I thrive on comments. Please read! :-)

Hum hum hummmmm... First time coming into this blog feeling kind of blank. I blame the sicky way I am feeling. But, I digress...

So, the books pickin' up huh? Definately interesting. I thought it was funny how Lenina reacted to the old guy (people age?!?!!?). What's weird is that even though the people who are allowed to age naturally live 20-30 more years, it is still preferable to her to look young. That right there speaks volumes about the absense of Life.

Ok, so, I suppose we are to discuss this idea of grand narratives. Lyotard claims a mass disbelief in them come the postmodern era--- of which we are living. Instead, he describes this "center" of lives to be sort of replaced by several little stories as opposed to one big one. As I said in my very first blog, this seems like a sad sham of an existence. What's the point of life without anything to live for? Day-to-day events, relationships that come ago. How must it feel to live only for this things that are fleeting. Nothing that will stay permanently. Everything here on earth eventually dies, goes away. Even the people we live for will leave us in the end. So, how can these little, earthly stories satisfy the human heart?

Back in the modernism era ( or before) two types of metamarratives seemed to surround all societies. Religion for most, and then (if none of the multitudes of religion suited your cup of tea) people lived by a philosophy. Each type had something in common. They all had SOME sort of moral code that its population could believe in and guide themselves by. Now, what do we judge ourselves on? That one TV show? That celebrity? What our teachers say? Our family? Ideally, children learn the concept of metanarratives from their parents, and generally adopt the same moral compass. However, interpretation of this guide is entirely a personal thing. So, even so, the choice of morals is up to the individual. So, wouldn't one want something to follow. To interpret?

If there is nothing outside of culture to tell you what to believe, what's to stop us from believing everything we see and hear? From not challenging the news? Our teachers, our parents and our friends? Where do our opinions come from? Do we pull them out of our pockets? Oh look, I saw this this and this on the news and heard from people and read about it, so this is how I feel about this controversial issue. Sure, our experiences and what we see help make our opinions. But, it seems to me that they should be used more or less to SUPPORT our opinions (by providing examples of the pros and cons of our side). For example, in Brave New World, people are brainwashed from birth into believing what the government tells them!

"a gramme in time saves nine," Lenina, Chapter 6, Part 1
"One cubic centimetre cures ten gloomy sentiments," Lenina, Chapter 6, Part 1
"A gramme is better than a damn." Lenina, Chapter 6, Part 1
"When the individual feels, the community reels." Lenina, Chapter 6, Part 1
"Cleanliness is next to fordliness." Lenina, Chapter 7
"Yes, and civilization is sterilization." Bernard, Chapter 7

Where are they getting these ideas? Not even from their experiences! Without any metanarrative for the country to lack onto, it becomes easier and easier to manipulate the people.

That's why metanarratives (haha, almost wrote metaphysics) are so important! They define us! I don't WANT to live only by what I see or how I feel. Frankly, humans have proven time and time again that we're not all that mature. That we're not the most naturally moral creatures. We make mistakes on our own. We NEED stories to tell us how to behave. To make us feel guilty. If not, what's to stop us from running around with no feelings? I say, bring on the Modernism! These cultural shifts would still have happened (such as ending slavery). But this mental shift need not occur. So many people today are too obsessed with what they can see. And I worry for them. Sometimes you gotta look beyond what we understand. Like, when you're little and you think there is a Santa Claus. And then you get older and, with more knowledge, start to understand it was only your parents. And that the older kids were pretending to make you happy. It's a great tradition, but you weren't able to see the whole picture. And we forget that sometimes. Especially as teenagers, where everything feels like life or death. These things we are so sure of may not be so. Because we can't possibly understand all that we experience.

That's why it is so great to have some form of grand narrative guiding your life. Something you CAN know for sure, no matter your stage in life. And something to help you begin to dechiper the big picture.

There's A Fine Line between Uptopia and The Destruction of Humanity

What an interesting read so far!! So many things so discuss, so where shall I start?

I think I'm going to point out something that really caught my attention. It doesn't seem to make much of a sense of importance, but it made me stop and think. When Henry and Lenina are out dancing with the crowd, they are dancing to a 5/4 beat, a 5-step. For anyone who plays music, you know it is sort of an uncomfortable feel for music. Certainly, it isn't seen in anything contempoary, and I imagine it would be awfully hard to dance to.

What does this mean? I cannot say for certain. However, that idiosyncracy of the society just seems to further alienate it from what we, as readers, know to be true humanity. It highlights just how far gone the people have left. So, with that thought for you to ponder, I'm gonna move on to the body of my blog, and what I wanted to talk about.

This book, to me, seems to be both the polar opposite and the twin of 1984.
It seems impossible for me to separte the similarities and differences. For, the very thing that makes them similar is often what makes them different. (I know, doesn't seem to make much sense huh?)

Both societies have a community motto: War is Peace, Slavery is Freedom, Ignorance is Strength and: "Community, Identity, Stability."

