My future is sort of undecided.
I did have a plan.. but who knows..
COLLEGES:
[[Definitely]]-- U of M Ann Arbor
Im in the middle of this lovely application right now
For the sake of taking up space..
Michigan State
Dartmouth University.
There you have it.
=]
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Asimov Reading Response
It seems that these days everyone is afraid of what the future may bring humanity, whether it be global warming, a tyrannical regime, or free thinking robots. And so this fear of the unknown is brought into literature with such pieces as 1984 by George Orwell and "Robot Dreams" by Isaac Asimov. "Robot Dreams" is a story whose freethinking robot brings up the worries of what technology advancement will bring humans. This reading confronts the question of whether humans will be able to control their creations, or if their advancements will get ahead of them and out of human's control. Both Orwell and Asimov have very creative and threatening ideas for the future of human kind.
"Robot Dreams" and 1984 are such a close parallel that it is intriguing to compare the two. Both pieces of literature express worries for the future as they question the essence of freedom and its loss. The bases of the characters resemble each other, as it was easy to correlate character for character in both readings. Elvex resembles Wilson in an uncanny way. Both are controlled by a higher power, have no freedom, and are still unsure of what freedom means because of their lack of having it in the first place. Yet both characters slowly become rebellious, with Winston questioning the basis of The Party and Elvex rebelling against human control over him (all done subconsciously in his dreams). Elvex has the intuition to dream of a world where he has disregarded the three rules given to him by humans and has only recognized the one rule that "robots must protect his own existence" (pg. 8; par. 11). His intellect has grown so much that he is now thinking for himself and having dreams of being free, as humans are. This is a large step for his robot mind and poses a very large threat to Lisa Calvin, just as Winston was a threat to O'Brien and Big Brother.
In this reading Asimov created a character similar to O'Brien: Lisa Calvin, the old, wise, and controlling doctor. She, as O'Brien did to Winston, controlled Elvex's freedom and limited it to her own standards. She could not stand the idea that this robot had freedoms she did not consent him to have, so she eliminated him. Winston was equally taken care of when O'Brien discovered his rebellious thoughts against authority, or free thought at all. Both Winston and Elvex imagined a freer future for their kind, an idea that threatened the present authority. Thus, both were eliminated before their thoughts had the chance to spread. The problem of rebellion was kept under control and authority remained established.
Both Amistov and Orwell had the same worries for the future and for humans' follies that are leading toward it. A dinner conversation between the two minds would be an intriguing thing to see. I would definitely pay money to see such a scene. But, since this is clearly impossible, I must imagine its content myself.
Such a conversation would spark many points of agreement between the two debtors, especially based on the happenings of humans today. They no doubt would criticize humanity's direction and would spawn ideas on how to make humanity better. Both may agree that freedoms are in dire jeopardy of being lost, and from human's own doing. They may also agree that if humans do not notice their follies now, it may become to late to act on it later. Yet, a very good argument would soon come about in this conversation as to the exact actions of humans in which we should blame. Should it be technological advances that will spark moral questions and repercussions to come about; or will it be human ignorance that causes them to relinquish all freedom to the hands of a controlling government? This question could cause any two intellects to raise both their voices and hands in exasperated rage. So, I leave this possible dinner conversation to the imagination of the reader.
"Robot Dreams" and 1984 are such a close parallel that it is intriguing to compare the two. Both pieces of literature express worries for the future as they question the essence of freedom and its loss. The bases of the characters resemble each other, as it was easy to correlate character for character in both readings. Elvex resembles Wilson in an uncanny way. Both are controlled by a higher power, have no freedom, and are still unsure of what freedom means because of their lack of having it in the first place. Yet both characters slowly become rebellious, with Winston questioning the basis of The Party and Elvex rebelling against human control over him (all done subconsciously in his dreams). Elvex has the intuition to dream of a world where he has disregarded the three rules given to him by humans and has only recognized the one rule that "robots must protect his own existence" (pg. 8; par. 11). His intellect has grown so much that he is now thinking for himself and having dreams of being free, as humans are. This is a large step for his robot mind and poses a very large threat to Lisa Calvin, just as Winston was a threat to O'Brien and Big Brother.
