I especially liked the selections we read this week from Henry David Thoreau's "Walden", because I think that can be easily applied to most peoples' lives.
In class we discussed what he meant by saying that he wanted 'to live deliberatey'. Although I agreed with the gist of the class discussion, I interpreted it differently when I read it. I think this can also say that he wanted to be free of distractions from society and be able to focus on his own free will; what he would do if he was truly alone, without any influence. He wanted to deliberately chose wether he would buy the bag of Doritos, not be manipulated into buying it by advertisers. What could he learn and achieve from being so free? I think that is a truly cool idea. I don't think that in 2011 it is realistic to seclude yourself in an unsafe and unsanitary shack to figure out how you would live. I do think that everyone should try to 'take pause' and really think for themselves. When Thoreau lived for a year in seclusion, he had no time restraints, no expectations, and no limitations. In 2011, our lives have become so fast paced that it's hard to really think through why we do what we do - that would seem like a total waste of our time! But I think it is really important to remember to sit and think critically about our decisions without any outside influence.
I also think that schools should take Thoreau's ideas to heart. Our course outlines are online, our assignments are online, our readings are online, our activities are online, etc. Our schools are desperately looking for funding from anywhere, going so far as to sell themselves to sponsors who will feed us unlimited amounts of advertising. They want Smartboards, iPads, online libraries, and more. These all cost money, and, although their purpose is to simplify, what they really do is complicate. When the computers are down nobody can get their assignments done; when the smartboards malfunction the lesson is lost. How can we be so blind? Simplify, simplify, simplify. These items can be useful, yes. But I think that some teachers and students have started to use them as crutches. Could this have anything to do with people saying that we are the 'dumbest generation'? Do you think that students learned more when they had to read a book and pull information that they saw as relevant, and then write it down on paper for their notes? Some online libraries allow you to type in a 'key word', and they will search through thousands of sources for you, find the most relevant ones, and then highlight your chosen key word throughout the entire source. In that sequence, we have learned nothing. We don't retain information that is simply 'given' to us as well as we retain information that we dig up ourselves. I think there is also a laptop now that can listen to the teacher's voice and convert it into text in a word document. Now we don't even need to listen if we don't want to! No wonder we are accused as being the dumbest generation.
Friday, September 30, 2011
Friday, September 23, 2011
Blog #4
This whole topic is completely irritating to me. I don't feel that I should need to defend my intelligence, but here goes nothin'.
I do not disagree with this man that my generation has taken advantage of the internet. I think that we need to think of our 'plentitude' disorders. Everybody wants more friends, more wall posts, more comments, etc. How is having 1,549 facebook friends that you may be aquainted with better than having 20 very close friends? It's not. Plentitude has struck again.
I think that the real issue is the change into the fast-paced and busy technological era, and the changes in values of American citizens. But, I don't think that we can point fingers at any one person, gender, culture, or generation. My parents' and grandparents' generations valued hard work and well rounded-ness. They grew up learning practical skills and knowledge in high school, and then they started to specialize in college. I think that part of being well-rounded, to them, was understanding the government, being familiar with current world events, and having background knowledge about a little bit of everything. These of course aren't all of the characteristics that people valued in those times, and they certainly are not true for everybody - I am not going to make the mistake of generalizing an entire generation. But, for this time period, having those characteristics were practical. When there was the option of having a military draft, people would want to keep up with the news to know if there was potential for that in the near future. And, I think that having background knowledge in many areas made people feel connected and gave everybody the ability to have something in common with others.
My generation values social status, being current in pop culture trends, and having a great amount of knowledge in one particular area of study. There is no evident need for a draft at this moment, and, along with various other opinions about the US government today, I think that some of our generation has a hard time taking it seriously. I think we do take seriously things that we feel we can personally change, and feeling a connectedness within our age group. This is where facebook comes in, along with Entertainment TV, and reality tv. Instead of reading common American classics, we 'unite' and connect using social networking sites, and also be experiencing other people's lives. Keeping Up With The Kardashians and 16 and Pregnant are good examples, I think. My mom and I watch the Kardashians' show, and we think it's hilarious. We can relate (on less luxurious levels) with the realtionships and hobbies of the people on the show. I think that many teen girls can also relate to 16 and Pregnant, because many of us know or are teen moms. These are the things that make our generation feel connected. I think that we value having a vast amount of knowledge in one particular area because of the concept of having a 'major' in college. Students now seem to have tunnel vision. But, this is what American society has demanded of us. Putting on a resume 'well-rounded, practical person with experience' means nothing beside the one that says 'Degree in Da da da with a certification in da da da da da'. So, it is more meaningful to my generation to be the best you can be in one area, and Google everything else.
