The Art of the Commonplace

Good morning, and I hope everyone had a wonderful Thanksgiving! Our Berry article today is rather fitting for Black Friday, I thought.

“What is the purpose of this technological progress? What higher aim do we think it is serving?” (p. 73). Wendell Berry asks near the beginning of The Art of the Commonplace, a piece in which he ardently defends rejection of “new technology” for a simpler life.  Berry himself has no qualms about insisting that technology’s aims are easily defined: “money and ease.” (p. 73). He argues that modern people have disguised these goals as “futurology” and claim that everything is “for the future”, but that this vague goal is really just justification for the true ends of technology.

Berry himself, of course, devotes part of his piece to defending his own choice not to own a computer. He argues that people shouldn’t accept solutions just because they are offered and presented as a “better choice.” Berry doesn’t offer a specific “line in the sand” about what technology he wouldn’t use.

“One of my correspondents asked where to draw the line. That question returns me to the bewilderment I mentioned earlier: I am unsure where the line ought to be drawn, or how to draw it. But it is an intelligent question, worth losing some sleep over…  I am not an optimist; I am afraid that I won’t live long enough to escape my bondage to the machines. Nevertheless, on every day left to me I will search my mind and circumstances for the means of escape.”

Berry’s writing reminded me of the phenomenon of urban farming.

Chicago Urban Farming (from Wikipedia)

Do you think that the increasing tendency for people in urban areas to engage in agriculture is evidence that people are paying attention to ideas like Wendell Berry’s? Or do you think that there’s something else to it? What else could it be, if not?

It’s also rather fitting for this post to go up on Black Friday, the day that’s famous (or infamous) for a mass rush of consumerism. Not far from here, in Tallahassee, there was a stabbing over a parking space at Walmart. Every year, more stories like this mar the Thanksgiving weekend as shoppers go nearly mad with enthusiasm, often for new technology. Do you think that there’s any chance that the Black Friday shopping hysteria will ever stop and consider what is really necessary, as Berry urged, possibly in the face of increasing violence? Or, do you think that Black Friday really isn’t as negative as I’m implying it is, and if so, why?

I also have a few summary questions for you to ponder as well. Feel free to answer as few or as many as you’d like.

1. Where, if anywhere, do you “draw the line” when it comes to using new technology?

2. Are there virtues and benefits to society that come from unthinking acceptance of technology? What about to individuals?

3. Would Wendell Berry have spoken out against “new” technology fifty, or a hundred years ago? Is there something in modern technology that is especially offensive to Berry’s sensibilities, and what can you point to in his writing that would suggest what it is?

Technology as a Problem

This week’s readings focused on the idea that the advancement of technology may not be the bright shining future that we think it will be. Lewis, Lawler, Kass, and the “twelve southerners” [note: I will devote an additional blog post later this week to Wendell Berry’s longer piece] all address different elements of one of our main course themes: should there be limitations to technology “making our life better”? Does technology really “make us better”, or are we losing a key part of who we are in our increased reliance on it?

Lewis’ piece addresses the idea that man’s “conquest of nature” via technology, and argues that this is the incorrect way to look at it. “What we call Man’s power over Nature turns out to be a power exercised by some men over other men with Nature as its instrument” (p. 55). Lewis argues that power to control technology is really “the power of earlier generations over later ones” (p. 56). Lawler, referencing Wendell Berry and Heidegger, discusses America as a “technological tyranny” (p. 130). “Technology, though all-pervasive, is not yet the whole of life,” writes Kass (p. 21). The Twelve Southerners criticize the fact that “the act of labor as one of the happy functions of human life has been in effect abandoned” (p. xli or 3 in the .pdf file).