In this reading Asimov created a character similar to O'Brien: Lisa Calvin, the old, wise, and controlling doctor. She, as O'Brien did to Winston, controlled Elvex's freedom and limited it to her own standards. She could not stand the idea that this robot had freedoms she did not consent him to have, so she eliminated him. Winston was equally taken care of when O'Brien discovered his rebellious thoughts against authority, or free thought at all. Both Winston and Elvex imagined a freer future for their kind, an idea that threatened the present authority. Thus, both were eliminated before their thoughts had the chance to spread. The problem of rebellion was kept under control and authority remained established.
Both Amistov and Orwell had the same worries for the future and for humans' follies that are leading toward it. A dinner conversation between the two minds would be an intriguing thing to see. I would definitely pay money to see such a scene. But, since this is clearly impossible, I must imagine its content myself.
Such a conversation would spark many points of agreement between the two debtors, especially based on the happenings of humans today. They no doubt would criticize humanity's direction and would spawn ideas on how to make humanity better. Both may agree that freedoms are in dire jeopardy of being lost, and from human's own doing. They may also agree that if humans do not notice their follies now, it may become to late to act on it later. Yet, a very good argument would soon come about in this conversation as to the exact actions of humans in which we should blame. Should it be technological advances that will spark moral questions and repercussions to come about; or will it be human ignorance that causes them to relinquish all freedom to the hands of a controlling government? This question could cause any two intellects to raise both their voices and hands in exasperated rage. So, I leave this possible dinner conversation to the imagination of the reader.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Watts Reading Response
Watt's thesis is the philosophy that what is"common knowledge" for humans are changing and are entirely too abstract to result in a clear-cut answer that applies to everyone, if an answer at all. Watt views religion established in societies today are kept extremely private, but for no good reason. He says that the Bible's message and the messages in most religions are hidden beneath too many abstract stories and complex puzzles, that the message becomes unimportant. Watt holds the idea that God is hiding inside everyone. He believes that a devotion to faith only restricts a person's mind and makes them close-minded. Religions are filled with followers who try to be the best and mightier than all the rest. He suggests that instead of a religion, people discover the feeling to be "you".
Watt believes that by attempting to conquer nature humans ignore the relationship the environment has to everything. By conquering and disturbing this interdependence, it disturbs the basis of one's self. "...will end in destroying the very environment from which we emerge and upon which our whole life depends" (p.9 1st paragraph).
Watt defines this new experience as finding one's self. "we need a new experience-- a new feeling of what it is to be 'I'" (p. 11, 2nd par.). He says that all humans' lives are a hoax; that people must find themselves behind their masks and egos.
Watt sees that myths are used to explain the unexplainable. He uses them to answer philosophical questions whose answers are not concrete. By using a myth, he believes things run in a full circle, just because. Watt suggests a beliefs similar to Vendanta philosophy as a tool to find one's true identity. The bodies and lifestyles humans take on today are only superficial and will not matter in the end.
In the end Watt urges people to break free and "awaken from the ego-illusion and help save the world from disaster" (p.21, 2nd par.). He suggests that the life people live in today are just hum-drum as people live life in a daze, similar to 1984. Watt urges people to rise up and discover what they cannot see now, and insists that they prove to themselves that 2 + 2 does not equal five. By doing so they will awaken to this illusion of life that they have been systematically living in for so long. Just as in 1984. Change, any at all, needs to be made.
Watt believes that by attempting to conquer nature humans ignore the relationship the environment has to everything. By conquering and disturbing this interdependence, it disturbs the basis of one's self. "...will end in destroying the very environment from which we emerge and upon which our whole life depends" (p.9 1st paragraph).
Watt defines this new experience as finding one's self. "we need a new experience-- a new feeling of what it is to be 'I'" (p. 11, 2nd par.). He says that all humans' lives are a hoax; that people must find themselves behind their masks and egos.
Watt sees that myths are used to explain the unexplainable. He uses them to answer philosophical questions whose answers are not concrete. By using a myth, he believes things run in a full circle, just because. Watt suggests a beliefs similar to Vendanta philosophy as a tool to find one's true identity. The bodies and lifestyles humans take on today are only superficial and will not matter in the end.
In the end Watt urges people to break free and "awaken from the ego-illusion and help save the world from disaster" (p.21, 2nd par.). He suggests that the life people live in today are just hum-drum as people live life in a daze, similar to 1984. Watt urges people to rise up and discover what they cannot see now, and insists that they prove to themselves that 2 + 2 does not equal five. By doing so they will awaken to this illusion of life that they have been systematically living in for so long. Just as in 1984. Change, any at all, needs to be made.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
