Friday, September 25, 2009
Group Work
Our group worked together well on our semicolon project. Unfortunately, I was sick during class on Monday, but The Mustangs, a group of very capable grammatical fanatics (grammatical fanatics?), accomplished a bulk of the conceptual work last Friday and on Wednesday. We worked very well together, managing to enjoy ourselves while we presented a topic as boring as punctuation. However, I quickly noticed I needed the lessons, as I was unsure about a few of the punctuation uses presented in class.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Did You Know 2.0- "evolution is good"
Did You Know 2.0 (DYK) is a very well-intentioned video. And it does stop and make one think. That is about all I will afford it.
This clip is asinine to its very core. The maker visions himself as a beacon of hope, as some sort of lighthouse warning the world of danger on the horizon. Ignoring the fact that every single one of the "facts" included are completely unsubstantiated, I still consider this movie completely ignorable. Hell, it was created by a MARKETING firm, and the basis of marketing is purely shock value. If they have caught your attention, they have succeeded. And clearly with this video they succeeded, as so many in class are speaking of how it made them stop and think about how technology affects them.
http://www.spitfiremarketinggroup.com
Let's roll our sleeves up and dig a little deeper into the logical fabric of this movie. This movie is about the changing world, and how we are becoming more and more dependent on technology. This dependence was not present 10 or 15 years ago, so the world is changing. By definition, we are evolving. And it is important to realize that the world does not have a conscience of its own, able to change any which way on its own whim. The world changes because PEOPLE CHANGE. The same people that are being warned of over-dependence on technology in this video are the people who text message constantly and make cell phone calls and drive with GPSes because it makes life easier.
This video contains many threatening, caution-inducing undertones. The maker is issuing a promulgation that we need to be aware of the dangers of technology, that the overuse of technology is inherently bad. As we have already mentioned that the world does not change itself, and that the citizens of the world change the world, there must be a majority of people who are in favor of change for change to occur. Put simply, nothing will change if no one wants it to change. However, the fact that the world is evolving clearly shows that the majority of the citizens of the world are in favor of change.
This change can never be considered wrong, at least in the sense that wrong is undesirable. To an individual, change can be wrong. To an individual, change can be undesirable. But to society, change can never be considered wrong or undesirable. In retrospect, change is always desirable, in the fact that if it weren't a desirable change, it never would have happened in the first place. Therefore, to warn us of something we ourselves are implementing on the world is completely trivial, in the same sense that warning people of the potential podiatric dangers will not inhibit them from wearing flip-flops. People wear flip-flops because they are comfortable and people want to, the world is changing because people LIKE new technology and they WANT to use more of it.
Theoretically, this clip could have been made at any point in history. Why couldn't homo erectus warn its own people throgh grunting and pointing of the dangers of becoming too dependent on fire? Why didn't Man of the Stone Age caution its people of the use of bronze, which as we know introduced the world to the Bronze Age and a new era of tools and machinery? What about the Industrial Revolution of the early 1800s? Without technology developed there, we would not have the foundation of quick travel or efficient manufacturing. And now, we are being warned of becoming over-dependent on technology. If we just stopped and sat back and enjoyed the ride, who knows where we as a species could be in 50, 100, 200 years?
Take a second to think about this assignment. In class, we were warned about becoming over-dependent on technology. What do we think about this movie? For homework go and write a BLOG on the INTERNET using a WIRELESS NETWORK through the largest internet-based company in the world, GOOGLE. We weren't told to stencil a response on a Mesopotamian-era sheet of clay, or asked to write heiroglyphics on a pyramid wall, or asked to use write on a sheet of papyrus. Evolution is good. Natural evolution occurs and should be welcome. The basic economic principle of stimulus-response drives the world and turns the wheels of mankind.
Evolution should not be inhibited. Those who try to stop the natural flow of things are only keeping man from self-betterment. As much as the makers of this movie consider themselves cutting edge and forward thinking, they are living in the past. In thought and deed.
