Emmy's Bulletins

Hi, it's me. (M4A1)

2004-11-28T21:19:00.000-05:00

Hi. My name is Emily, and I'm a nonconformist. There, I said it. I don't wear make-up, I don't wear perfume, nix on the nail products, I don't shave, and I don't even own any hair merchandise except for scrunchies and a few headbands/barrets. This is the honest-to-goodness body I was born with. Yup... really. Well, except for several surgeries (even it wasn't normal). It's not exactly model material, either. Fashion? I couldn't tell you what was 'in' at this moment to save my life, except for the bombardment of things I've seen around campus with the 'typical' girls. The only pairs of shoes I own are some beat-up sneakers, some 'dressier' shoes, and sandals, period. I don't belong to any clubs... heck, I don't even have very many friends. I'm 24, and I still live at home, too... isn't that weird? I don't keep up on news and 'pop culture' a whole lot, but I know enough to get by. Same goes for celebrities (remind me why do I want to know who so-and-so is dating, again?). Even my world views tend to run a bit off the mainstream, although I still want many of the same things as everyone else. But in short, I'm not a very girly-girl. And I'm actually kind of 'proud' of that.

Now, does this mean that the images/world around me has absolutely no effect? Pfft... yeah, right. But it kind of has a dual edge to it. On the one hand, I look at everything around me and am disgusted, or ambivalent. Who cares about the secret lives of celebrities, or what I need to buy to look beautiful. So I ignore it. But then sometimes part of me gets disgusted, looking at the 'stereotypical' girls on campus with their brand labels more popular/expensive than mine, sexy boots, perfect faces, popularity, trendy bags, yadda yadda... or all the ads catering to that, or making me feel out of it, or wondering why in 's name there's so freaking -much- of it out there, and why I don't fit. And then I occasionally get wistful. Yes, I'm 'different', but I'm still a girl, and sometimes we can't help it. I look at all the beautiful bodies around me and wonder how I got this one. Or at least one that was a bit more 'normal'. Those images are a little hard to ignore sometimes, even if you're like me. What does possess people towards that mindset? I never quite got it... I have a clear sense that I'm -not- the typical media image, but I still try to make myself look 'good' anyway. When I ask myself why I'm so glad to not fit the 'norm', I'm not sure of that either. Being a bit of a deviant? Not wanting to be associated with something I see as overblown or ridiculous? Or maybe I'm just weird.

Our Bodies, Our Selves (M4A2)

2004-11-21T22:30:00.000-05:00

Now, while this may not be the best style of writing, after having read the articles and had various items bounce around at once, I'm compelled to simply list them out one by one. Not exactly your deeply coherent, best planned out assignment, but I note with interesting amusement that even blogs take on a different form. The 'seriousness' of how we write on here is affected by the format, and the fact that it's 'not really' a big important arguing essay, simply a thoughtful, bantering journal, affects the style of our words. Although to be fair, the blogs of an English class are better thought out than, say, those of some teenagers, but I digress... on to the thoughts.

Thought #1 - It's just a game, people
I had several mixed feelings while reading the account about Mr. Bungle. As I mentioned, I've been playing online for years and know how it is to get attached to your persona there. However, as addicted as I've been at times, I still think there's a line to draw, and get a little tired hearing of people who, for example, get married online, and deem it the same thing in real life. It's just something fun to escape to, and perhaps a nice outlet for your imagination and social awkwardness. But eventually, you will still have the more physical reality to live in and face to.

Thought #2 - Emotions count, too
All that said, regardless of how seriously some people take MU*'s, everyone still has the right to enjoy it as a form of entertainment, connection to friends, whatever. Just because it may be a 'game' doesn't mean you can simply 'play around' with everyone. Some people genuinely enjoy the characters they have created, and have a right to not be violated, like with rape, even if it isn't 'real'. It's still basically some jerk screwing around with your head, which I grant doesn't have nearly the same weight as your actual real self being violated, but it's still your emotions in play, and rape is well known to be just as much the emotional part regardless of how much physical damage was done. So am I saying rape in cyberspace is real? Not exactly... I still think the real world is more important. But at the same time, I think that emotions carry weight as well, which can come into play with words just as much as verbally.

Thought #3 - Have some dang courtesy, already
No matter how much of a game it is, along with emotions still having validity, I also feel as though there are some basic, simple things that are only fair to keep in mind. Being rude and manipulative is not one of those things. It's different if you are playing a scene or such 'in-character', with the agreement of those involved, and if your character is naturally an ass, then fine. The others can simply take it in stride, knowing that, or choose not to play with you again. But if you interact with others like that all the time, or against their will, that's just plain asking to be kicked out. When I was reading the article, as skeptical and annoyed I was at times with the energy given to the whole thing (especially when it got to the law), I was also disgusted at how some people feel they can just abuse something like that.

Okay, so that was pretty much the only individual 'points' that came to mind... and what can I conclude from those? I'm really. Not. Sure. People are going to continue to do assinine things no matter how many forms of reality or communication there are, or rules. I think it's best to just tread lightly, and keep in mind that the bottom line is to keep your real, physical self safe. Because if you don't have that, you're nothing.

