Technopoly. It's an interesting word to think about. It combines Techno- (as in technology) with -opoly (as in economic or political system). However, most everyone who read the chapter "From Technocracy to Technopoly" didn't ponder the word; they just read on, to hear what the teacher, the author, the giver of absolute information had to say on it. Essentially, for everyone too conditioned (Psst, think Brave New World) to ponder on their own, a technocracy is "the idea that if something could be done it should be done... A profound belief in the principls through which invention succeeds: objectivity, efficiency, expertise, standardization, measurement and progress" (Postman 42). According to the article, it arose from a technocracy, where technology, instead of society's center, was one large bubble of focus amongst other, shrinking bubbles, where "the citizens knew that science and technology did not provide philosophies by which to live" (47).
The article makes clear that the technopololitical movement likely began with Fredrick Winslow Taylor. Taylor claimed that by reducing human judgement in industrial processes, that particular process would see wages and profits rise. People then extended this to contain all of society, allowing particular experts or ideas to lead them in each sector: what's healthy? Ask an expert; how did we get here? follow either religious of scientific leaders; how do we live our lives? follow the experts, the technology, the efficiency to find the answer. Within Brave New World, the technopoly had completely popped the bubble of the opposing worldviews and beliefs; the society was built on serving the machine as parent, government, and God. Everyone was engineered to ruthless efficiency, mass produced to serve the society, and drugged to aviod "human" feeling. This was portayed in a negative light, for efficiency strangles creativity, expression, and individuality. Interestingly, technocracy's success led to individuality, creativity, and expression; however, this was only because it was more convenient for the factory. Ray Kurzweil proclaimed that one day, man will become machine, eliminate death and disease, and possibly humanity. This shows that, not only will man come to serve machine as parent, God, and government, it will become it. The society on Earth will become a well oiled machine, grinding and grinding to no end. In fact, the only and utter downfall is that it provides no meaning to human life; sure, those within said society won't care, but in the end, there is othing being worked towards, no accomplishment being found.
The reason why I described different viewpoints as bubbles is because bubbles are only air, veiled in a milky guise. Each one looks slightly different, but is composed of the same stuff. Yet, when they pop, there is nothing; the residue floats down. There is no conception of what ultimate reality really looks like, because all humanity sees is the bubble and its colors, from the firey red of religion to the cold steel gray of machines to whatever society chooses to center itself upon, with little thought to what makes the metaphorical air within and outside the bubble, and the nature of the bubble's surroundings. This is why all of humanity's efforts to find a societal center, from survivng of the fittest, to God, to efficiency are futile and critcized: they are all inherently flawed because they cannot pose the ultimate reality and purpose to human society (oh, that's what 1984 for was all about! I think the curriculum is starting to make sense!). Will we ever pop the bubbles, and look around? Probably not, we will just continue to blow new ones. However, the call to action is, therefore, to always be ready with a needle, to try to puncture all of the hot air blown. Although this will lead to little observable "progress," it will prevent society from being ruled by totalitarian machines, governments, Gods, or any new idea we come up with.
Sunday, October 2, 2011
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Someone Already Took Brave New Singularity as a Title, Which I Thought Was Kinda Adorable. I Apologize if the Latter Half is Nonsensical, I Wrote This Tired-ly...
In the realm of natural science (think, astrophysics), a Singularity is the center of a Black Hole. At this center, all matter, energy, space, time, and a good deal of even more interesting things are compressed by the power of gravity into a single, super-dense point, with all distinguishing marks literally squished away. On a more Earthly level, the term denotes a point in time, where the separate worlds of human thought and invention and human physiology shall be compressed by the power of human thought into one indistinguishable being, that never dies, or, in that sense, changes, and "when that happens, humanity- our bodies, our minds, our civilization- will be completely and irreversibly transformed" (Grossman 1). The article from which that random quote is from then went on to describe how machines may one day reach the same level of intelligence as humans, from super smart computers, accelerating to Wall-e status, before reaching tyrannical I-Robot level, and beyond.
The article took a different turn of direction, instead deciding that humans and robots would merge, into one being, a singularity of sorts, where humans/robots (Hobots? Rumans? I know, let's call them cyborgs) would have ever expanding intelligence and abilities. Disease, pain, and finally, the greatest unknown, death, would be conquered by the cyborgs' ever expanding knowledge. In a sense, denying the unknown, the pain, the sense of all that is not good, is, essentially, denying humans of part of the fundamental aspects of humanity, according to some. This reflects the argument put forth by A. Huxley in his novel Brave New World, where everyone is a part of a social body, like a cell in a human body. However, they aren't anything like a human; sure, both we and them talk, play, work, and have... fun together, but the Brave New Worldians are preconditioned biological machines, made on a factory line where they are pre-programed into certain tasks. The novel's outcry was of that against a technology driven society, for they become like the technology, ruthlessly efficient, never thinking, and always controlled by some higher up. In the Singularity, the humans literally become the technology.