In reading about the agrarian backlash against technological advance, I couldn’t help but think of an article I read recently about a Canadian family who has chosen to live only with technology invented before 1986 (this arbitrary number chosen for the parents’ birth years). This may seem a bit silly to us, but is this the kind of agrarian response to technology that our authors are talking about (in albeit a bit of a trivial way)? This family is able to get some kind of joy out of refusing to use smartphones, the internet (or even the humble internet blog). This also made me think about how quickly technology is advancing. Many of us would have a hard time going about our daily lives without relying on our smartphones or the internet, things that weren’t invented or were in their infancy when we were born. What would our authors say about this phenomenon, and do you agree?

A few other questions (answer as few or as many as you’d like):

1. What does Lawler mean when he writes “technological progress and technological thinking can provide no real remedy to our natural homelessness” (p. 134)?

2. Several of our authors reference Brave New World (Kass does so directly), and seem to suggest that technology at least could be heading in that direction. Based on what we’ve read so far this semester, do you agree? Why or why not?

3. The idea that humanity is more than “raw materials” is a theme of our readings this week. Is there more to humanity (like a soul, for example), and is technology slowly taking away from that? Does belief in an immortal soul require that we temper technological advance? Does lack of belief mean that we don’t have any limits to it? What else might we base limits or lack thereof on?

Lost in the Cosmos – Two Space Odysseys

The second half of Lost in the Cosmos comes directly after a lengthy section on semiotics, or the science of signs as communication tools for creatures.  For humans, signs are not just a communication tool meant to exhibit a concept such as “danger” or “hunger,” as it may be for other creatures (Percy, 96). Rather, signs take on a social dimension when employed by humans. The meaning of a sign may be different depending on its usage in a particular setting. This is basically a triadic relationship in semiotics for humans, which can be summarized as a relationship between a signifier, referent, and an individual (Percy, 95). This relationship carries with it a particular problem. For the signifier, the sign-user, the naming and defining of things means that their environment exists not only as place comprised of natural, physical actions and reactions; it is a world of signs (Percy, 101). Here is the dilemma. Humans can identify everything in the universe except for one. Themselves. Humans can never be a sign semiotically speaking; there is no “sign of the self” (Percy, 107). Percy asserts that this is a byproduct of self-awareness, the exile from Eden (Percy, 108). The inability of humans to identify what they are drives them mad. I mention the section on semiotics only because the entire rest of the text is devoted to the outcome of self-awareness. In particular, the two space odysseys are thought experiments by Percy speculating how the individual views themselves in light of this dilemma. The first space odyssey involves an interstellar trip to the third planet of Proxima Centauri; the second chronicles a return trip to earth after the world has been ravaged by nuclear war. My question follows generally from the second half of the text. Early on in the second half, Percy mentions how research attempting to establish language in various animals, such as the gorilla, through communication has been largely disproven (Percy, 169). This, along with the space odysseys, led me to postulate what would be required for an organism to be self-aware. An article published in Scientific American references a UCLA medical report dealing with this issue, particularly in patients that have suffered traumatic brain injuries and children with hydranencephaly. This is my question.

Are individuals, who have lost all manner of complex brain function, along with the ability to communicate, self aware? If so, then why?

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/2012/08/22/does-self-awareness-require-a-complex-brain/

Lost in the Cosmos, Twenty Question Multiple-Choice Self-Help Quiz

Walker Percy begs many questions from the reader in Lost in the Cosmos. From whether or not you understand sexuality to why our species gets bored, the philosopher and novelist gets you thinking in on way or another. In the first section of the ‘self help book’ Percy gives us a laundry list of selves to analyze. The reader is prompted to “test [your] knowledge of the peculiar status of the self, yourself, and other selves”. Percy earnestly wants society to see where they fall short, whether it be arrogance, technology, or fashion (Check One).

One particularly relatable self presented in this section is the Fearful Self. This fear, is not that of Halloween, rather a fear of one-on-one time with each other. It’s a sort of insecurity one might say, in which the self cannot truly express itself for fear that others will discover it is lost as well. It’s hard to fathom why should humans are terrified to be surrounded by our own kind, after all, “A wolf howling alone in a wolf pack doesn’t get stage fright” (29).

