? I think it depends on how and to what extent we use these technologies.
tech and smarts
I have heard from many people that this generation is becoming stupid from the Internet. I feel a bit insulted, but that generally happens when someone says you're stupid. I read an article on Discover Magazine's website recently that brought up a great point. It was in response to an article arguing that Google was making people stupid, due to the easy access of information, rather than the absorption of knowledge– a quick fix rather than actual learning. The author of the Discover article was arguing the reverse; that Google benefits us, as we are built for it. He claims that we are cyborg-like, and that the internet serves as an extended mind. This is similar to using an address book; you can remember some of the addresses, but it is much more practical and beneficial to store the information in another place and to use it when necessary. It was an interesting article, and made much more sense than saying that we are all being dumbed down. Some people might be, but others use the internet as an extra source of information to improve their intelligence and function.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Where would you go and what would you take?
In chapter 15 (The Rule of Technology) Borgmann raised an interesting point:
"They do believe that life is better in the country than in the city and that we have become too dependent on machines. But they do not find that life in the technological society is too complicated. They appreciate the comforts of present technology." (106)
So my discussion question is: if you could return to another time period, when would it be and what modern technology would you want to still have? Would you want it at all?
There are several periods I would enjoy living in, provided I had modern plumbing and medicine available: the Stone Age (hunting giant creatures sounds fun), Rome under Emperor Theodosius, and England under King Alfred the Great. Other modern technologies feel more like toys to me; they are certainly nice and comfortable, but I could go without them if had to. Plumbing and medicine are, however, rather literally close to home. Discuss.
"They do believe that life is better in the country than in the city and that we have become too dependent on machines. But they do not find that life in the technological society is too complicated. They appreciate the comforts of present technology." (106)
So my discussion question is: if you could return to another time period, when would it be and what modern technology would you want to still have? Would you want it at all?
There are several periods I would enjoy living in, provided I had modern plumbing and medicine available: the Stone Age (hunting giant creatures sounds fun), Rome under Emperor Theodosius, and England under King Alfred the Great. Other modern technologies feel more like toys to me; they are certainly nice and comfortable, but I could go without them if had to. Plumbing and medicine are, however, rather literally close to home. Discuss.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Blog #6: To the Tune of Great Silence…
After today’s viewing of Into Great Silence, I started to think a little bit about silence. Isn’t it amazing how “silence,” when posited within varying contexts, can invoke so many different responses? The silence of a lightly lit church often incites reverence, a certain humble veneration. The silence of a dark attic or graveyard usually engenders fear or trepidation. The silence endured whilst scuba-diving several meters beneath the ocean rouses wonder and unequaled awe. As an aside, and interestingly enough, how would those responses of veneration, fear, or wonder change if the contexts were instead filled with sound? It’s an interesting thought. I don’t think many of us would be afraid in that nighttime graveyard if we brought along our iPod and listened to our favorite music. At least, the fear would be significantly diminished. Silence alters everything.
The movie today was filled with silence. What was your response? I was rather curious at first. Who in their right mind would produce a movie which lacked an audio component entirely? I mean come on…at least Koyaanisqatsi had music…but this? Although we weren’t able to view the entire film, I believe we were given a picture of how serene our lives could be. Aside from the hustle and bustle of our daily existence, aside from the devices, aside from the unneeded stressors and unwarranted worries, and aside from the noise; what is there? There is only…silence. And as I said earlier: silence alters everything.