Virtual Lives (M4A1)

2004-11-19T09:15:00.000-05:00

Reading through the article by Sherry Turkle, I was mostly interested despite long-time familiarity with the subject, and a little... what's the right word... 'sheesh' at it. My experience is from playing on MUCKs (pretty much same thing) for the past five years. While I have seen a lot of these things happen and felt it myself, I think that most of the people in this article are extreme cases. I'm not saying there aren't people like this who dedicate themselves so seriously and treat online events (like weddings) just as important as 'real' ones, but sometimes it's a bit much.
Alright, fine, I'll confess I was addicted and participated in similar things mentioned... I was a shy loner with a liking for 'geeky' stuff like that, and found it by chance one day, getting hooked. I'm still on daily to check on good friends, but not nearly as delved into as I used to be (having real life demands does that to you). I agree that being involved in something like this makes an interesting case for identity. The persona I was/am online was/is basically me, just with a couple less awkward social inhibitions that made it hard for me in the real world. Getting to 'escape' to that was my equivalent of someone coming home, wanting to relax, and kicking back in front of the TV for a couple hours.
The thoughts that comes to me the most relate to the identity musings, and addiction. Considering the first one, sure, it's probably a bit sad that some people take it so seriously and are glued to their computer as their 'life'. But is 'creating' themselves online any different than how we 'create' ourselves depending on who we deal with (as talked about in last blog)? And I'll admit that yes, it feels like a bit of an addiction, but hey - it's not a harmful one as most. People just need to learn how to balance things, and remember what's 'real'.

Ways of Speaking (M3A2)

2004-11-15T16:02:00.000-05:00

How I speak with others depends on a few variables. Off the top of my head, age, closeness/familiarity, context, and relationship come to mind. Who the person is to me, how well they know me, how I am 'allowed' to be with them, and how much of an age difference there is are pretty typical 'judgements' all of us make when calculating how we talk to them. I wouldn't talk to my best friend the same way I would with a much younger cousin.

To get down to specifics, I tend to speak 'normally' at work and school, albeit with a more careful sense of being too 'familiar' with the people and thoughts I share. There is a more 'formal' level to my relationship with most of those people that doesn't allow for divulging more personal information (or them having any 'right' to it). Those kinds of thoughts and information about me is saved for my family and better friends. In a way, I'm more 'myself' with them, but really it's just a much more open version of me, than a different person. Somewhat obviously, we modify our speech depending on whether we're talking to a boss, or a five-year-old, but I don't think it's any less 'us'. It's just the language, level of closeness involved, and what is expected of us.
With my deepest two guy friends, I have much more liberty. I share much more with them than anyone, and have a certain 'freedom' with my language/demeanor. Musing over it, a key difference I notice between them and others is the level of 'allowance' I feel I have with being playful/crass/bold in my words.

Heh, here's a great example I'm still sheepishly amused about from the other day, and been thinking over. With the guy friends I mentioned, I'm much more playful, and certain aspects of my personality are more noticeable, or enhanced by them, perhaps partly because I feel safe being that way with them. Cutely going along with my personality/how I often act, and my penchant for cats, my boyfriend tends to call me Kitty or Neko (Japanese term). Along with this, we tend to be quite silly with each other, and very frequently 'mew' in response to simple questions/statements, greetings/actions, or for fun. Getting back from my ramble to the original story (heh), I was at lunch with both of them at Shriver. Deciding on pizza, I asked for a slice, and the girl said 'here you go' as she handed me the plate. I knew I wanted to say 'thanks', but by purely instinctive habit, I said "Mew" at her. Granted, I wasn't very loud and not sure she heard me, or thought I was being silly, but still... oops. :) So was the unconcious part of me that piped up with "Mew" the part that was 'truly me'? I'd say it was in a way... expressing myself like that is very much an 'Emily' thing, just who 'Emily' is often changes.

A sense of self (M1A2)

2004-11-12T16:01:00.000-05:00

Discussing the idea of the sense of self feels incredibly complex and a bit 'lofty' for me. How do you tell what is your self, or what causes it? Shelley's monster only slowly discovers that he is, indeed different, and a unique individual. This is emphasized by interactions with people and technology, and perhaps even created by it. If the monster had never encountered either of these things, he may never have known what made up the other humans, and what he was lacking in.

I was reluctant to say that using a technology such as reading, writing, or viewing images would solidify our sense of self, but only because it seemed perhaps... odd? to chalk off our awareness to something outside of ourselves man created. And after I wrote that, I know I need some kind of explanation why, and my mental thoughts were considering the 'how come' part of it. Sure, it may seem strange for something as mysterious and complex as a sense of who we are to be affected by things that seem trivial, like a book or movie. But there's the fact that a book, movie, picture, peers, what have you, presents us with something 'outside'. If we are, quite literally, continuously in our own world with no contact to any of that, there would also be limited change. With no exposure to anything different than our own selves, what would possibly change them? The monster was not aware that he was one until he was exposed to other humans, and saw things that made him realize where he stood. We rely on outside sources to help us determine what fits us or not, since it's hard to tell if we are not aware otherwise, or everything is just a jumble of 'me'.