 

 

Diversion to hide the self is one way to compensate for this “stage fright”. When the Cosmos was being written in the 1980’s the diversion could have been the walkman or the crazy neon clothing. In today’s world technology is not merely a diversion society turns to, but also a mask to hide behind. A controversial example of this are the online Role Playing Games or RPGs. These games take the user to an alternate reality and let them build their own avatar, or “mask”, to communicate with other players. In an article on the Karger Medical and Scientific Publishers webpage, players of RPGs ‘self concept’ was highly impaired and identification with the avatars was heightened among those addicted to RPGs. With this connection being made, here are some directed points of discussion:

1. Which self can you identify with the most? Or rather, which self provoked the most thought for you?
2. Are RPGs and similar games representative of the notion we are lost selves, and even fearful selves?

Children of Men

 

This post contains spoilers. Wait to read this until after the movie if you want to be surprised.

Children of Men is set in a dystopian United Kingdom in the year 2027. It has been 18 years since the last child was born. Humanity has lost the ability to produce offspring though no one is sure why. Despair has torn most of the world’s governments apart through violent unrest. The United Kingdom, the last functioning government, has become a military state, restricting immigrants from entering the country. Any unauthorized immigrants are rounded up and sent to internment camps, where a grizzly fate awaits. The film opens with Clive Owen’s character Theo Faron, a low level bureaucrat, who copes with the hopelessness of his environment by drinking frequently. After a close encounter involving a local bombing attack, which came on the heels of news that the youngest human had died at age 18, Theo is kidnapped by the pro-immigration group, the Fishes, and told that he must acquire transit papers for a particular female immigrant so that they can escort her to the Human Project, a science group looking to solve the human infertility problem. The group is led by Julian Taylor, played by Julianne Moore, who is Theo’s ex-wife and mother of his long deceased son who died in a flu pandemic in 2008. Theo is compensated by the Fishes and petitions his cousin Nigel, a government minister, for the transit papers, who obliges. With papers in hand, Theo sets out with the Fishes and the African immigrant, Kee, to rendezvous with the Human Project. While en route, the group is attacked by armed men and Julian is killed in the crossfire. After retreating to the safehouse, Theo overhears that the attack was carried out by Fishes members who want to use Kee’s child as a political symbol in the upcoming revolution. Theo takes Kee and Miriam, a former midwife, and flees the safehouse. They take shelter with Theo’s old friend Jasper, a former political cartoonist, who suggests that they can board the Human Project ship Tomorrow by meeting with an immigration officer, Syd, who will guide them to the ship located just outside the Bexhill refugee camp. In order to reach the ship, Theo and gang allow themselves to be captured, though the poor midwife does not make it to this point. Once inside the camp, Theo and Kee meet Marichka , an old gypsy, who leads them to a secluded room where Kee gives birth. Upon seeing the newborn, Syd threatens to turn them in for a reward, a suggestion Marichka responds to swiftly and harshly. Making their way across the camp, which is now a warzone, Theo and Kee are captured by the Fishes, though they do not stay captive for long. While making their exit from a destroyed concrete building, the soldiers see the newborn and are awestruck, calling for a ceasefire. After the ceasefire concludes in abrupt fashion, Theo and Kee continue to make their way to a tiny wooden boat which they take offshore to await the arrival of Tomorrow.

Children of Men posits what humanity would look like should humans lose the ability to reproduce. In the film, humans have given in to despair and destroyed society because they know that it is only a matter of time before humanity ends; they are simply waiting to die. Mercifully, the government has also provided households with Quietus, a suicide drug, should they opt to take the easy way out. Despite their miserable existences, people still go to work and continue living as normally as possible despite the knowledge that their efforts may be meaningless. Hope remains. Theo responds to his friend Jasper at one point in the movie that humanity is doomed regardless if people become capable of reproduction. Society has already been destroyed. This leads me to my question. Could humanity return to how it was before it lost the ability to reproduce? Here is one more question the reader can choose to respond to. Is it fear or hope that prevents more people from ending their lives with Quietus? Are they too afraid to commit suicide or are they waiting for something? If possible, wait until after the movie so that you can point to evidence in the movie to support your claims. Finally, for the article, I decided to post a recent newspaper article that argues the need for public policy regarding assisted suicide. It is appropriate considering the role of Quietus in the film. The second link is a bit of a teaser. It is a drug, aptly named Quietus, meant to treat ear ringing. There is a conversation between Theo and Julian regarding ear ringing in the movie. Is that what Julian is really referring to though?