When your life is silent, what happens? I usually gain a new sense of calm and center when I’m immersed in silence (placed within a certain context of course). Many an epiphany has arisen from moments of deep and profound silence. Silence and meditation is also medically beneficial to both our minds and our bodies, allowing us to concentrate and heal. Conversely, noise interrupts and breaks through moments of simple repose. One needs only to envision how sound travels as vibrations, tremors which displace and disrupt the very air we breathe, to appreciate the disturbance induced by noise. From dawn till dusk, our lives are usually replete with noise. We can’t seem to escape noise. In the morning, we habitually awaken to the berating and beleaguering sounds of our alarm clocks. Do you wake up naturally? Not many people that I know personally do. What would your life be like if your body was able to make its own schedule and imbibe silence for as long as it needed in the morning? Throughout the entire day, we are bombarded with noise and consternations ad nauseam. Many times, we even fall asleep to the tune of the TV in the background. Sometimes the TV is replaced by our MP3 player. But nonetheless, the inundation is still the same. We are environed within a cage of noise. But would we have it any other way? Humanity is so adapted to noise that it has nearly begun to embrace a certain hostility towards silence. We really don’t like silence do we? We feel out of place and disrupted by something which is the effective opposite of disruption. Only the most powerful of events can summon one to the world of silence (e.g. a funeral service, a spiritual experience, poignant memoriams, etc…). I wonder how strange an occurrence this would have represented to our ancestors of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. I can only imagine how they must have lived their lives, lives undoubtedly filled with more silence than those lived today. I would probably say that the diminishing of silence in existence has a direct correlation with the production and acceptance of devices, in Borgmann’s sense, and the overpowering onslaught by technologies designed to make and sustain their own noises. This deduction thus draws me to a certain conclusion in light of Borgmann’s reasoning: if we stave off our total and maddening love for devices and work more to embrace those focal things/practices which Borgmann catalogues, then maybe, just maybe, we will once again begin to hear and intimately know the tune which silence proclaims.
The movie today was filled with silence. What was your response? I was rather curious at first. Who in their right mind would produce a movie which lacked an audio component entirely? I mean come on…at least Koyaanisqatsi had music…but this? Although we weren’t able to view the entire film, I believe we were given a picture of how serene our lives could be. Aside from the hustle and bustle of our daily existence, aside from the devices, aside from the unneeded stressors and unwarranted worries, and aside from the noise; what is there? There is only…silence. And as I said earlier: silence alters everything.
When your life is silent, what happens? I usually gain a new sense of calm and center when I’m immersed in silence (placed within a certain context of course). Many an epiphany has arisen from moments of deep and profound silence. Silence and meditation is also medically beneficial to both our minds and our bodies, allowing us to concentrate and heal. Conversely, noise interrupts and breaks through moments of simple repose. One needs only to envision how sound travels as vibrations, tremors which displace and disrupt the very air we breathe, to appreciate the disturbance induced by noise. From dawn till dusk, our lives are usually replete with noise. We can’t seem to escape noise. In the morning, we habitually awaken to the berating and beleaguering sounds of our alarm clocks. Do you wake up naturally? Not many people that I know personally do. What would your life be like if your body was able to make its own schedule and imbibe silence for as long as it needed in the morning? Throughout the entire day, we are bombarded with noise and consternations ad nauseam. Many times, we even fall asleep to the tune of the TV in the background. Sometimes the TV is replaced by our MP3 player. But nonetheless, the inundation is still the same. We are environed within a cage of noise. But would we have it any other way? Humanity is so adapted to noise that it has nearly begun to embrace a certain hostility towards silence. We really don’t like silence do we? We feel out of place and disrupted by something which is the effective opposite of disruption. Only the most powerful of events can summon one to the world of silence (e.g. a funeral service, a spiritual experience, poignant memoriams, etc…). I wonder how strange an occurrence this would have represented to our ancestors of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. I can only imagine how they must have lived their lives, lives undoubtedly filled with more silence than those lived today. I would probably say that the diminishing of silence in existence has a direct correlation with the production and acceptance of devices, in Borgmann’s sense, and the overpowering onslaught by technologies designed to make and sustain their own noises. This deduction thus draws me to a certain conclusion in light of Borgmann’s reasoning: if we stave off our total and maddening love for devices and work more to embrace those focal things/practices which Borgmann catalogues, then maybe, just maybe, we will once again begin to hear and intimately know the tune which silence proclaims.
“Stat crux dum volvitur orbis”
After viewing a segment of the documentary “Into Great Silence” in class today, I did some brief research on the Carthusian Order of Monks in order to gain a deeper understanding of its foundation. One thing that caught my attention during my browsing was their motto, “Stat crux dum volvitur orbis”, which translates as “The Cross is steady while the world is turning.” In various ways, the ideology of this religious order parallels Borgmann’s argument against the radical transformation or perhaps, degradation of the individual human experience as spurred by the modern technological era.