With Pipp in "Great Expectations", his sense of self is similar. With experiences from outside sources, he begins to realize more. There's not just a sense of who we are inside, but also with who we are in relation to everything else. Pipp is drawn into 'being someone' in relation to the convict, and being in the graveyard, understanding where he fits in. Like the monster, Pip has a similar 'distance' from society that didn't fully allow him to figure out these things for himself, and ends up being swayed easily. Too many people allow themselves to do so even if they -are- aware of who they are, however, so it's just an ongoing difficulty of figuring out what to listen to.

Monstrous Perceptions (M1A1)

2004-11-10T11:25:00.000-05:00

Let's say you were blindfolded, and taken into a room. There are a couple people talking as you are seated to join them. Introductions are made, and they include you in their conversation about general topics. All of you are enjoying the animated, friendly discussion, thinking they sound fairly intelligent. Then one of them tells you to take the blindfold off, and you do so to see yourself seated across from two of the most horribly disfigured/burned/crippled individuals you've met. What's your reaction?

The monster in Frankenstein is the victim of projected assumptions that we may make as instant reactions. Those reactions often rely on how threatening something looks to us, or how we perceive something to be. If, like the monster, we perceive it to have a 'capability' like was mentioned in class to either harm or frighten us, that dramatically changes our first impression of it. Our first defense is to protect ourselves, and unfortunately that doesn't cater to sticking around to see whether the 'monster' was a good person or not. The big problem with this is that the 'monster' will eventually start seeing himself truly as one, and act accordingly. Strange how that psychology works... no matter how much you can tell yourself something (such as women believing they are beautiful), all of us still need the affirmation of others to keep this perception.

Mental misconceptions (M6A2 and 3)

2004-11-08T16:00:00.000-05:00

Printing press versus computer. Who’s the winner? Really, both have their merits, but the significant changes in metaphors from one to the other does show an interesting change in perception. The implications of it are simply how we view our minds working, and describe them as such. Take the ‘ancient’ printing press, first. The idea was great – describe the mind with a metaphor of numerous pages, stamped with everything we know! That metaphor gives interesting meaning to the term ‘impressions’, but it also doesn’t take a lot of things into account. For one, with countless impressions in our heads, thinking of them as printed pages makes them fairly permanent. You can’t change the ink once it’s there, you can only reprint it, or destroy it, although sometimes it might fade. The metaphor highlights the permanence our memory can have, but still doesn’t work completely well.
With the mind as a computer, that metaphor is much more versatile (yet imperfect) with what it stores. ‘Files’ can be changed, updated, lost, encoded, transferred…. this metaphor is much more useful for the ever-changing state of our mind, and the fact that it, too, sometimes has occasional ‘crashes’.

Metaphors for the mind. Gotta love 'em. Or just get confused by them, hate them, be intrigued by, puzzle over, study, make your own, or ramble, like I am now! Heh... sorry. The particular ones we have been presented with in the articles here make for an interesting selection. Consider the mind as:
Washing machine - Chugging happily along, this plays with the idea that your mind runs into trouble/depression when it is low on serotonin, just like a machine with a low water supply. Fix it to fill up again, and you're ready to go. Although this metaphor seems to fall a little short of being very simple... I don't think just 'adding more water' is the cure.
Radio - Another practical appliance. Compared like the mind in that those who are depressed, are simply not on the right channel, or need to 'tune in', to stop the static. Some people are just listening to the blues, and that's it.
Structure - The word 'structure' can be taken with a grain of salt here... in short, Freud was comparing a broken-down mind to a crushed building/archaeological site, in which we have to dig to find the source of the problem.
Machine/Energy - A fairly old, almost cliched metaphor, but appropriate. Using this seems to dehumanize things a bit, and take it further into the cold logic side of things. Our minds run like clockwork, and sometimes a gear or two may get out of place, needing to be fixed.
The last one I didn't fulling understand, except for a sense of the fact that the mind often gets repressed. The things that are repressed eventually burst out later. I'm not sure how this is a metaphor (except for my use of 'bursting'), but still true.

Stamping things to mind (M6A1)

2004-11-05T15:59:00.000-05:00

While I was reading John Locke's description of the mind as a printing press, I couldn't help but think it was quite a good metaphor for the time, but partly inaccurate. Consider that our mind -does- perhaps receive input, and 'stores' that input via 'printing' and storing it on cells. For one thing, imagine the pile-up of 'pages' there would be, all printed and unchangeable! With the computer metaphor however, 'files' on the computer can be tweaked and updated, as well as deleted. The printed paper metaphor is handy for invisioning the vast amounts of material our mind holds, but it also hides the fact that the brain is much more creative and self-processing than a printing press would ever be.