http://www.chathamdailynews.ca/2013/10/20/policy-needed-on-assisted-suicide

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA2JM0TT8401&nm_mc=KNC-GoogleMKP&cm_mmc=KNC-GoogleMKP-_-pla-_-Home+Health+Care-_-9SIA2JM0TT8401

A Canticle for Leibowitz, Week 3: Fiat Voluntas Tua

This week, in the final part of A Canticle for Leibowitz, we find the Albertian monks in the midst of a looming nuclear apocalypse. The world has advanced far beyond “let there be light” in the previous section, and now we find ourselves in a world that has motorized vehicles, spaceships, colonies in space, and, of course, nuclear technology. The monks, fearful of the coming destruction, are planning on sending their knowledge to space (p. 264-267).

The final scene of the book depicts a nuclear explosion demolishing the Leibowitzan abbey and killing our new protagonist, Zerchi. As he is dying, he (or perhaps our narrator), muses “The trouble with the world is me… Thee me Adam Man we. No ‘worldly evil’ except that which is introduced into the world by Man” (p. 326-237). After Zerchi dies, the book describes how even the sea life dies in the fallout, although the sharks swim to very deep water to escape it, and find themselves very hungry.

Since the chapters this week describes a nuclear war, I decided to link that topic to the ongoing nuclear talks between Iran and the West. Nuclear technology is as much a reality in our world as it was in Miller’s world when he was writing A Canticle, yet it doesn’t seem like the fear of nuclear war is on our radar as much as it was during the Cold War. Why do you think this is?

Some additional questions for discussion:

1) What do you think the significance of the title is? We talked in class last week about what it might mean that “Let there be man” comes before “Let there be light”, in contrast to the Genesis story that it references. This title is a reference to a New Testament passage; “let Thy will be done,” Jesus prays while facing crucifixion. Furthermore, it’s also linguistically close to a passage in the Lord’s Prayer “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth as it is in Heaven.” Do you think there is any significance to moving from Genesis to New Testament, other than the passage of time?

2) What does Zerchi (or the narrator) mean when he says “The trouble with the world is me”?

Finally, this will quite likely be discussed in class, so feel free to just think about this one instead of trying to answer it right away, but:

3)  Who or what is Rachel?

Fiat Lux

 

Part 2 of the Canticle of Libowitz contains some character development with addition of the sphere of International Relations (nations like Mad Bear and Laredo) outside the monastery or city. The questions we addressed in class related a lot towards the poet and the scholar. I was more interested in the dialog between the true believers in chapter 16, the poet and the scholar are but actors on the world stage (Millers added sphere). The other question about the creation of light must also be addressed, do the monks create light? or do the manipulate factors to produce an environment conducive to light thus not creating light but just manipulating elements in nature. The final question for class I would like to address is about being culture bearers and soul bearers; I define culture as collective expression of emotion. A soul is not as easily described, since we cannot see a soul but I can feel emotion the two are related somehow? Or are they? Leading to my answer for what society is credited with creating, emotion, we cannot create nature but can put nature in order or subdue nature. Man can even subdue emotion or remove conscience  at least ostensibly. The poet removes his glass eye, but die as result of finally acting upon his conscience (does his eye symbolize something else that was stopping his acting on a certain moral code?) not just stating his observation but put moral conviction to violence, Man creates War is the short answer. When the monks build the machine does that represent a certain event in history if Miller does espouse cyclical history what event does the machine turning on relate too? Did anyone else notice the abbey obtained a printing press page 145 in this section I believe that would be a significant development what does it say about section two what time period is the Miller representing here?