Compared to the blurred image of fast-paced streets and sidewalks in cities that never seem to sleep, the Carthusian Monks appear to be living at a standstill. One of the images from the film that lingers in my mind is the elderly monk’s hand simply resting on the coarse white fabric for a few moments before he continues each new step of the folding and cutting process. I think that individuals in technologically advanced societies have lost the ability to simply pause from the pattern of their hectic lives and feel the textures of life that surround them. We do not even really stop to appreciate the world in the present moment with our own eyes; indeed, the vast majority of individuals, myself included, tend to view the environment through technology in the form of a camera, capture it, transfer it to our computers, and store it in the recesses of an artificial memory to view later.
People today not only operate in constant motion but also in constant communication through texting, Facebook, Twitter, and other forms of social networking. I have heard various people assert that they cannot go ten minutes throughout the average day without texting someone. From the perspective of a local farm girl that would have to grab a feed bucket and walk up to the field at the top of the ridge to get consistent reception, dependence on a cell phone in the home environment is an anomaly to me. It seems that this desperate need for attention from the distant masses has led to a depreciation of the internal dialogue or even dialogue with nature that contributes to self-discovery and the formation of one’s personal ideology. We spend so much time trying to be heard that we often forget to listen.
Compared to the blurred image of fast-paced streets and sidewalks in cities that never seem to sleep, the Carthusian Monks appear to be living at a standstill. One of the images from the film that lingers in my mind is the elderly monk’s hand simply resting on the coarse white fabric for a few moments before he continues each new step of the folding and cutting process. I think that individuals in technologically advanced societies have lost the ability to simply pause from the pattern of their hectic lives and feel the textures of life that surround them. We do not even really stop to appreciate the world in the present moment with our own eyes; indeed, the vast majority of individuals, myself included, tend to view the environment through technology in the form of a camera, capture it, transfer it to our computers, and store it in the recesses of an artificial memory to view later.
People today not only operate in constant motion but also in constant communication through texting, Facebook, Twitter, and other forms of social networking. I have heard various people assert that they cannot go ten minutes throughout the average day without texting someone. From the perspective of a local farm girl that would have to grab a feed bucket and walk up to the field at the top of the ridge to get consistent reception, dependence on a cell phone in the home environment is an anomaly to me. It seems that this desperate need for attention from the distant masses has led to a depreciation of the internal dialogue or even dialogue with nature that contributes to self-discovery and the formation of one’s personal ideology. We spend so much time trying to be heard that we often forget to listen.
Into Great Silence :: Reaction
So how do you put into words a movie that had no words?
My initial reaction to the movie today in class was impatience. As the documentary progressed however it became easier to relax and appreciate the rare form of cinematography at hand. The mere prospect of living life in a monetary with such an extreme lack of technology, ownership of possessions, and human interaction seems horrifying. With a movie like this you are indeed forced to ask and respond to your own questions. I couldn’t understand how anyone could be comfortable living that type of a lifestyle. Just as watching the silent movie began to feel more and more natural, I’m sure a simple and pure life like the monks live could begin to feel right as well.
I suppose a meaningful movie is one that allows the viewer to take something away from it. After watching the excerpt from Into Great Silence it caused me to reevaluate my own values and view of the world. What exactly is a perfect life? A good life can’t be measured by the number and quality of devices in our life; after all, the monks in the film have managed to find enjoyment and fulfillment in their rudimentary way of living in the monastery. Perhaps the monks are much happier with their version of the “good” life than any of us are. I personally believe the single most important thing in life is our personal relationship with God and to seek him with all our heart and soul. Life in the monastery has removed the modern distractions by taking life back to a more simplistic and pure form thus focusing on the single most important thing in life.
It is clear to me that a movie with the goal of immersing the audience in the way of life for the Monks would have only been tainted with voiceovers. How is life meant to be lived? The devices that have become ingrained into our daily lives have without a doubt distorted our ability to clearly see and experience the true miracles of life. Though taking such extreme vowels like the monks in the documentary is not an option for many of us, at the very least we can immerse ourselves in their lifestyle for the duration of the movie, and hopefully learn that the absence of modern technology is not always a terrible thing.