Compared to a web, I believe that describes the mind a bit more accurately. It has very logical visual elements for one thing - the mind itself is composed of thousands of neurons networked together. That's like a web, to me, and the 'trails' are the constant pathways we create to transfer information. Metaphors have the tendency to confuse me so I'm not quite sure how else to analyze this or highlight about it. The difference between the old textual layout of computers and the new way with a desktop and icons I think was a great example of changing how we think of things arranged. I don't think that example is very likely compared to our minds, but the 'computer' part certainly comes into play with the deep-down components of it. I think the main thing to keep in mind is that no matter how accurate a term we may come up with, there may be always something newer around the corner.

Module 5 - Bats

2004-11-01T01:46:00.000-05:00

A1 - 'Print' seems to be the obvious answer here, due to the comments given about impressions, which I imagine to be visual things. And it seems as though I was right. Whee. It seems a bit odd to think of creatures having visual 'impressions', so to speak, made on their faces with membranes. I'm picturing one of those 'scientific toy' things that's square-shaped and has all the dull metal pins, that you can put your hand onto and leave a dent of that image.
A2 - As far as I can tell, Carson seems to be using the metaphor of radar to describe the bats. What she describes, and the images given, certainly lead to that impression. This seems to be explanation enough...
A3 - Oh, of course... our understanding of -plenty- of animal behavior has increased dramatically. How wolf packs operate together, how jellyfish swim, and obviously, how bats navigate. Our small understanding was definitely due to our small amount of knowledge, and technology with which to gather any information. Now that we have technology to help us study, track, and mimic these things, it makes far more sense to us. Cuvier had no other way at the time to describe what he was perceiving at the time, but those old metaphors today, seem amusing, at best.

Insanity (M4A2)

2004-10-29T19:34:00.000-04:00

I remember reading much older accounts like this one before, in days before much was known about mental disorders. Just kept sighing over what we 'thought' we knew then, and how handled things, contributing a lot of the reasons for those things to possession. 'Blaming' (or doing things in the name of) spiritual entities always bothered me a bit... contributing a mental illness to spiritual reasons seems to place more of the blame on the person, even if they can't help it. If we really see it as an illness, then we know that treatment is needed to specifically help the person, and not treat them like some outcast of society. They are partly responsible for their treatment of course, but it is a much better advance than chalking them up as useless and put away. An illness opposed to a possession changes how we think about it in terms of the accountability of the 'victim'. Sometimes we can't help certain things that happen to us, and simply need help.

Insane Behavior (M4A1)

2004-10-27T01:40:00.000-04:00

If I were to sum up what is wrong with Margaret Cooper, I'd say she had a bit of a temporary breakdown. Going from my memory of the account, she seemed very distressed over simply being uncertain of some things (such as the money and her ring), and when I reached the part concerning 'shaking, and foaming at the mouth', I couldn't help but wonder about epilepsy. Or possibly rabies, but wouldn't that have a worse effect? When it comes to reading very old accounts like this, I've never taken them entirely seriously due to the fact that they tend to over-exaggerate some things, or have no idea what they're talking about but seem like they do, usually in the name of religion.

So... besides some kind of breakdown, simply being a nervous wreck, or actual illness, I can only guess otherwise that her strange behavior is the result of some kind of encounter that would seem freakish to these people (hence strange descriptions), but that we would be able to figure out (if we could). Considering her ‘strange ramblings’, maybe it was even multiple personalities? But that doesn’t explain the bear-like creature and outlandish events that happened with it, which to tell you the truth, almost sound made-up. Well, I have breakdown and wreck… neither of which show up in the actual account. They describe it instead as a problem of the spirit, which I suppose makes sense when being very religious, knowing nothing about mental problems, and having someone you know suddenly act completely out of character. If I thought it was a problem of the spirit, obviously what they did of praying wasn’t far off. But knowing it’s something physical results in more logical/physical treatments such as therapy.

(M3A2 and 4)

2004-10-25T01:38:00.000-04:00

In the article by Joe Klein, he uses the metaphor of a virus in leiu of calling it 'terrorism' or 'war'. This indicates thinking of it in a way that highlights a kind of 'sickness' on the whole thing, which I don't think is too far from the truth. However, it also lets people think that there can be a vaccine-like 'cure' for it, or that war and terrorism are the same, which they aren't. I see terrorism as various attacks meant to undermine the security of a people, often with an element of sublety. War, on the other hand, is an outright vocal, long-term attack. A 'vaccine' for that could take so many different forms, since it's like the a flu with so many varied strains of it, impossible to have simply one answer. It would be great if the form the vaccine took was one that made us get over our pride and 'fight' with open arms, simply bombarding the poorer countries with the same amount of funds it would take, but with -helpful- things, instead of forces. Sorry, just a little peeve of mine, people always getting puffed up about themselves adn thinking we need force... no wonder America isn't seen well by some. But I'm trailing off topic...

When I read the section written by Rabbi Moshe Waldoks, I was very intrigued and wistful. What a great thought - to 'bomb' them with ideas, rather than fight fire with fire. Became wistful though because being the dubious person I am with seeing how things usually get handled, as much as there are helpful 'aid' groups in the world, things like the government aren't always as willing to swallow their pride and take the 'opposite' path. But like Wallis said - "Unless we drain the swamp of injustice in which the mosquitoes of terrorism breed, we'll never defeat the threat of terrorism."

