Maus II Thoughts

Okay, Maus. I have to say this book was probably my favorite so far. It had a deeper connection; and I like the idea of using postmodernism ideals to analyze something in the past like the holocaust. Usually we talk about postmodernism like it has only started maybe 20 years ago and is still going strong, but I like trying to relate it to a very significant event that happened before "Postmodern" times. Maybe I will follow that as a thesis. I would really like to analyze the conditions of the camp and how the survival through such an event messed with the psychological state of the survivors. I am in psychology and right now we are learning about behaviorism. I find the topic very interesting and I would like to analyze the psychological state of the survivors, especially Vladek, using the behaviorist ideology. I also would like to incorporate a book I, and all of Menendian's old students, read. I think I could use One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich. I really liked that book, it was probably one of the better ones we read in Menendian's class, in my opinion. In Ivan Denisovich I could not believe how bad they had been treated, how they walked for miles to do a job in the freezing cold the whole day and then walk back in the freezing cold. It was astonishing, and sad. But it really was next to nothing compared to what the Nazi's did in Maus. In history it was supposed that the Russian work camps were worse. Not only were they killing, but they weren't targeting a religious group like how the Nazi's targeted the Jews. They killed their own people. But what was depicted in Maus was a lot worse than what I read in Ivan Denisovich. I want to compare the two, and maybe even use the passage we used in class about how history is a narrative. I think I really like that route.

Google Gaggle

"As the media theorist Marshall McLuhan pointed out in the 1960s, media are not just passive channels of information. They supply the stuff of thought, but they also shape the process of thought. And what the Net seems to be doing is chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation."

The quote above from "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" by Nicholas Carr is theorizing that by using the internet often, the way a person thinks is slowly being changed in a way that makes concentrating and contemplating for a time longer than a few minutes to a half hour very hard. The brain no longer wants a lengthy explanation of an event or story, but instead only wants the important snid-bits. Carr says that Google, along with other internet devices, is condensing the function of the mind by providing it with the information it wants in seconds. Hyperlinks allow a person to skip between pages at such a fast speed that a person could get the gist of a topic in a minute or two, and then can go onto another topic.

Sure, this is very possible and it can happen, there is no doubt about that. But my question about this is: If Carr knows this is happening to his mind, why doesn't he turn of the computer for a while, and get out into the world? My biggest problem with the internet is it is becoming its own little world. There are relationships, separate lives, different information, etc. on the internet that detach everyone from the real world. It is very possible that the internet is making humans stupid. So here is a solution, get off the internet! Only use it for the necessities of use. Like checking your bank account or e-mailing your parents in Virginia. People don't need the internet for news, games, relationships, or entertainment. There are news channels and news papers, sports and gyms, friends and family (By the way, phones are good for talking to people in different states too, not just e-mail), and movie theatres and bowling allies. There is no good reason to be on the computer 24/7, people are just lazy. Which is going to destroy us in the end.

It may be possible that we are almost at the end of the world, in my eyes the human race deserves it. If we don't start getting off our computers and helping out our planet we will all perish.

Sorry about going off topic, but anyway. Yes, Google may be making us stupid, but it's our own fault, we can't blame the technology for our use of it.

We are gathered here today for the passing of our dear friend, Postmodernism!

In Dr. Kirby's article, his topic is introduced with "Alan Kirby says postmodernism is dead and buried. In its place comes a new paradigm of authority and knowledge formed under the pressure of new technologies and contemporary social forces." Just this line alone, along with the video "Did You Know?" introduces the idea that a new power and knowledge is blooming that focuses on the use and continuous development of technology. This may very well be true. I hadn't even heard of postmodernism before I started the class, and now this article is saying that it is already over, and "from now on we’re going to believe in critical realism." Power and knowledge increasingly depends on technology. Who has the highest advances in technological warfare weaponry, Who has the best factory technology that has increased productivity, and soon who invents the first supercomputer. One component of "pseudo-modernism" is that it focuses on the recipients: the readers, listeners, users, etc.; not the artist, author, or director. For example, "...dance music is to be danced to... In music, the pseudo-modern superseding of the artist-dominated album as monolithic text by the downloading and mix-and-matching of individual tracks on to an iPod, selected by the listener, was certainly prefigured by the music fan’s creation of compilation tapes a generation ago." This also communicates that pseudo-modernism hasn't just appeared, but has in fact been around for quite some time. Dr. Kirby verifies this by stating, "To a degree, pseudo-modernism is no more than a technologically motivated shift to the cultural centre of something which has always existed." After reading this article I believe that it could be true, maybe we are moving out of a postmodern age because it can't be rejuvenated. Technology has definitely changed the world, and will continuously do so. Humans have started a never ending chain of growth and productivity centered around technological advancements. Very interesting.

Cat's Cradle Chapters 1-7

Salut!

Okay so far I am liking this book. I like how the author writes; it draws me in and entertains me so I'm not bored. This is a good thing, because usually the books we read for school are kind of boring, but this one makes me laugh and keeps me interested. At first I was a little skeptical about how the book related to postmodernism. But, as I read on, the biggest example kind of jump out and said Boo! The biggest example I found was all of the references to religion that were in the first few chapters of the novel. This quote is an example of how the book relates to postmodern ideals: "Anyone unable to understand how a useful religion can be founded on lies will not understand this book either" This is another way to state that religions are based on narratives. A way to legitimize a religion is to make up a story about that religion: how it came to be, what is says about life, what will happen to believers after they die. Narratives can be true, but many of them are also lies. Religion is useful to put the masses in to groups, and to control those groups. So these religions use narrative laws to be useful. Besides relating this idea to Christianity, the novel also talks about another "religion" called Bokonon. This religion openly states that it is based on lies; in fact, the narrator himself said "I would have been a Bokononist then, if there had been anyone to teach me the bittersweet lies of Bokonon." You would think that people would not want to believe in a religion that openly states it is full of lies. But to some, this could just be a form of an open narrative: it openly states it is made of lies, so people know exactly what they are getting in to. That was the most obvious example of how postmodernism is invested in the novel.