My initial reaction to the movie today in class was impatience. As the documentary progressed however it became easier to relax and appreciate the rare form of cinematography at hand. The mere prospect of living life in a monetary with such an extreme lack of technology, ownership of possessions, and human interaction seems horrifying. With a movie like this you are indeed forced to ask and respond to your own questions. I couldn’t understand how anyone could be comfortable living that type of a lifestyle. Just as watching the silent movie began to feel more and more natural, I’m sure a simple and pure life like the monks live could begin to feel right as well.
I suppose a meaningful movie is one that allows the viewer to take something away from it. After watching the excerpt from Into Great Silence it caused me to reevaluate my own values and view of the world. What exactly is a perfect life? A good life can’t be measured by the number and quality of devices in our life; after all, the monks in the film have managed to find enjoyment and fulfillment in their rudimentary way of living in the monastery. Perhaps the monks are much happier with their version of the “good” life than any of us are. I personally believe the single most important thing in life is our personal relationship with God and to seek him with all our heart and soul. Life in the monastery has removed the modern distractions by taking life back to a more simplistic and pure form thus focusing on the single most important thing in life.
It is clear to me that a movie with the goal of immersing the audience in the way of life for the Monks would have only been tainted with voiceovers. How is life meant to be lived? The devices that have become ingrained into our daily lives have without a doubt distorted our ability to clearly see and experience the true miracles of life. Though taking such extreme vowels like the monks in the documentary is not an option for many of us, at the very least we can immerse ourselves in their lifestyle for the duration of the movie, and hopefully learn that the absence of modern technology is not always a terrible thing.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Bloom Box
The other day when I was watching 60 minutes ( yes I watch 60 minutes and find it to be very interesting), but anyway in our class we talked about focal things, things, and the device paradigm. While I was watching 60 minutes I found an invention called the bloom box which was invented not to many years ago and is now in trial runs with EBay and Amazon to name a few companies. When I watched this little segment on the Bloom box I started to think about how new inventions can lead us to things rather than focal things, which was discussed in class. Though I am not truly bought on the whole idea just yet I found this new invention to be interesting and something that we may be seeing in years to come. Think about how these new inventions make life easier and also what they may take away?
www.cbsnews.com/sections/60minutes/main3415.shtml
www.cbsnews.com/sections/60minutes/main3415.shtml
Mindless Leisure
When we discussed the topic of mindless labor and mindless leisure. The example was brought up about how mindful leisure would be playing chess with your friends and mindless leisure would be playing against a computer. There is really no joy in playing against a computer compared to playing one of your friends. I do not play chess on a regular basis, however, I do play XBOX. I enjoy playing, but whenever I am unable to talk to my friends or play with them in a game I get bored very easily. I can understand the mindless leisure aspect of playing games.
In the book, it stated that both political views typically take for granted that an increase in economic productivity is desired. The example that was used for mindless labor was an assembly line. A worker will easily get very bored with putting together one part of a car at a manufacturing plant. However if the person took the time to put together the entire car, he or she would have a much more meaningful outcome at the end of the completed task. This was a great example and really helped me understand what was meant in the reading of the book.
In the book, it stated that both political views typically take for granted that an increase in economic productivity is desired. The example that was used for mindless labor was an assembly line. A worker will easily get very bored with putting together one part of a car at a manufacturing plant. However if the person took the time to put together the entire car, he or she would have a much more meaningful outcome at the end of the completed task. This was a great example and really helped me understand what was meant in the reading of the book.
Jonas Mekas on the Internet and Art
The following quote, from the Lithuanian artist Jonas Mekas (pictured above), was taken from the World Question Forum website (see the top of "links). It reflects Borgmann's concerns about the device paradigm replacing "focal things and focal practices." The point of Borgmann's book, in fact, is precisely the fear that important things and practices are being eliminated by devices. Is this a serious situation?