I'm not quite sure I understand Kaufman's take on things, although it uses similar themes of 'ideas' being the target. The small article blurb doesn't quite give me a whole lot to go on, especially not being familiar with the events talked about, but I can see where he's going with the idea that even if we 'win' a big battle, we may have lost the 'idea' it was based/relied on. If I were to wage a 'war of ideas', it seems that doing so would require first a knowledge of the place I were to wage on. No sense waging wit (just an example) on someone whom it would be completely lost on. If the U.S. were to do that in Iraq, I imagine it would be similar to Waldoks' metaphor. Bomb them with butter, so to speak. Seems like a good idea to me. But I think I'm missing the idea a little, and if it means to 'bomb' with ideas in a different way that instead misses the point of things and loses the bigger picture in the process, then I think we're doing that just fine on our own as well. We're warring with ideas of terrorism and democracy, but losing in the process to basic ideas of what humans should do for each other.

War on Drugs (M3A1)

2004-10-22T23:38:00.000-04:00

So, the war on drugs, huh? Anyone pay much attention to that, or just find it ridiculously amusing? I'm imaging little soldiers finding a stash, running in, slashing the pills to pieces and toching the whole of it to ashes while changing 'Kill! Kill! Kill!' Heh, seriously, it's a little odd war has become such a handy, popular image for efforts again certain things. Yay, we're warring the drugs. Put those pills down! Join the crusade against homlessness - get yer butt off the street, buddy! Terrorism? We got that covered too, and will let you know later how our heroic battle with the invisible beast goes.

Declaring war on something immediately makes it our 'opposite' and alienates it from us. All those drug users? Hate, kill, send 'em to prison. So am I saying that they aren't criminals? No, but it's tricky to best know how to teach someone a lesson. And what if you lock them up to do so at the expense of their family and taxpapyers, and all it does is make them (temporarily) go cold turkey. Wouldn't it be better to help them out of their hole? Calling addictions diseases seems like a cop-out, or going too 'soft' on them, but in most cases it's true, and it also implies that it can be cured.

A.A.'ers call alcoholism a disease, which makes sense due to the consuming effect alcohol can have, and the cases of relapses. My dad (who has be sober and going to meetings for ten years), tell me various stories, adn that he strongly agrees with that definition. Those who recognize it as one also face up to the fact that they need 'treatment', and stay for help. I agree with the Bernstein article that claims it's better for the people to get treated, but you also can't force them to. Tough one. Sometimes they need a kick in the rear so to speak, like the shock of getting punished, so I don't know about that.

Ideas on Living

2004-10-21T10:44:00.000-04:00

After our discussion in class, I was thinking on occassion about the idea of living. In class, I said I thought I was living because I was doing something with myself with some sense of direction. I had plans to live on my own with a decent library job, and take it from there. I agree those things both kind of 'own' me and that I'm likely sacrificing some of my life to them. But acheiving both of those things will result in me being more content with my life than if I had done nothing. Sometimes we have to give something up in order to receive personal gain. I'm only 24, which I think leaves plenty of time to reap the benefits of my temporary losses and have a fuller life doing something I enjoy.

Really, sometimes you just need to grow up a bit and have a few losses on things to determine what is worthwhile. Thoreau argues that we should give up the things that own us and devote ourselves to living more fully, but what's to say that the woods don't also own him?

Walden - Assignment 1, intro

2004-10-17T21:11:00.000-04:00

This question is a bit tricky to answer because Walden pond can be seen so many ways. Although I've read this narrative before, it's also a bit difficult to follow, so pardon my lack of deep thought. Perhaps it was meant to be? I like what the critic in the handout we were given commented about Thoreau talking about lonliness, and in essence leaving the reader 'alone' as well. But I'm rambling off subject...

Among many things, I see the pond as a symbol of escape from the rat race of society. Those who get a glimpse of it get a glimpe of serenity and simplicity, although that doesn't mean everyone would -enjoy- that. Sometimes I like a bit more activity, but that's just me. Thoreau seems to think it's the best way ever to live, and that people need a connection to the 'pond'. They need to get away from technology a moment to remember what else there is to life. They need to get more in touch with their natural instincts instead of everything being done for us. The pond is a source of reflection... either to ourselves, or the truth, which I'll admit I'm a bit reluctant to say, since it seems a bit pretentious. Sometimes we just need a place to escape to, and that's all there is to it.

Fallin' (M1A1)

2004-10-12T22:24:00.000-04:00

When it comes to metaphors, Love is one of the winners when it comes to sheer amount and frequency. I'm in love, I'm falling in love, I'm falling out of love, love is a rose, etc etc... All of this is reminding me of a favorite song by Alicia Keyes, where the first stanza goes:

I keep on fallin'
In and out... with you
Sometimes I love ya
Sometimes you make me blue
Sometimes I feel good
At times I feel used
Lovin you darlin'
Makes me so confused.