Each society's mantra guides the people, and allow them to accept the obvious absense of humanity. The main difference I can see in Brave New World is that, as conditioned human beings from birth, even the leaders see no fault with the system. Truly, there is no one in power who does not see any merit in the "old" way of doing things. And then, we find ourselves full circle with 1984 again. The hope lies in the proles, or in this case, those on the reservations. People who are still giving birth naturally, who have mothers and fathers and monogamy. Does anyone there see the wrongness of their opressors? Who knows. But if humanity is to be found again, it would be there, where it still exists.

In the society of Brave New World, instead of everyone being the same, everyone is forced to be one specific thing. Where 1984 is the effective combination of discourses, Brave New World is the complete isolation of discourses. In relation to our world today, it provides a very real possibility if we cater too much to differences.

Both disuptopia scenarios provide an accurate example of how the discourse situation can go very wrong. If we try to make everyone be the same thing, we will end up under the controlling thumb of Big Brother. If we separate too much, we will become like the citizens of the Brave New World, "All conditioning aim[ing[ at that: making people like their inescapable social destiny." INESCAPABLE. How casually the captives of a caste society can toss that word about. "Everyone belongs to everyone else," and no one seems to have a problem with being expected to be a certain person.

So, how does that apply to the discourse quandary? Let's look at one position first:

As we've seen in standarized tests, they are not perfect. Experience often shapes the perception with which one interprets situations in a work of literature. So, someone from one discourse may view the same question differently than someone from another. However, how far do we go to make it "fair" for everyone? Should we make separate tests for them? Allow multiple answers to be right? Different classes? Schools? Cities? How far can we take this separation.

In the end, no discourse can be called "wrong," but it can very well be wrong for a situation. Schools tests are designed for kids who want to go to college (as we hope most kids want). Therefore, it is essential that we immerse them in an academic discourse, so that they don't FALL FLAT ON THEIR FACES in coligiate world. However, does that mean we should stamp out any attempt of living within different discourses? Of course not.

Subjects, particularly English, are subjective. (thank goodness for essays with a human grader eh?) Teachers and students and people in general are, or at least should be, aware of the differences in each other. Should you fail a kid for a different perception? No. Should you give them an A and let them slide through on what THEY think is right? No.

School has a specific job. We need to be taught to take our primary discourse and be able to modify it work in many different settings, particularly higher academic or professional ones. And THAT is the what the world should be aiming for. The coexistence of all the discourses. The ability to be flexible. The ability to switch between discourses. Just like America is a melting pot of cultures.

As I said in an earlier blog, this UTOPIA we all seem to be instinctivly searching for cannot be found on earth. Humanity is too corrupt. However, that being said, DISutopias are a scary and possible outcome. Now we, as humans, have to find the balance.


~~~
(Today's blog was brought to you by: A Very Potter Musical
www.youtube.com/starkidpotter)

What/Who/Where I am.

The answer to all these questions can be derived from the word Writer. Because that's what I am.

I don't know if anyone will read this, so I'm gonna use this space to talk freely.

I write to live. As weird as that sounds, it's true. Writing is a part of me or, more like, I am a part of it.

I think one of the reasons I don't do drafts much is because I am constantly writing throughout my day... at the very least in my head. I get excited by words, I narrate things I see, I LIVE in words. It's actually harder for me, personally, to write this blog. Formal, fluid writing comes naturally to me. Subtle shaping and connections happen without me thinking about it. But writing my feelings down? Well, look at my thousands of failed diaries over the year. I find it difficult to be candid. I mean, even as I write this I'm sure you can hear my formal tone. So, an academic blog is different for me. Yet, envigorating. I am enjoying every minute of learning how to articulate my world views in a universal reception.

So, as I said, I'm a writer. But not a writer of essays (although I feel I do well on them). I am a writer of fiction. I love stories SO much. My imagination guides me everywhere.

When asked on a writing forum of mine why we write, this was my response:
"If I didn't write, I wouldn't be who I am. I would be... man, who knows. I need to write. It's as important (or more so) than oxygen. It's WHY I am. Fiction is so... empowering.

I think everyone knows that feeling they get when they finally finish a reallllllly good book. Where one's senses shut down, and you walk around like you're in a daze. Where only the most attacking sounds (like TV) can pull you out of it. And the feeling WHILE you're reading it of course. The feeling that you have to HAVE to hurry and reach the end! And then, the feeling of desiring with all of your heart that there's more to read, and depression that actually HURTS when there's not. Those are the feelings I live for, and that's why I write. I want to write a story to CREATE emotions in others. To make them cry, laugh, and/or throw the book in anger (always fun...).

And I want to send my readers into a book coma. Most importantly, I write because if I don't my character's stories will die with me. And no one will ever know of their lives, their loves and their losses. And I owe them to let them live beyond my physical body and into time. "

I finished my first novel on June 12th, 2009. And have many projects in the works. Maybe someday I'll post them on the blog?

Anyways, it's unlikely that this will be read, but, as a user of blogs, I am starting to enjoy using the space as a free forum, and this is what I was thinking about in class today.

Peace All!

PS>> If anyone DOES read this, I THRIVE ON COMMENTS. Seriously, good or bad, they get me excited. So say hi at least!

UPDATE

Please read as a companion to my original posting and comment on them as a whole. Thank you!



Mrs. Bennett used to say that a teenager only has an attention span of 12 minutes. Therefore, this should be ok since it is only a 5:45 minute video. Please watch, because it is the reason that spurred this addition to the blog, and I agree with it wholeheartedly. And I could never articulate my position the way he does so elequently.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PVJlnvVeSM&feature=related

(not a link, please copy/paste)


~~~



Assuming you've all been enlightened...