Brave Thesis

When I write my essay on Brave New World, I think I'm going to address the subject of how the Brave New World society effects human connections with each other along with how the reservation sucks the humanity out of the Indians, and how John, as a mix of them both, turns out to be the most stable human being. I want to explore the interactions between the people in the Brave New World society, as well as the interactions between the people of the reservation, and how each reacts with the "outsiders".
A possible thesis would be "In Huxley's Brave New World the two separate societies were conducive to disfuntional relationships between the New World people, and likewise between the Indians, but out of the chaos of control a form of stability could be formed by mixing the two cultures".
Other possible sources I could use in my essay would be the book we use in class: Postmodernism for Beginners, the previous book we read 1984, cross-culture-ism texts. What I would really want to show is how the two different societies are not very humanistic and moral by themselves, but when they are brought together they can form real humans that care, feel, and understand what morality actually is. I would also like to address how different cultures have come together in history to help each other and achieve things together that they would not have been able to alone.
I'm not definitely sure if this is the approach I want to follow, but I like the topic, and I think it would be a nice challenge to try and argue this subject.

Good luck to me right? ^-^

If I can't follow this topic, then I will probably stick with how the technologically productive society dries up morality and humanity. They may be easier, but not as fun.

Postmodern-WHAT?!!

Whaddup peeps! So, the discussions in class this week were quite interesting. One thing I was interested in talking about was myths. Whenever you think of a myth, you refer to old Greek or other ancient times, like the myth mentioned in Postmodernism For Beginners "Here is the myth of Bumba, vomiting the Moon and Stars" (25). But, what I did not know before is that myths are even used today, but in a different form. Instead of calling them myths, Lyotard refers to them as Narratives, which give purpose and reason to everything we do.

When speaking of a narrative there is a thing referred to by Lyotard as a Grand Narrative. Lyotard defines a grand narrative as "big stories... that claim o be able to account for, explain and subordinate all lesser, little, local narratives" (29). An example that Lyotard uses for a grand narrative is "the narrative of Christian salvation" (29). Grand Narratives are so big that by our time, right now, many of them are hard to believe. Many things have been discovered that contradict grand narratives. Because of these contradictions the postmodern condition of religion, and extreme myths is in decline.

Grand narratives aren't necessarily a good thing because they are biased by those who create the narratives. Many cultures have been oppressed by grand narratives, like Native Americans by the WASP grand narrative that it was their destiny to expand westward. By this they marginalize the personal individuality and cultural individuality of many peoples because of any shows of weakness. African Americans, Native Americans, Armenians, Jews, Hispanics, all of these and many more have been marginalized by the grand narratives created by people who can't keep the narratives up, which is why they eventually fell, and now most of these cultures are not oppressed any longer.

In many ways, Postmodernism explains how the society in Brave New World came to be such an oppressive world. Postmodernism can suck all of the narratives from the world so that the only one left is: constant scientific research will lead to the obtainment of absolute knowledge. When all there is left in a society is constant scientific research many narratives like the American Dream will go away, and our society will be like the one in BNW, completely singular and clone-ish.

BNW Ch. 1-4 Video Response (Part 2)

The Unasked Question

What is postmodernism? Well this last week, I began to understand what that phrase meant, how it connected to the books we were reading, and where we were headed in this class. Postmodernism is a great representation of how our world is progressing and evolving. The Modern Era was also known as the Age of Reason, because that is when scientists and theorists really began to dig in and try to make sense of the world around them. Postmodernism is, in a sense, the same thing. Postmodernism is the attempt to make sense of the world we live in now, only we are now much more knowledgable about the physical world around us. Around 1970 things began to change, and postmodernists are digging into what has changed in an attempt to make sense of this new era.

Some assets of this new era are acknowledging the multiculturalism of our world, accepting the different races of people who live in the U.S., and recognize every individuals' freedom of choice. Unfortunately, not everyone has an open mind. Some such people are trying to manipulate the school system in Texas so that they can influence their students' beliefs, and sway them toward Christianity through history class.

As it was argued, not really discussed, in class, our country was seeded by Christians. Our country began with their virtues and beliefs, but from those it has grown and expanded to include other cultures, beliefs, and virtues. American history may have began with Christian leadership, but those leaders did not always lead by their Christian beliefs, and so had negative effects on our country. The same pattern continued after our country began to grow, many Christian leaders thought of themselves first and so did not keep to our pure Christian roots. Also, other cultures were already mixed in, like the Native American culture, and some were brought in along the way, like the Hispanics from Mexico,and the Scots-Irish from the U.K.

The Christians in Texas want U.S. History classes to focus on the Christian involvement in U.S. History, and to represent Christianity as an overall source of goodness. But if their involvement has not always been pure, and if there has been significant influence on our country by other cultures, why should history classes only focus on the Christian influences in U.S. History? That is the question I wanted to ask.

I believe that religion should be left out of school as much as possible. Since it can not be taken out of History classes, it should not be biased toward one religion or another. The values and beliefs and such of a religion should be taught at home. If parents want their children to be Christians, then they should teach their children. But no one religion should sway what students learn in any history class, especially our country's own history.

Salut!

This should be fun ^-^