I really liked the emotion of that song, and the sentiment rings true with how easy it is to manipulate feelings. We seem to describe 'falling' into feelings (such as love) as generally a good thing. Like was discussed in class, I agree such emotions are like containers we're in or out of. Even without thinking about it, or doing on purpose, we make such comparisons! I remember one time I was worried something I did would make Toby (boyfriend) mad. He just teased me about that, and told me to imagine a huge bucket. Gigantic. Bigger than several planets. And that it was filled with water. And told me that very little I could do would even cause a ripple in it. 'Very big bucket' became a catch-phrase for when we were worried about the effect of something on the other person, or reminding that most irritating moments were small in comparison. Ok, ok, sap aside, I still find it interesting looking back on it now, after talking about commonality of container metaphors we use without thinking about it. Very true, though. 'Falling into' something is such an easy phrase to use since it makes more sense. We can pick ourselves up, but we don't tend to fall on purpose, which is why we talk about falling in love with someone as though we didn't plan it.

Poisonous Anger (M1A2)

2004-10-10T20:47:00.001-04:00

The association of anger with dynamite is another interesting metaphor created to give more visualization to an intangible thing. Hey, we do it all the time. Encountered something that has no physical form and trying to describe it? Just give it one! The idea that anger makes us 'blow up', 'burst', or 'throw a fit' are just creatively artistic metaphors humans love to make to give more characteristics to something. Such metaphors also highlight certain things, such as the tendency of anger to make us feel tight inside and have some kind of internal reaction. In my experience, anger is difficult for me since I'm often stuck for how to express it, being the very quiet type, so 'bursting' inside from having it so pent up is an appropriate metaphor.
The metaphor that William Blake uses of anger as a poison I feel is very fitting. When we let anger sit inside us for a long time, it really does grow like a tree and poison our thoughts and actions, and eventually the person it is directed at. Comparing it to a poisonous tree highlights the fact that anger can be something that festers inside and grows. I never thought of the idea of the 'thing' growing inside you producing fruit however, and was curiously intrigued by where Blake took the idea to the end. Our enemies or friends eating of the fruit from the emotion that each produces and reaping the different effects of each.
The fact that we even need metaphors to illustrate our language seems to be sometimes a hindrance, and sometimes a very interesting creative aspect of our language. I hardly ever notice it, but I use such visual effects all the time, myself. Usually when describing feelings, which they so often allude to. It's easy enough to say "I'm sad", but it's so much more visually descriptive and eloquent to say "I'm feeling down." The point gets across either way, but we love playing with words way too much for expression to ever get too simple.

Written Technology (M6A2)

2004-10-06T08:12:00.000-04:00

After reading through the articles for today, I'm left curiously wondering of the validity of the ideas. Goody and Socrates made some interesting points, but I was a little surprised by Socrates' harshness with the 'technology' of writing.
According to him, writing is a detriment to human society if we allow it to be part of our culture. It allows us to become forgetful because we can always depend on written records (which may be false), rather than our own minds. It can confuse people who do not understand what is written. It is lifeless, like paintings, his comparison suggesting that the images or words on the paper that try to have a life of their own fail at it. Frankly, I didn't think he had that much to worry about. I know the tradition of oral literature was much stronger in those days, but we still have a strong capacity for memorization of things even without something written down to help us, which do in fact help us with the large amount of things our brain has no room for.

I think Goody would agree with Socrates on the benefit of face to face interaction, but he points out so many other things that writing benefits, it can hardly be a bad thing. Hardly 'inhuman' either... it's a human technology, after all. And there's so many things it allows us to do, he argues - know someone's ideas when they aren't right there, or if it's historical material. It helps us remember things, and has a far greater storage capacity. The implications of it on society though, do affect our ideas of intelligence, and demanding literacy on a whole. I think that breaks down communication barriers though, because the written word can be taken so much farther and with more accuracy than the oral form ever did.

Out of Character (M5 Part 1)

2004-09-19T23:26:00.000-04:00

Telling stories is a part of life. So is changing those stories around. All of us have exaggerated, adapted, tweaked, and censored our stories for the situation(s) involved. It's interesting how we decide what should and should not be shared, depending on the people involved, or even the knowledge of who the story will reach. When I was narrating my out-of-character incident during which I treated my boyfriend a little harsher than I meant to, it is in the details that matter.

My letter to my mom about it will understandably have a certain tone to it, then. While I feel comfortable sharing certain things with her, she doesn't need to know the rest, and the amount of detail given is sufficient. The tone will be light, in order to convey a certain "I'm okay so don't get too motherly on me, I just wanted to talk" attitude I'm sure you're all familiar with. The experience or the 'me' involved isn't changed much, just adapted to it's purpose.
With the letter to my boyfriend however, there are some obvious differences. He was involved, so there is no need to repeat certain details that would be necessary elsewhere. Also because he was involved, there is a closer, more apologetic tone to the whole thing. Here, I'm portraying the 'me' I want him to see.
The 'me' I want a broader audience to see may be another matter. They are strangers, and therefore have no business knowing certain details (it's always about the details). A published account requires a more polished narrative, and giving information that was not readily known. They don't need to know what the argument (or any other similar example) was about, only the parts that directly relate to the story being told. It's interesting reading yourself in the 'careful' light of autobiography, knowing all the things the readers aren't privy to.