The conversation between Benjamin and Paulo in chapter 16, do you think this is an important discussion? What conclusion can you make about the two characters from chapter 16? Miller post-apocalyptic universe contain other beliefs like Benjamin’s stoic practice of orthodox Hebrew Jewish beliefs does this express anything about miller himself?  On page 173 Benjamin states he has no sympathy for Paulo “the books….were written by children of the world, and they’ll be taken from you by children of the world, and you had no business meddling with them in the first place” what is Benjamin saying here? I still do not quite underndersatnd if the church did no preserve the knowledge would it still exists? Benjamin also makes a strong case here for tolerance as a political ideology on page 168 when discussing “difference, secular scholars” why does Benjamin have such convictions? Benjamin’s closing stamen is “True-El Shaddai is merciful, but He is also just” what are your thought about this statement?

1. What is Miller’s agenda in Fiat Lux?
2. Who are the evil doers in Millers post apoplectic universe who are the do gooders?
3. Is cyclical history miller idea?
4. What was written/painted on bejamians short pillar beside the door?
5. Does the poet die a Martyr?
6. Can we extract our conscious?
7. Where are the women?
8. Does the historical record or renaissance history match Miller interpretation of history in is prophecy of future?
9. Can anything be science fiction in ever expanding universes, with time and space being infinite could Miller universe be the actual True universe?
10. What is the theme of Fiat Lux?

What are your thoughts could all stories be parables from a higher being?

http://www.history.com/shows/ancient-aliens/articles/ancient-alien-theory

 

 

LET THE LIGHTNING POSTS BEGIN!

So I hope that many of you will respond to John’s provocative summary and post below. But I wanted to be the first to post a few videos on the mechanics of lightning strikes, given our conversation in class tonight.

Here are the first two that I found. Cal, your answer seems to explain how lightning happens within clouds. This video does an okay job of describing that process. What I was failing to express clearly in class was that the process is slightly different when a ground strike occurs. Here’s a kind of hands-on explanation of that process. Let it not be said the political scientists aren’t curious about, or incapable of understanding, the accounts of natural phenomena given by the hard sciences. We know how to find out about them fairly quickly using search engines. But are you satisfied with these accounts?

Fiat Homo

Walter Miller’s A Canticle for Leibowitz, tells the story of civilization’s collapse, it’s long and painful reemergence, and its eventual destruction. The novel is divided into three parts, “Fiat Homo” (Let There Be Man), “Fiat Lux” (Let There Be Light), and “Fiat Voluntas Tua” (Thy Will Be Done). The action in each section takes place about 600 years apart, with Fiat Homo set approximately six centuries after the global nuclear war that brought down modern civilization. Since the book deals with practices and rites of the Catholic Church there is a lot of Latin. In case you missed it, Dr. Ramsey provided us with a link to a very handy chart of common Latin phrases used throughout the novel: List of Latin Phrases in A Canticle for Leibowitz.

Published in 1960, Canticle deals with the aftermath of nuclear war, a very real threat at the time and something everyone worried about. Science fiction writers speculated about how civilization could survive, whether mankind itself could survive, and what forms a renewed civilization might take. On the Beach (1957), by Nevil Shute and Alas Babylon (1959), by Pat Frank, explore the world after nuclear war and make good companions to A Canticle for Leibowitz, although reading all three back to back might be pretty depressing. Post-apocalyptic fiction is still popular, given the success of Cormac McCarthy’s The Road and the Terminator series of films. These stories all take the idea of dystopian societies to its ultimate climax, the destruction of civilization itself.