I don't think that there is a right and wrong as far as behavior according to different generations. I think that it IS wrong to generalize an entire generation based on the negative characteristics of a part of that generation.
I do not disagree with this man that my generation has taken advantage of the internet. I think that we need to think of our 'plentitude' disorders. Everybody wants more friends, more wall posts, more comments, etc. How is having 1,549 facebook friends that you may be aquainted with better than having 20 very close friends? It's not. Plentitude has struck again.
I think that the real issue is the change into the fast-paced and busy technological era, and the changes in values of American citizens. But, I don't think that we can point fingers at any one person, gender, culture, or generation. My parents' and grandparents' generations valued hard work and well rounded-ness. They grew up learning practical skills and knowledge in high school, and then they started to specialize in college. I think that part of being well-rounded, to them, was understanding the government, being familiar with current world events, and having background knowledge about a little bit of everything. These of course aren't all of the characteristics that people valued in those times, and they certainly are not true for everybody - I am not going to make the mistake of generalizing an entire generation. But, for this time period, having those characteristics were practical. When there was the option of having a military draft, people would want to keep up with the news to know if there was potential for that in the near future. And, I think that having background knowledge in many areas made people feel connected and gave everybody the ability to have something in common with others.
My generation values social status, being current in pop culture trends, and having a great amount of knowledge in one particular area of study. There is no evident need for a draft at this moment, and, along with various other opinions about the US government today, I think that some of our generation has a hard time taking it seriously. I think we do take seriously things that we feel we can personally change, and feeling a connectedness within our age group. This is where facebook comes in, along with Entertainment TV, and reality tv. Instead of reading common American classics, we 'unite' and connect using social networking sites, and also be experiencing other people's lives. Keeping Up With The Kardashians and 16 and Pregnant are good examples, I think. My mom and I watch the Kardashians' show, and we think it's hilarious. We can relate (on less luxurious levels) with the realtionships and hobbies of the people on the show. I think that many teen girls can also relate to 16 and Pregnant, because many of us know or are teen moms. These are the things that make our generation feel connected. I think that we value having a vast amount of knowledge in one particular area because of the concept of having a 'major' in college. Students now seem to have tunnel vision. But, this is what American society has demanded of us. Putting on a resume 'well-rounded, practical person with experience' means nothing beside the one that says 'Degree in Da da da with a certification in da da da da da'. So, it is more meaningful to my generation to be the best you can be in one area, and Google everything else.
I don't think that there is a right and wrong as far as behavior according to different generations. I think that it IS wrong to generalize an entire generation based on the negative characteristics of a part of that generation.
Friday, September 16, 2011
Blog #3
Lasn argues that our emotions have become 'emoticons', and that by having different identities in different 'worlds', we risk losing sense of our 'authentic self'. I agree with this statement; however, I think that we have to look first at the reason WHY our emotions have become emoticons. With the rise of instant messaging, texting, and e-mailing, we have had to adapt to interpreting messages using only written launguage. In these communication mediums, we completely lose sometimes the most important parts of communication: nonverbals. Using sarcams, making jokes, keeping or losing eye contact, shrugging our shoulders, or shedding a tear can't be physically shown in the online world. However, since so much communication is lost, we need to find ways for our text to become more flexible, thus the invention of emoticons, "lol", "jk", and whatever acronyms we find the need for.
So, since for so many of our sentences need some kind of 'disclaimer'- something that says 'I wanted to make a statement, but just picture me rolling my eyes now", we tend to use a smiley or 'lol' after every other sentence. But are we really smiling? Laughing out Loud? No. We just need to make sure the person on the recieving end knows to take what we've written in a more lighthearted or figurative way. It doesn't seem so bad at first, but soon we can't remember how to really laugh out loud. We don't even SPEAK outloud! This is when it becomes a problem. And this is where we risk losing sense of our authentic self. We USED to call up a friend and laugh out loud. We USED to talk over lunch and roll our eyes. But now, in this fantasy world, we are forced to put our emotions in 'writing'. How can this be authentic? Laughter is a sort of reflex. Nobody thinks to themselves, "If this person says something funny, I'm going to have to laugh and smile." So when we have to specify "I'm laughing out loud", it becomes more of the 'disclaimer' we need to make sure that our written text is understood instead of an enjoyable laugh.