Narratology (M4 A3)

2004-09-17T23:25:00.000-04:00

As I was reading through the article for this blog, I was amused and intrigued that the act of narration had its own ‘science’, so to speak. Being an English major, I was of course aware of the parts of a story, and how interesting it was that certain ‘formats’ stayed true cross-culturally, regardless of the study involved on it. I was familiar with the discussion of such things as Participants and Setting, and applying them to common folktales is easy.

For ‘Hansel and Gretel’, there are of course the main title characters, along with their parents and the witch. The Setting takes them from their home, to the woods, to the witch’s house, and back to the woods to wherever things took them next.
Addressing the idea of changes in medium, I agree with Ryan that the story can be altered a bit. There’s no way, for example, that a funny, spoken radio show is going to work the same on TV. Most shows I’ve heard are amusing anecdotes where you supply the imagery in your head, or needs none… you can’t exactly broadcast a blank screen on TV with simply the narrator speaking. Each medium requires it’s own formats, time constraints, kind of narration needed, etc, and I think Ryan would agree.

Yellow Brick Road (M4 A2)

2004-09-15T23:16:00.000-04:00

I remember back to watching ‘The Wizard of Oz’ when I was younger, and taking it at face value, thinking the idea of a girl getting pulled into a surreal fantasy world then wanting to go home again was interesting. I could tell there were some subtle yet deeper messages involved, but didn’t pay much attention to them. The idea of the yellow brick road, for one, was very prominent but I wasn’t sure if I wanted to analyze it into anything more than just a shiny, pretty path that led to happiness.

With the ‘coming home’ idea, I think we do in fact ‘escape’ very often in our minds, or to something. Movies can be an escape. Books can be. Going off into the woods can be. Alcohol can be. Really, it doesn’t matter what your escape is, as long as you eventually ‘come home’ to reality and can comfortable balance the two. The movie seems to portray an interesting light on the human desire to want what’s ‘over the rainbow’, and telling us that it’s not always what it’s cut out to be. The ‘yellow brick road’ that leads to happiness could, I suppose, be a metaphor for life as some people say. But I think ‘The Wizard of Oz’ portrays a (necessary) over-simplified version, and that not one road fits everyone. Sooner or later, we all have to go off on our own path to find where ‘home’ is.

Technological Humans (M2 A2)

2004-09-09T18:28:00.000-04:00

I have to admit the question for this assignment had me a bit stumped, but still found it intriguing and will try to write a few coherent thoughts on it. The thing that I found difficult, is grasping what I think of as 'technology', and the idea of such a broad range of things being called that. I never thought of pictures, narratives, books, etc. being forms of technology, but in a sense they are.

Where it comes into play of course, is with those things filling a 'void' with the androids that humans take for granted. Does the android's lack of memories and narratives, despite being a creature of technology, make it more or less human? Are we more human because we have those things? I could run myself into circles musing where the line is drawn, but I really have no idea, and feel a bit confused by how to approach this. I think part of it is that we feel more complete with those things because they help us reach out to others (a human attribute), and know where we're from. An android, with no real family or history to speak of, is empty in that sense. We are human because we use those forms of technology and others to round us out, something animals cannot do. Considering all the technology in the world now that acts as another 'part' of us, I'm not sure where to draw the line, and if that necessarily made us less human. If anything, it proved our human quality of adapting to our world as we make it.

Blade Runner

2004-09-08T23:05:00.000-04:00

To begin with, I wish I had finished the book entirely before I watched the movie tonight, but as it was, I had just gotten half-way through. This was at least adequate to give me a sense of the world, characters, and tone, but it would have been nice to know how everything went, for comparison purposes.

I actually started reading the book several days ago, unfortunatly in a mixed mood with little concentration. As a result, I found the introduction to how the people lived, and the entire mood organ machine idea 'weird' and difficult to get into. I was still able to see however, the effect Dick was trying to give us, with technology's 'arm' firmly grasped around us. Enjoying the book much more now, I couldn't help but be taken aback nearly as soon as the movie started by the strong differences. Alright, yes, I know it's impossible to capture everything, but what warranted such dramatic exclusion of things such as those machines, any further discussion/plotline of the strong importance of animals, Buster Friendly, and even Wilbur Mercer? The 'Hollywood hype' was too cheesy for me at times, and I felt as though things such as the animals, empathy, and how the androids were handled, were given the short end of the stick.