“Fiat Homo” is set in a world centuries removed from the direct horrors of the war, the “Fire Deluge,” however the aftermath is still apparent in daily life. Mutants were common and Brother Francis assumed the old man he met in the desert was illiterate. Very few people outside the church knew how to read (p.7). In Chapter 6, Miller further explains that after the war, survivors turned against the technology that had produced nuclear weapons. A great “simplification” ensued and all advanced technology was destroyed, along with the books so feared by the simpletons, a term taken by the angry mobs who proudly proclaimed their ignorance. “Let us stone and disembowel and burn the ones who did this thing … let them perish and all of their works … let us destroy them all” (p.61).

This first portion of the book sets the stage for the eventual re-emergence of civilization, aided by the good brothers who unwittingly preserved the knowledge needed to re-build our technology based society. Few readers are surprised at the conclusion of Canticle. The destruction of our civilization gives way to another civilization, only to fall into the same traps and be destroyed yet again. “Fiat Homo” ends with these ominous lines, “Eventually it was the Year of Our Lord 3174. There were rumors of war” (p. 116).

Can civilization rebuild itself after a global catastrophe? How would that work, exactly? In our modern world the vast stores of knowledge are not printed on paper but kept in electronic code. If civilization collapsed, the internet would vanish. Could we rebuild without it?

Here is a great little article about our dependence upon the net and the possible consequences of its failure: What Would Happen if the Internet Just Collapsed?

Organizations and countries have set up seed banks around the world just in case a worldwide disaster strikes. Should we have hardened server farms protecting our knowledge and the internet? Read about this seed bank, designed to withstand anything short of our sun going nova: Doomsday Seed Bank

Finally, for your consideration is a TED talk by Danny Hillis. If you have the time please watch the whole thing, it runs only about 12 minutes. Danny talks about the need to protect the internet, he is both funny and frightening: We Need A Plan B

What about it, was Walter Miller right? Are we doomed to repeat the same mistakes forever? Is technology itself evil? If our civilization was destroyed on the level of Canticle, how soon could we recover? How could we recover?

-John Macdonell

Huxley’s Brave New World (part 2) Utopian Personas

                     

As I read the second half of Brave New World I thought of some differences from the first half? The protagonist changes from Bernard to John and the World State seem less perfect and more tyrannical. The problem on page 222 when John asks Mustapha Mond “why don’t you make everybody an Alpha Double Plus while you’re about it?”  and Mond responds “because we have no wish to have our throats cut” is very telling of the problem in this society and possibly a problem in all societies. This problem of nessacry stratification made me think of American class stratification and how it is changing, America may be approaching a time where everyone is either an Alpha or an Epsilon, should the state fear a population of all Alphas? Or all Epsilons?

John is growing more and more dissatisfied with the World State, he himself attempts to start an insurrection but why does he have no success? When John cannot find solitude he decides to end it all, what other ending to this book is possible, could John have found solitude or happiness? I liked the debating between  Mond and John the best in this book I find it very telling of how this World State is far from perfect, where did Huxley get this idea of dystopia from, was his book the first or was he influenced by other Humanist like perhaps Dante?

My first article is about what could possibly be good technology, beneficial to the community; does this tech have similarities with Brave New World?

http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/techknow/blog/2013/9/15/predictive-policingtechnologylowerscrimeratesinuscities.html

The second article deals with social media, the question I think of: are our online selfs better than are actual selfs and if so is Social Media comparable to the World State?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/20/quitting-facebook_n_3962473.html?utm_hp_ref=technology

Here are some more questions please answer anything, I thank you for your insights

1. Huxley use of a lot, and a lot of Shakespeare, why?
2. What about death conditioning? Good/bad other?
3. Sex robots, good bad other? And go!
4. What takes the place of God or theology in a perfect society, can there be society without religion?
5. Why does Helmholtz find Shakespeare so funny?
6. The idea of rebellion/dissonance is as old as government itself, Moses and pharaoh, but is dissonance ingrained in human nature or learned behavior? Refer to page 234/5 and conditioned to believe in God, are we conditioned to have faith? Is that what Huxley was stating?
7. Do Alphas have it better than epsilons? is it necessary to treat subordinates as sub human?
8. What do you think of the feely Three Weeks in a Helicopter?