My question is, do we have a 'real world' self AND an 'online' self? Or, does the world we live in most often just take on different characteristics when stepping into that 'other' world? For example: Was Dan, who lived in his computer for 18 hours a day on 'Second Skin', able to extract himself completely from the game in order to interact with real life? Or did he become a permanent character in the game who was simply forced to live in the 'real world' on occasion when he had to eat, sleep and use the restroom? I think that is debatable, depending on how much time is spent in each world, and what priorities come first: paying the electric bill or trading your gold for a sword. I believe that until Dan went to that halfway house, he was a permanent character of World of Warcraft (is that what it was called?) who was forced to sleep and eat on Earth.
So, since for so many of our sentences need some kind of 'disclaimer'- something that says 'I wanted to make a statement, but just picture me rolling my eyes now", we tend to use a smiley or 'lol' after every other sentence. But are we really smiling? Laughing out Loud? No. We just need to make sure the person on the recieving end knows to take what we've written in a more lighthearted or figurative way. It doesn't seem so bad at first, but soon we can't remember how to really laugh out loud. We don't even SPEAK outloud! This is when it becomes a problem. And this is where we risk losing sense of our authentic self. We USED to call up a friend and laugh out loud. We USED to talk over lunch and roll our eyes. But now, in this fantasy world, we are forced to put our emotions in 'writing'. How can this be authentic? Laughter is a sort of reflex. Nobody thinks to themselves, "If this person says something funny, I'm going to have to laugh and smile." So when we have to specify "I'm laughing out loud", it becomes more of the 'disclaimer' we need to make sure that our written text is understood instead of an enjoyable laugh.
My question is, do we have a 'real world' self AND an 'online' self? Or, does the world we live in most often just take on different characteristics when stepping into that 'other' world? For example: Was Dan, who lived in his computer for 18 hours a day on 'Second Skin', able to extract himself completely from the game in order to interact with real life? Or did he become a permanent character in the game who was simply forced to live in the 'real world' on occasion when he had to eat, sleep and use the restroom? I think that is debatable, depending on how much time is spent in each world, and what priorities come first: paying the electric bill or trading your gold for a sword. I believe that until Dan went to that halfway house, he was a permanent character of World of Warcraft (is that what it was called?) who was forced to sleep and eat on Earth.
Thursday, September 8, 2011
HELP!
I just wrote a huge comment on someone's blog, and I tried to submit it, and it said my account doesn't have access to posting a comment. AND I lost everything I wrote :( What am I doing wrong when I try to comment?
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Blog #2
The actions described in the last paragraph on page 11 are often habits that people don't realize they have fallen into. But, I think it's important to look at Lasn's idea of 'plentitude' first. I like Lasn's idea that when we have so much so readily available to us, and we don't need to earn our belongings, it is nearly impossible to find satisfaction. We are so engrossed in the idea that more 'things' is better, yet the 'things' we accumulate are meaningless. Because we try so hard and fail to find meaning in the 'things' we have, we begin this eternal search for satisfaction.
The search goes far into the worlds of consumerism and materialism. This is where my selected passage comes into play. It explains that we sit in front of the TV, trannced from the thousands of advertisements that stimulate the eternal search for satisfaction. The example goes further into our TV habits and asks us to think about why we watch nature shows. How could such a large audience of people justify watching nature on TV, when we could simply step outside or take a road trip and be on the 'set' of those nature shows. Lasn goes on to point out that we laugh at jokes on sitcoms but not our spouse's, and spend more time watching porn than making our own love. The media and consumer craving for satisfaction creates a visual barrier, blocking the view to our realities, and giving us tunnel vision straight into fantasy world: tv, social networking, texting, and online shopping.
The fantasy world has desensitized us from our own personal, human emotions. The sitcoms on tv become more comfortable for us. They are staged, scripted, and composed to be entertainment. Porn fits into the same category: staged, scripted, and composed. Are we too focused on being entertained to realize that having these experiences with the ones we love are more meaningful? Does the perfectness of the scripted fantasy world make us feel that our imperfect realities seem awkward and tense?
In any given place on campus, I can point out several people more engrossed in their phones than their friends in front of them, the professor giving them homework, or the person with their arms full who needs help opening the door. How has this happened? When did the vibration of our phone become our most focused on physical sensation? One that easily beats out a hug from a friend, advice from a parent, or caress from a lover?
What has the power to defeat the reality barrier? Do we need to find the media's 'kryptonite', or our 'spinach'? Which would have the most impact on this issue?