In all fairness, it wasn't that bad of a movie. I liked the sets, the acting, and mostly how things were handled, although all too often I was going 'what the heck?' I think a bad indication of how well a movie is working however, is when you reach a scene that causes entirely the wrong emotion. I was watching it with my friend Matt when it got to the "climax" of Roy and Deckard's fight. They were on the roof, Roy giving out yet more cheesy lines, when he starts to break down and falls into a sitting position with Deckard slumped nearby. Roy continues talking and dying as the camera occaisionally gives us shots of Harrison staring over with a 'huh?' slash 'oh no' expression. I'm sorry... I don't know about anyone else, but Matt and I were laughing so much every time the camera angled to him. It just looked ridiculously silly.

But then again, maybe everything is.

Violent Tendencies (M1 A2)

2004-09-02T23:15:00.000-04:00

As sentient beings, we are capable of a broad range of complicated thinking patterns and abilities. While I never thought of some of those being considered 'technologies', our ability to read, write, speak a language, and possess super-computer brain capabilities could certainly be called such.
The question is then musing what these technologies do to us. In Frankenstein, we follow the monster as he is abandoned by Victor and lives a life of wandering around and having some unpleasant interactions. It is not until he views the 'movie' of the De Lacey family that the monster is opened up more to the world around him. He is even more educated when he learns in slow degrees how to communicate in different forms, and understand 'new' technologies. Does having this awareness directly influence his emotional state with a tendency towards violence? I was at first inclined to say no, but some of the things discussed in class made me unsure of the effect it would have.
On one hand, I couldn't help but think of the adage 'ignorance is bliss'. Was it, for him? I'm not sure I could agree to that. The monster was caught in more of a confused, hurtful ignorance. Even when he became 'enlightened', it didn't completely help. As his awareness grew, so did his understanding. Sometimes our understandings of things however just makes it all the harder to live with. It was bad enough being treated poorly, but with a more thorough knowledge of how the world was and how humans could be, I can see how the monster would grow more violent out of frustrated anger at the stark differences he now sees. You can't entirely blame him for it, only being human himself and wanting the same priveleges as others, but I still think everyone has the power to control themselves.

Tampering with reality (M1 A1)

2004-08-29T20:22:00.001-04:00

When I first saw on the syllabus that we were reading "The Birthmark" and "Frankenstein", I was a little puzzled since I wondered what they had to do with each other. Hawthorne I had read before (and found his story intriguing), but Shelley was new to me. Only barely recalling the movie, and familiar of course with the modern 'shoot-offs' of the Frankenstein idea, I was pleasantly surprised by how well her book read. I wasn't sure what to expect, but the 'narrative-within-a-narrative' that Mary Shelley composes very easily drew me in, and I enjoyed the more deeply thoughtful part philosophy, part horror tale she gives, different from the 'monster' in modern versions.
Both narrations deal with scientists who, in effect, try to reach too far. Hawthorne gives us Aylmer, a man who cannot live without his scientific pursuits, and is much like Shelley's Victor in the sense that most are driven by a deep-seated need to learn Nature's secrets and create things of their own. Both authors, in effect, also give us the tone that such a mindset is not necessarily a good thing to have. Humans are creators, but our power is, and should be, limited. As Georgiana said, "It is terrible to possess such power, or even to dream of possessing it." It seems to me that Shelley is much more easygoing with the pursuit of knowledge and that doing so is natural, but we shouldn't try to tamper with the fabric of life. Aylmer tried to do that, and Hawthorne's negative tone is clear. We're only human with our faults and imperfections, and when Aylmer tried to change that with Georgiana, she was in effect killed by being a 'perfect creature' with no place in this world.
So yes, I believe that scientists should exercise some limits, but I'd be hard pressed to say what we can and can't do. Stories such as these warn us of the risks of tampering beyond our reach, but there's so much beneficial knowledge we know nowadays that may have been seen as blasphemous a hundred years ago, so who's to say. I believe the bottom line however is in thinking it is our right to know all the secrets, and that we can use them to make ourselves perfect. For as I've already illustrated, that most definitely would kill us.

A late night addition...

2004-08-26T21:54:00.000-04:00

Hey everyone, this is Emily. Just writing a short entry to get this thing going. Thanks to LiveJournal, I've already had experience sharing news for a few years via a blog, but it's nice to have it as a form of class communication. Look forward to seeing others, and feel free to say anything you want in here!
As far as more 'about me' goes, feel free to ask about anything there as well, since I'm not sure what would best illustrate that. I think the things a person has on their plate, and choose to spend their time on however, says quite a bit about them. For me, my time is currently filled with the hopeful uncertainty of this semester being my last one at Miami (and not procrastinating too much with all that entails). My days are spent with classes and my long-running job at King, which I love since I hope to be a full-time librarian when I'm done here. When I'm not doing work, you can usually find me with my boyfriend and our mutual best guy friend, kicking back at their apartment or having lunch. Or else I'd be at home glued to a book or my computer... I'm not the typical social Miami girl! If anything, I'm more of a shy, atypical friendly geek who loves to just quietly kick back with others, or loaf in my room listening to music. I love chocolate, playing piano, cats (I even have a related nickname), fantasy, books, and being odd. So before this starts sounding like a personals ad, I'll say adieu, and hope to talk to more of you later!

-Emily

2004-08-25T15:43:00.000-04:00

Testing, testing....