Sunday, October 2, 2011


According to Neil Postman "the submission of all forms of cultural life to the sovereignty of technique and technology." (52) He also distinguishes that "Technopoly is a state of culture. It is also a state of mind." He goes on to say that the United States is a technopoly, which can be kind of scary since it is also compared to Huxley's Brave New World. Postman also explains that a technocracy is "a society only loosely controlled by social custom and religious tradition and driven by the impulse to invent." 
This is seen in Brave New World because the citizens are all working for what they believe is progress, even though they really don't know what it is they are progressing towards. They have been brainwashed by their leaders to work as they do.
In Postman's writing he even talks about how the textile industry let go of "skilled works, replacing them with workers who merely kept the machines operating" (42). Similarly in Huxley's Brave New World, we discovered from the Director of Hatcheries that the D.H.C. was responsible for creating  children. With the various processes that occur within the D.H.C.  there was full control of what these babies would grow up to do. They meddled with genetics in order to predestine what these babies would do and what affect or contribution they would have on society. 

Sunday, September 25, 2011


Honestly I think the concepts talked about in this article are kind of creepy. The technological era is expanding every day and progress is being made constantly, but the idea of a computers becoming even smarter than humans is frightening. According to the article technology is advancing so quickly that “All that horsepower could be put in the service of emulating whatever it is our brains are doing when they create consciousness,” and I think this is exactly what people are afraid of. There has always been a line drawn between artificial intelligence and organic intelligence. I don’t necessarily think that with the advancement of technology that cyborgs are going to take over the planet or anything that science fictions films may have built a storyline upon, but I think that the idea of not being in control of said technology worries people, as the article states that the “rate of development would also continue to increase, because they would take over their own development from their slower-thinking human creators.” I think some people fear that with so much advance ment the technology will somehow be able to brainwash us, sort of like in Brave New World when Lenina says phrases such as "A gramme in time saves nine” and "Remember one cubic centimetre cures ten gloomy sentiments.” She was taught to say these things, it wasn’t her belief but more what she had always been told to do. I feel like this is what people fear; that technology will progress so much that humans will no longer thing for themselves.

Personally I am not a very big fan of the idea of “Singularity” because I don’t know what would happen if or when technology can out-smart those who created it. According to Kurzweil “the end of human civilization as we know it is about 35 years away.” The results of this Singularity hypothesis are endless. Some people believe this could be greatly beneficial and that human may in-fact merge with artificial intelligence to form some type of cyborg others theorize that this advancement could lead to the annihilation of the human race and theories are formed everywhere in between.

I feel like technology is a very good thing, but I am very weary on how far technology should be developed. I think there is a very significant difference between have technology for beneficial reasons (like in the medical field) and to somewhat preposterous ideas (like Kurzweil believe he can bring back his father). To be honest, I think the idea of Singularity is very possible, I just don’t know how I feel about that much technological progression.

Monday, September 5, 2011

Rhetorical Analysis

In this piece of writing Iulia O. Basu uses the Logos method to analyze the meanings of Madame de Beaumont's Beauty and the Beast and Angela Carter's The Tiger's Bride. Basu makes note of the different roles the "Beautys" play in respect to the role of her "Beast" and compares the pieces of writing accordingly. Basu draws a parallel of the roles of "Beauty" and "Beast" and roles in society as women and as men and the level of passivity and dependence women have to men.
The another effectively uses the compare and contrast method to show the ways in which these texts are different from each other and the ways the same concepts are illustrated. The most common way Basu does this is by finding quotes from the text and from those pieces, draws a conclusion to the meaning. I noticed that Basu often had long quotes that could be thoroughly analyze to prove a point to the audience. Basua is very consistent with how the two pieces are analyzed, by talking about De Beaumont's then to Carter's and back again to De Beaumont's. She also uses a wide range of vocabulary to establish her point without making the text lose meaning or seem informal.
The difference between the two "Beautys" is Basu's main point in this piece. De Beaumont's Beauty is described in a warmer and friendlier manner than Carter's Beauty. Basu does a really good job of explaining why De Beaumont's Beauty was seemingly more gracious than Carter's because De Beaumont's took her father's place in the Beast's presence out of love and respect and compassion with her father, whereas Carter's Beauty was traded off to the Beast by her father.
The transitions between comparisons were very obvious and easy to distinguish without taking away from the writing itself. For example, it is clear when Basu concludes that De Beamont's novel that Beauty was the civilizing agent in the relationship and where Carter's Beauty is subject to the Beast who is well-aware of his "beastliness" and his amount of control or power.
Some of the things I've noticed from these academic essays is that many of them do not necessarily following the writing guidelines that I grew up with. For example, the length of these paragraphs are much longer than the acceptable five sentences that I was taught growing up. But, I actually like that paragraphs aren't always just five sentences because I don't feel like anything of importance could be accurately discussed in such a small paragraph.