I would like to add one more note to what the Internet has done to me. And that is, I began paying more attention to everything that the Internet seems to be eliminating.Books especially. But also nature. In short: the more it all expands into the virtual reality the more I feel a need to love and protect the actual reality. Not because of sentimental reasons, no. I do that from a very real, practical , almost a survival need: from my knowledge that I would lose a very essential part of myself by losing the actual reality, both cultural and physical.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
The device paradigm spoke of by borgmann is very interesting because it speaks of an era that our generation doesn't know of. I can remember when computers where still new and the Internet was just arriving, but could I live without google, the verb. Yeah, it makes me because I myself have fell to the cultural desire to use google as a verb "goolgle it or googled it." However, his definition of what a device and a thing are is very complicated to me. It's seems that borgman is truly driven by the "human soul." I'll explain this more thoroughly; we in society today take pride in our specialty. How only a select few can do our job and with that we have prestige and authority. Having a skill is very unique, but with devices is that taking away our skills? Today we have jobs that unskilled individuals work because all they do is press the button of the machine they are working. We spoke of instrument and how borgman enjoyed those because they require skill and attention. With our current drive for new technology that will soon be gone. Rock band is an example of how that is being taken away. We spoke of online classes and how that is something beneficial for our society. I would agree, but borgmann may say it would take away from the true tradition of going to a classroom itself. Borgmann has not made a set in stone side he is on and nor will because I'm actually typing this up on my iPhone. Yet, with this fallacy to drive for bigger and better things seems like we may come upon a day where desire better consumes the purpose of why we do something. Example being we may want cell phones that we can virtually everything a laptop does, but in all reality we just want to call or even just text.
Blog 2
The internet, that is conversation piece that continues to take away from our class week in and week out. This is due to the fact that the rewards given to us by the internet. These rewards are extreme giving us the ability to communitcate and obtain information all over the world. I found after long contemplation that the internet is a "device" however, that does not make it "bad." Now I understand that is not Borgmann's argument, whether the device is bad for us. Yet, the internet serves more than one purpose and does take away from many moments that could be spent in books or lunches between friends who have not spoken in years. The social networking sites in today's society would really assist Borgmann's argument. Now I know there will be people who disagree but the only reinforces his argument that we are in the paradigm and that it is extremely difficult to get out.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Blog #5: Koyaanisqatsi...
Upon watching director Godfrey Reggio’s film Koyaanisqatsi, I’ll admit that I was somewhat perplexed at first.
“Is this a really, really, really long introduction, or is it just me? I guess it’s just me. No, I’m pretty sure that this voiceless prelude is a little bit longer than what I’m accustomed to.”
Following Dr. Langguth’s brief description of the film prior to our watching it, I had expected to become the invisible observer of an ancient Hopi civilization. But as I waited for the scenery detailing our natural world to subside, I realized that there would be no concrete diagramming of Hopi life through the actions of actors and actresses. Instead, the simplistic and natural lifestyle of the Hopi culture would be conveyed through a very telling contrasting of Earth’s primitive beauty with our technologically ensconced modern world. Or even more minimally, the theme of the film is conveyed through the picture’s very title, Koyaanisqatsi, which, originating from the Hopi, means “a life out of balance.”
The film is extremely unconventional, but its unconventionality is utilized to its advantage because it forces the viewer to contemplate for himself/herself the ideas of the film. I don’t think that I have ever watched a feature film which forsook speaking and verbal narration as a means to convey meaning to the viewer (avant-garde to say the least). Seriously, how many production companies today would be willing to help produce a film which failed to rely upon the spoken word? In our digital era, the percentage would be next to zero. Nonetheless, I don’t think that we should let Koyaanisqatsi’s alternative mode of communication turn us off to the message it relates and the considerations it invokes. I heard an undercurrent of moaning and horror as our class realized the entire movie would be watched without talking. Maybe this very fact proves that we are, as a society, too over-stimulated for our own good. Maybe this is just what we require (i.e. to sit and allow our minds to be liberated from the usual constraints of language and persuasion) if we truly wish to engender a genuine reflection upon the overall balance of our lives. I think that we should at least be willing to offer the movie a chance at stirring that musing. I was somewhat skeptical at first; but after watching several minutes of the film, I grew to understand why the director forsook language. In line with what we have been reading in Borgmann, sometimes it’s more informative if we forsake the apodeictic and turn to the deictic or paradeictic. In order to understand the paradigm, it sometimes helps to turn to a form of explanation which “articulates a thing or event in its uniqueness,” essentially “point[ing] up something in its significance” (page 72). As Borgmann relates, the subject comes to possess more preeminence than the method of discovery if we follow this path. Step away from scientific modes of deduction and the characterization of theses and antitheses and let your mind revel in staring at the outright existence and implications of what we are attempting to observe.