Coming full-circle, this movie did have its merits. It brought up a controversial topic of change, which people are naturally hesitant about. However, its warning nature is useless and archaic.
This clip is asinine to its very core. The maker visions himself as a beacon of hope, as some sort of lighthouse warning the world of danger on the horizon. Ignoring the fact that every single one of the "facts" included are completely unsubstantiated, I still consider this movie completely ignorable. Hell, it was created by a MARKETING firm, and the basis of marketing is purely shock value. If they have caught your attention, they have succeeded. And clearly with this video they succeeded, as so many in class are speaking of how it made them stop and think about how technology affects them.
http://www.spitfiremarketinggroup.com
Let's roll our sleeves up and dig a little deeper into the logical fabric of this movie. This movie is about the changing world, and how we are becoming more and more dependent on technology. This dependence was not present 10 or 15 years ago, so the world is changing. By definition, we are evolving. And it is important to realize that the world does not have a conscience of its own, able to change any which way on its own whim. The world changes because PEOPLE CHANGE. The same people that are being warned of over-dependence on technology in this video are the people who text message constantly and make cell phone calls and drive with GPSes because it makes life easier.
This video contains many threatening, caution-inducing undertones. The maker is issuing a promulgation that we need to be aware of the dangers of technology, that the overuse of technology is inherently bad. As we have already mentioned that the world does not change itself, and that the citizens of the world change the world, there must be a majority of people who are in favor of change for change to occur. Put simply, nothing will change if no one wants it to change. However, the fact that the world is evolving clearly shows that the majority of the citizens of the world are in favor of change.
This change can never be considered wrong, at least in the sense that wrong is undesirable. To an individual, change can be wrong. To an individual, change can be undesirable. But to society, change can never be considered wrong or undesirable. In retrospect, change is always desirable, in the fact that if it weren't a desirable change, it never would have happened in the first place. Therefore, to warn us of something we ourselves are implementing on the world is completely trivial, in the same sense that warning people of the potential podiatric dangers will not inhibit them from wearing flip-flops. People wear flip-flops because they are comfortable and people want to, the world is changing because people LIKE new technology and they WANT to use more of it.
Theoretically, this clip could have been made at any point in history. Why couldn't homo erectus warn its own people throgh grunting and pointing of the dangers of becoming too dependent on fire? Why didn't Man of the Stone Age caution its people of the use of bronze, which as we know introduced the world to the Bronze Age and a new era of tools and machinery? What about the Industrial Revolution of the early 1800s? Without technology developed there, we would not have the foundation of quick travel or efficient manufacturing. And now, we are being warned of becoming over-dependent on technology. If we just stopped and sat back and enjoyed the ride, who knows where we as a species could be in 50, 100, 200 years?
Take a second to think about this assignment. In class, we were warned about becoming over-dependent on technology. What do we think about this movie? For homework go and write a BLOG on the INTERNET using a WIRELESS NETWORK through the largest internet-based company in the world, GOOGLE. We weren't told to stencil a response on a Mesopotamian-era sheet of clay, or asked to write heiroglyphics on a pyramid wall, or asked to use write on a sheet of papyrus. Evolution is good. Natural evolution occurs and should be welcome. The basic economic principle of stimulus-response drives the world and turns the wheels of mankind.
Evolution should not be inhibited. Those who try to stop the natural flow of things are only keeping man from self-betterment. As much as the makers of this movie consider themselves cutting edge and forward thinking, they are living in the past. In thought and deed.
Coming full-circle, this movie did have its merits. It brought up a controversial topic of change, which people are naturally hesitant about. However, its warning nature is useless and archaic.
Friday, September 4, 2009
Literacy Awakening
Upon first hearing of this project in class, I started thinking of different topics upon which to expound. A few things crossed my mind, each one more uninspiring than the one before. I cannot remember a single moment or a single experience or a single thought that I have ever had that I can remember made me want to read or write. I wish I could remember my mother and father reading to me, but I honestly can't. I can't remember the first book I read. It may have been something with dogs, but I can't be sure.