A major point to be recognized, however, is that humanity may not be denied. By destroying death, would we destroy humanity? My guinea pig died today (God-forbid it be the useless one that never let you pet it; no, it had to be the cool one), yet, it is not a human. It was likely sick with disease, yet it wasn't a human. My sister cried over it. She was a human (still is, actually). Mama animals also cry (or some equivalent of mourning) when their young are taken or killed by the dead-beat dad, or are otherwise removed. Yet, we consider these things an act or expression of "humanity." The truth is, "humanity" doesn't exist: before we had society and technology ruling, we had (and some still have) Religion to call the shots. Humans always organized themselves to be a part of a grander scheme of society; my (zealously) religious mother likes to discuss God's plan, which involves doing what "He" (or she, no one really checked) wants to be done to bring humanity together. Even though, in such religion, my pastor might declare that God "saves' humanity, and is the source of it, it is really just a tool to allow humans to be machines before they even knew what machines were; a cog in the plan of a "Greater One" who presses all of the buttons. Therefore, there is no "authentically human," but rather, a collection of beings who exist on a rock in space.
Bernard, a character of Brave New World, dreamed of a paradise where man is in a supreme state of existence. Truth was, he was in it. Society was functioning as it should, and only Bernard, likely an accident of production, his abnormally intelligent friend, and a complete outsider saw any flaws. If that society learns to better engineer its people (which, with ever expanding technologies, it will be better able to), everybody would be "happy" or at least, content, in a smoothly running machine world. Seeing as humanity is really just a fictitious idea, there would be no problems.
The article took a different turn of direction, instead deciding that humans and robots would merge, into one being, a singularity of sorts, where humans/robots (Hobots? Rumans? I know, let's call them cyborgs) would have ever expanding intelligence and abilities. Disease, pain, and finally, the greatest unknown, death, would be conquered by the cyborgs' ever expanding knowledge. In a sense, denying the unknown, the pain, the sense of all that is not good, is, essentially, denying humans of part of the fundamental aspects of humanity, according to some. This reflects the argument put forth by A. Huxley in his novel Brave New World, where everyone is a part of a social body, like a cell in a human body. However, they aren't anything like a human; sure, both we and them talk, play, work, and have... fun together, but the Brave New Worldians are preconditioned biological machines, made on a factory line where they are pre-programed into certain tasks. The novel's outcry was of that against a technology driven society, for they become like the technology, ruthlessly efficient, never thinking, and always controlled by some higher up. In the Singularity, the humans literally become the technology.
A major point to be recognized, however, is that humanity may not be denied. By destroying death, would we destroy humanity? My guinea pig died today (God-forbid it be the useless one that never let you pet it; no, it had to be the cool one), yet, it is not a human. It was likely sick with disease, yet it wasn't a human. My sister cried over it. She was a human (still is, actually). Mama animals also cry (or some equivalent of mourning) when their young are taken or killed by the dead-beat dad, or are otherwise removed. Yet, we consider these things an act or expression of "humanity." The truth is, "humanity" doesn't exist: before we had society and technology ruling, we had (and some still have) Religion to call the shots. Humans always organized themselves to be a part of a grander scheme of society; my (zealously) religious mother likes to discuss God's plan, which involves doing what "He" (or she, no one really checked) wants to be done to bring humanity together. Even though, in such religion, my pastor might declare that God "saves' humanity, and is the source of it, it is really just a tool to allow humans to be machines before they even knew what machines were; a cog in the plan of a "Greater One" who presses all of the buttons. Therefore, there is no "authentically human," but rather, a collection of beings who exist on a rock in space.
Bernard, a character of Brave New World, dreamed of a paradise where man is in a supreme state of existence. Truth was, he was in it. Society was functioning as it should, and only Bernard, likely an accident of production, his abnormally intelligent friend, and a complete outsider saw any flaws. If that society learns to better engineer its people (which, with ever expanding technologies, it will be better able to), everybody would be "happy" or at least, content, in a smoothly running machine world. Seeing as humanity is really just a fictitious idea, there would be no problems.
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Taylor McCullough-Hunter's Response For the Student Pulse Assignment, on an Article Involving Mythology in CS Lewis's Chronchles of Narnia Series
The article "Examining Mythology in 'The Chronicles of Narnia' by C. S. Lewis" by Alicia D. Costello examines Mythology in C. S. Lewis's Chroncles of Narnia. The article, on the whole, discussed, not necessarily mythology in human life on Earth that made an appearance in the series, but rather, the nature of myths that C. S. Lewis created within the series itself.