Although we only watched bits of the film, we received a taste of what its main premise is. One need only remember the urban scenes of refuse and waste to realize that our life is out of balance. Can the point be demonstrated any better through language? There’s a certain beauty, a certain simplicity, that we lack in our daily interactions with each other and the world around us. And although we haven’t been presented with an explicit picture of the Hopi world, the landscapes do offer us a glimpse of what that life must have held for those people. Today, the beauty and organic features of our earth have faded away, in both our environments and our minds, to the rigidity and linearity of our buildings, residences, and ways of taking up with the world. Just look at how our lifestyles revolve around technology and its promise. Just look at how stressful and clamorous our existences are. Just look. Let the scenes speak for themselves and listen. Maybe what we need to learn is how to just be…
“Is this a really, really, really long introduction, or is it just me? I guess it’s just me. No, I’m pretty sure that this voiceless prelude is a little bit longer than what I’m accustomed to.”
Following Dr. Langguth’s brief description of the film prior to our watching it, I had expected to become the invisible observer of an ancient Hopi civilization. But as I waited for the scenery detailing our natural world to subside, I realized that there would be no concrete diagramming of Hopi life through the actions of actors and actresses. Instead, the simplistic and natural lifestyle of the Hopi culture would be conveyed through a very telling contrasting of Earth’s primitive beauty with our technologically ensconced modern world. Or even more minimally, the theme of the film is conveyed through the picture’s very title, Koyaanisqatsi, which, originating from the Hopi, means “a life out of balance.”
The film is extremely unconventional, but its unconventionality is utilized to its advantage because it forces the viewer to contemplate for himself/herself the ideas of the film. I don’t think that I have ever watched a feature film which forsook speaking and verbal narration as a means to convey meaning to the viewer (avant-garde to say the least). Seriously, how many production companies today would be willing to help produce a film which failed to rely upon the spoken word? In our digital era, the percentage would be next to zero. Nonetheless, I don’t think that we should let Koyaanisqatsi’s alternative mode of communication turn us off to the message it relates and the considerations it invokes. I heard an undercurrent of moaning and horror as our class realized the entire movie would be watched without talking. Maybe this very fact proves that we are, as a society, too over-stimulated for our own good. Maybe this is just what we require (i.e. to sit and allow our minds to be liberated from the usual constraints of language and persuasion) if we truly wish to engender a genuine reflection upon the overall balance of our lives. I think that we should at least be willing to offer the movie a chance at stirring that musing. I was somewhat skeptical at first; but after watching several minutes of the film, I grew to understand why the director forsook language. In line with what we have been reading in Borgmann, sometimes it’s more informative if we forsake the apodeictic and turn to the deictic or paradeictic. In order to understand the paradigm, it sometimes helps to turn to a form of explanation which “articulates a thing or event in its uniqueness,” essentially “point[ing] up something in its significance” (page 72). As Borgmann relates, the subject comes to possess more preeminence than the method of discovery if we follow this path. Step away from scientific modes of deduction and the characterization of theses and antitheses and let your mind revel in staring at the outright existence and implications of what we are attempting to observe.
Although we only watched bits of the film, we received a taste of what its main premise is. One need only remember the urban scenes of refuse and waste to realize that our life is out of balance. Can the point be demonstrated any better through language? There’s a certain beauty, a certain simplicity, that we lack in our daily interactions with each other and the world around us. And although we haven’t been presented with an explicit picture of the Hopi world, the landscapes do offer us a glimpse of what that life must have held for those people. Today, the beauty and organic features of our earth have faded away, in both our environments and our minds, to the rigidity and linearity of our buildings, residences, and ways of taking up with the world. Just look at how our lifestyles revolve around technology and its promise. Just look at how stressful and clamorous our existences are. Just look. Let the scenes speak for themselves and listen. Maybe what we need to learn is how to just be…
Friday, February 19, 2010
Chesterton on Borgmann
This is my first attempt at blogging, so I hope I get this right :)
I have found that despite his bouts of sesquipedalian loquaciousness, I am agreeing with Mr. Borgmann. I found page 93 in Chapter 14 (Technology and Democracy) particularly intriguing:
"...a question of whether we can establish a just society without a commitment to a good society in a strong sense."