So I reverted to what I usually do when I get frustrated with an assignment and started poking holes in the instructional fabric of it. Why is this important? Other than the general fact that this will allow us to identify what makes us veritably "tick", what merit does this project have? And then I started really getting into it and wondered if this could be construed as a forcible extraction of self-incriminating evidence? What if I was made to write about something with which I did not feel comfortable, could I legally be held liable for what I write?
Moreover, if the internet is construed as public domain in court, how egregious of a post must I "publish" for my first amendment rights be rescinded? Theoretically, one could construct an infinite number of blogs each with a different combination of the alphabet until hypothetically one controlled the blogging world. Upside and downsides are associated with this- I would have to deal with a million disgruntled Philly fans who, instead of being able to write a blog that no one reads about their group of thugs that they call the "Eagles" (cool name, and since when are eagles green? I digress), must actually search me out to annoy me. However, certain rights guaranteed by the constitution would be compromised if no one could blog anymore. It's give and take.
Now, mind you that none of these were legitimate qualms I had over the project. My being bored, I tend to play these mindgames, for lack of a better word.
And then I got back to the topic of the project, and realized that my literacy moment was learning how to think and form and argue and reason in a logical manner. My father is a lawyer, and he wouldn't even humor an argument I made (more allowance, even progressing to a new car) if I did not present it in a logical way. One time when I was ten or twelve or eight years old, I offered to babysit my three younger siblings ig I got paid for it. He gave me ten dollars for five hours. I told him that was crap. He told me that I shouldn't get paid to sit on the couch and make popcorn and play videogames, which at the time I thought had merit to it. I took what I could get. Ten dollars it was.
A minute after that, he asked me if I knew what I should have said to argue that I deserved more money for five hours. He told me I should have said that the President of the United States is still the President even when he goes golfing for a day- it's not about what you do, it's about what you're responsible for. But he didn't give me any more money. I quickly learned my lesson.
So that was my introduction lesson to argument and thought. I like to believe I haven't looked back since. But I still have a long way to go.
So I reverted to what I usually do when I get frustrated with an assignment and started poking holes in the instructional fabric of it. Why is this important? Other than the general fact that this will allow us to identify what makes us veritably "tick", what merit does this project have? And then I started really getting into it and wondered if this could be construed as a forcible extraction of self-incriminating evidence? What if I was made to write about something with which I did not feel comfortable, could I legally be held liable for what I write?
Moreover, if the internet is construed as public domain in court, how egregious of a post must I "publish" for my first amendment rights be rescinded? Theoretically, one could construct an infinite number of blogs each with a different combination of the alphabet until hypothetically one controlled the blogging world. Upside and downsides are associated with this- I would have to deal with a million disgruntled Philly fans who, instead of being able to write a blog that no one reads about their group of thugs that they call the "Eagles" (cool name, and since when are eagles green? I digress), must actually search me out to annoy me. However, certain rights guaranteed by the constitution would be compromised if no one could blog anymore. It's give and take.
Now, mind you that none of these were legitimate qualms I had over the project. My being bored, I tend to play these mindgames, for lack of a better word.
And then I got back to the topic of the project, and realized that my literacy moment was learning how to think and form and argue and reason in a logical manner. My father is a lawyer, and he wouldn't even humor an argument I made (more allowance, even progressing to a new car) if I did not present it in a logical way. One time when I was ten or twelve or eight years old, I offered to babysit my three younger siblings ig I got paid for it. He gave me ten dollars for five hours. I told him that was crap. He told me that I shouldn't get paid to sit on the couch and make popcorn and play videogames, which at the time I thought had merit to it. I took what I could get. Ten dollars it was.
A minute after that, he asked me if I knew what I should have said to argue that I deserved more money for five hours. He told me I should have said that the President of the United States is still the President even when he goes golfing for a day- it's not about what you do, it's about what you're responsible for. But he didn't give me any more money. I quickly learned my lesson.
So that was my introduction lesson to argument and thought. I like to believe I haven't looked back since. But I still have a long way to go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)