In reading the essay, the first noteable feature was Ms. (or Mrs.) Costello's use of an introductory "hook" to catch the reader's attention. However, the most attention-catching feature of this hook was not, in fact, it's catchiness, so to speak, but rather, its painful rigidity. She describes the "wonder of opening a book" and manges to slip in a wardrobe reference, but still takes a couple sentences to actually begin the topic. By the time she begins actually discussing C. S. Lewis and Mythology, the feelings of reading a high school essay by a fairly inept writer are already inplace (a feeling that proofreading my own work has often brought up). This already sends the wrong message regarding the worth of Ms. (or Mrs.) Costello's essay, because it gives of the stench of B. S. that tends to accumulate around such painful, and usually clueless, writers when it comes to beginnings. As a result, Ms. Costello's credibility is already strongly damaged.
The essay predictably contained a thesis at the end of the first paragraph, that essentially just told the reader that C. S. Lewis created a working mythology for his books. This thesis is neither controversial nor insightful, and continues the feeling of answering a prompt to get a grade, which was very possibly her intent, rather than a true sharing of a unique insight amongst peers or others who would be interested in Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia on a higher thought level. This reveals to her audience of her college professor (or likely, his or her assistant, as this essay doesn't seem to come from a class of high level learning, due to the elementary nature of the essay structure) that he or she should settle in for another substandard paper.
On a more positive note, Ms. (or Mrs.) Costello's paper was fairly organized in terms of parting information; listing seven characteristics than Lewis considered vital for myths as he wrote them. The essay even proved each characteristic convincingly using C.S. Lewis's own writings and speeches, which helps improve Ms. how about we just assume she's not hitched yet, and go with Ms.) Costello's fairly minimal credibility, which is then further boosted by a conclusion that suffers none of the awkward "I must follow rules" feeling of the introduction, and prose that is intelligent, but still understandable to the non-elite intellectual types, which makes one decide that, yes, it is the T. A. grading the paper after all.
What becomes the most noteable feature of the essay, as it comes to a close, is the fairly pointless reach of the essay. Yes, it solidly proves its point: Mr. C. S. Lewis created myths of certain characteristics. Cool. Ms. Costello's readers/ TA would be glad to hear it. However, the essay retains to relevency to even the literature itself; the only insight it reveals is something plainly obvious to those reading the actual series: the Chronicles of Narnia contains (wait for it...) Mythology!
In reading the essay, the first noteable feature was Ms. (or Mrs.) Costello's use of an introductory "hook" to catch the reader's attention. However, the most attention-catching feature of this hook was not, in fact, it's catchiness, so to speak, but rather, its painful rigidity. She describes the "wonder of opening a book" and manges to slip in a wardrobe reference, but still takes a couple sentences to actually begin the topic. By the time she begins actually discussing C. S. Lewis and Mythology, the feelings of reading a high school essay by a fairly inept writer are already inplace (a feeling that proofreading my own work has often brought up). This already sends the wrong message regarding the worth of Ms. (or Mrs.) Costello's essay, because it gives of the stench of B. S. that tends to accumulate around such painful, and usually clueless, writers when it comes to beginnings. As a result, Ms. Costello's credibility is already strongly damaged.
The essay predictably contained a thesis at the end of the first paragraph, that essentially just told the reader that C. S. Lewis created a working mythology for his books. This thesis is neither controversial nor insightful, and continues the feeling of answering a prompt to get a grade, which was very possibly her intent, rather than a true sharing of a unique insight amongst peers or others who would be interested in Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia on a higher thought level. This reveals to her audience of her college professor (or likely, his or her assistant, as this essay doesn't seem to come from a class of high level learning, due to the elementary nature of the essay structure) that he or she should settle in for another substandard paper.
On a more positive note, Ms. (or Mrs.) Costello's paper was fairly organized in terms of parting information; listing seven characteristics than Lewis considered vital for myths as he wrote them. The essay even proved each characteristic convincingly using C.S. Lewis's own writings and speeches, which helps improve Ms. how about we just assume she's not hitched yet, and go with Ms.) Costello's fairly minimal credibility, which is then further boosted by a conclusion that suffers none of the awkward "I must follow rules" feeling of the introduction, and prose that is intelligent, but still understandable to the non-elite intellectual types, which makes one decide that, yes, it is the T. A. grading the paper after all.
What becomes the most noteable feature of the essay, as it comes to a close, is the fairly pointless reach of the essay. Yes, it solidly proves its point: Mr. C. S. Lewis created myths of certain characteristics. Cool. Ms. Costello's readers/ TA would be glad to hear it. However, the essay retains to relevency to even the literature itself; the only insight it reveals is something plainly obvious to those reading the actual series: the Chronicles of Narnia contains (wait for it...) Mythology!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)