"To make divorces, abortions, and entry into the labor market easy...is of course to withdraw formal social support form the traditional family, from the reverence for emerging human life..."
"The law can conform to matters of ultimate concern or morality only when there is something like unanimity. There are probably more shared views on morality in this country than we realize."
There were also many more passages regarding the impartiality of a liberal democracy in realms such as morality. I am an avid reader of the great apologist/philosopher/writer/drunken master/all around cool guy G.K. Chesterton. I have found many quotes from his various works comment nicely on the ideas in this chapter. I thus present Chesterton's commentary on Borgmann (bracketed comments are my own):
"Men do not differ much about what things they will call evils; they differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable."
This provides a good comparison with Borgmann's idea of shared views on morality. A good commentary on the idea of being pluralistic or broad-minded is this:
"Modern broad-mindedness benefits the rich; and benefits nobody else."
"Impartiality is a pompous name for indifference, which is an elegant name for ignorance."
Borgmann also writes:
"It [liberal democracy] needs technology because the latter promises to furnish the neutral opportunities necessary to establish a just society...It fears technology because technology may in fact deliver more than it had promised, namely, a definite version of the good society and, more important yet, on which is "good" in a dubious sense."
Chesterton writes:
"Progress should mean that we are always changing the world to fit the vision, instead we [or rather technology] are always changing the vision."
Borgmann, then, I think, would have got along with Chesterton quite well. He seems worried about what he writes (or rather, what other people have proposed). Some closing remarks from Chesterton that I found quite relevant to this chapter and the class in general:
"The Declaration of Independence dogmatically bases all rights on the fact that God created all men equal; and it is right; for if they were not created equal, they were certainly evolved unequal. There is no basis for democracy except in a dogma about the divine origin of man."
"None of the modern machines, none of the modern paraphernalia. . . have any power except over the people who choose to use them."
I have found that despite his bouts of sesquipedalian loquaciousness, I am agreeing with Mr. Borgmann. I found page 93 in Chapter 14 (Technology and Democracy) particularly intriguing:
"...a question of whether we can establish a just society without a commitment to a good society in a strong sense."
"To make divorces, abortions, and entry into the labor market easy...is of course to withdraw formal social support form the traditional family, from the reverence for emerging human life..."
"The law can conform to matters of ultimate concern or morality only when there is something like unanimity. There are probably more shared views on morality in this country than we realize."
There were also many more passages regarding the impartiality of a liberal democracy in realms such as morality. I am an avid reader of the great apologist/philosopher/writer/drunken master/all around cool guy G.K. Chesterton. I have found many quotes from his various works comment nicely on the ideas in this chapter. I thus present Chesterton's commentary on Borgmann (bracketed comments are my own):
"Men do not differ much about what things they will call evils; they differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable."
This provides a good comparison with Borgmann's idea of shared views on morality. A good commentary on the idea of being pluralistic or broad-minded is this:
"Modern broad-mindedness benefits the rich; and benefits nobody else."
"Impartiality is a pompous name for indifference, which is an elegant name for ignorance."
Borgmann also writes:
"It [liberal democracy] needs technology because the latter promises to furnish the neutral opportunities necessary to establish a just society...It fears technology because technology may in fact deliver more than it had promised, namely, a definite version of the good society and, more important yet, on which is "good" in a dubious sense."
Chesterton writes:
"Progress should mean that we are always changing the world to fit the vision, instead we [or rather technology] are always changing the vision."
Borgmann, then, I think, would have got along with Chesterton quite well. He seems worried about what he writes (or rather, what other people have proposed). Some closing remarks from Chesterton that I found quite relevant to this chapter and the class in general:
"The Declaration of Independence dogmatically bases all rights on the fact that God created all men equal; and it is right; for if they were not created equal, they were certainly evolved unequal. There is no basis for democracy except in a dogma about the divine origin of man."
"None of the modern machines, none of the modern paraphernalia. . . have any power except over the people who choose to use them."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)