The search goes far into the worlds of consumerism and materialism. This is where my selected passage comes into play. It explains that we sit in front of the TV, trannced from the thousands of advertisements that stimulate the eternal search for satisfaction. The example goes further into our TV habits and asks us to think about why we watch nature shows. How could such a large audience of people justify watching nature on TV, when we could simply step outside or take a road trip and be on the 'set' of those nature shows. Lasn goes on to point out that we laugh at jokes on sitcoms but not our spouse's, and spend more time watching porn than making our own love. The media and consumer craving for satisfaction creates a visual barrier, blocking the view to our realities, and giving us tunnel vision straight into fantasy world: tv, social networking, texting, and online shopping.
The fantasy world has desensitized us from our own personal, human emotions. The sitcoms on tv become more comfortable for us. They are staged, scripted, and composed to be entertainment. Porn fits into the same category: staged, scripted, and composed. Are we too focused on being entertained to realize that having these experiences with the ones we love are more meaningful? Does the perfectness of the scripted fantasy world make us feel that our imperfect realities seem awkward and tense?
In any given place on campus, I can point out several people more engrossed in their phones than their friends in front of them, the professor giving them homework, or the person with their arms full who needs help opening the door. How has this happened? When did the vibration of our phone become our most focused on physical sensation? One that easily beats out a hug from a friend, advice from a parent, or caress from a lover?
What has the power to defeat the reality barrier? Do we need to find the media's 'kryptonite', or our 'spinach'? Which would have the most impact on this issue?
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Introduction
Hello! My name is Brooke; I'm a soph0more Human Communication major. I live in Newville, and commute to school Tuesdays and Thursdays this semester. I work part time in a nursing home as the evening and weekend receptionist, and I absolutely love my job. On the weekends that I don't work, I travel to see my boyfriend of 4 years who lives in western PA. If I have any spare time between school. work, and traveling, I go shopping! :)
I must admit that I didn't look into this class before signing up; I just knew that I needed it to complete my gen-eds. But, after reading the syllabus, I'm anxious to read The Hunger Games. Isn't it supposed to be the 'new' Twilight series? The last book I read was The Help. I liked it alot, and really enjoyed how the author used three of the characters to tell the story.
If I had to choose a type of pop culture that I'm interested in, I guess I would say movies and music. Music is a part of everyday life for me (isn't it for everyone?)- I listen to it on the way to and from school. I listen mostly to country, but I don't mind most genres, as long as it's not 'scream-y' rock stuff. I also like movies, but seldom go to the theatre to see them (with the exception of the Twilight series - I will be first in line to see the new one in November!). In the summer I like to go to the Cumberland Drive-In for movies. Does everyone living at Ship know about the drive-in? It's too fun to miss!
In my opinion, literature is any source of meaningful information or ideas. Novels are what come to mind first, but essays, documentaries, poetry, etc. are included. In high school, I think everybody is assigned to read literature. Whether or not everyone actually reads the books is a whole different story. It's harder when half the class reads and half doesn't - half is held back from really learning from the book due to the half that doesn't care but usually gets most of the attention from the teacher saying, "You need to do your homework!" My senior year, however, was a totally different story. Instead of simply assigning meaningful literature, he would pass out a novel, let the class read the first page or so, and then ask if we really wanted to read it. The class would say no, of course, and the teacher would literally toss the book behind him and send us for free time. So, my experience reading literature in school has not really been a positive one.
I must admit that I didn't look into this class before signing up; I just knew that I needed it to complete my gen-eds. But, after reading the syllabus, I'm anxious to read The Hunger Games. Isn't it supposed to be the 'new' Twilight series? The last book I read was The Help. I liked it alot, and really enjoyed how the author used three of the characters to tell the story.
If I had to choose a type of pop culture that I'm interested in, I guess I would say movies and music. Music is a part of everyday life for me (isn't it for everyone?)- I listen to it on the way to and from school. I listen mostly to country, but I don't mind most genres, as long as it's not 'scream-y' rock stuff. I also like movies, but seldom go to the theatre to see them (with the exception of the Twilight series - I will be first in line to see the new one in November!). In the summer I like to go to the Cumberland Drive-In for movies. Does everyone living at Ship know about the drive-in? It's too fun to miss!
In my opinion, literature is any source of meaningful information or ideas. Novels are what come to mind first, but essays, documentaries, poetry, etc. are included. In high school, I think everybody is assigned to read literature. Whether or not everyone actually reads the books is a whole different story. It's harder when half the class reads and half doesn't - half is held back from really learning from the book due to the half that doesn't care but usually gets most of the attention from the teacher saying, "You need to do your homework!" My senior year, however, was a totally different story. Instead of simply assigning meaningful literature, he would pass out a novel, let the class read the first page or so, and then ask if we really wanted to read it. The class would say no, of course, and the teacher would literally toss the book behind him and send us for free time. So, my experience reading literature in school has not really been a positive one.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)