The definition of tolerance has most certainly been changed. In it's TRUE nature, you must first agree with something before you can tolerate it. However, in today's society, everyone seems to believe that you can't call anyone wrong (because it might hurt their feelings or something...)

That's not tolerance. And those of us who have the courage to say, I understand where you're coming from, but I think you are wrong, are persecuted. It is OUR opinion of your wrongness that is being intolerated. Therefore, as Mr. Carson points out, we are faced with the intolerance of tolerance.

Something we all tend to advocate is trying to understand things from other's points of view. However, I would venture to say that only half of people practice what we preach on an average basis. When the argument or debate goes towards the favor of your opinion, we come away feeling the argument was fair and introspective. However, when your point of view comes on the losing end, our opinion of the experience tends to swing the other way?

Is there a way to avoid this? Is this, perhaps, the reason we feel the strong need to defend ourselves? In the little issues, I would agree.

However, I would like to close in the same way as my previous entry, by pointing out the Center of many lives, and of my own.

As I understood in class, Modernism was an attempt to eliminate a Center in our lives. This, to me, is very sad. And not in the "sad" we say over the internet to mean we don't agree, but truly sad. It worries me.

In my own life, my center is God. It can easily be argued, just by looking at me and by myself, that my friends, family, music and writing should fall in the center as well.

However, when I can't find comfort in music, where do I go?

When I can't fall into literature, where do I go?

When I fight with my friends, who do I turn to?

When I fight with my family, who's left THEN?

This is why I will qualify God as the true center of my life. Someone I can rely on to love me always and never be mad, who I can base decisions on. What leads me to be sad at humanity's lack of drive. Even secular ones. It is why I pray for those I love. Why I always try to see the good in everyone, and will ALWAYS consider your opinions, even if, in the end, all I can offer you is a friendly smile and tolerance.


Andrea

PS> my commenting on all of these blogs will be Diminuendo, the title of my novel. So, don't be confused. I created my blogger account before Lit. ^^;

Black and White... and everything in between.

I sit before the computer screen with the task of discussing how to efficiently mesh differences. But, how does one go about doing that??? Is it even possible? I'm gonna jump out on a limb here on this one and say: No.

But, do we really want that? Is everyone OK with complete understanding? As a writer, if I write a story with no conflict, no one would read it. Similarly, humanity as a narrative requires these differences to create emotions, to create PLOT within us. According to Powell's definition of modernism, humanity is always heading towards progress. We are presented with the image of prominent figures of that time climbing a mountain heading for... progress? If we a truly living in a postmodern time (as I'm sure our reading will suggest we are heading), there is a serious question that we, as a whole, must face:

What is at the top of the mountain? What will be our image of completion, where there is no room for progress? Where will we be then?

The word I suppose the term I must use to describe this state of perfect and finished progression would be Utopia. However, in my opinion, a Utopia is not a conceivable. As is seen in the a majority of postmodern literature, attempts only result in a Disutopia. The idea of a Utopia suggests a viewpoint that is universal, or an idea that everyone can live with. And, like it or not, universal tolerance is a viewpoint. As long as there is one person opposing it, there will always be someone unhappy. I don't think we can ever reach that point. And yet, our society is more and more finding itself to distorting people's beliefs. The saying that echos throughout our socieites is: Well, it's true for them. That may be true, but we have to again fall back on the principle of reality, of truth. Namely, the definition of truth, is fact.

Not all issues are black and white. They can't be. However, too much grey is nothing but a wishy-washy excuse to take a stand. Sometimes, you just have to fight for what you believe. However, don't get me wrong, that doesn't mean to demean others or not accept them. But you CAN disagree with them. And that's the beauty of humanity. However, right now, it seems that instead of accepting that their are HUGE differences in the world, we seem to be trying to alter one idea so that it fits everyone in. So no one feels "left out." I'm sorry, but everyone is going to be "left out" at some point. Take, on the testy subject of religion, Christianity and Judaism. Very similar, but the belief in Jesus' identity is the radical difference that separates them. Assuming, for arguments sake if you do not believe this way, that their principles of Heaven and Hell etc. are correct. In the end, they can't both be right. By their PERCEPTION, each belief is true for them. But, when they die and come face to face with God, Jesus cannot be both God AND not God at the same time. In this example, you can see the position of black and white come in. Something that will eventually be concretley proven (such as the existence of an afterlife or not) will eventually boil down to right or wrong. Opinion subjects, (such as whether or not abortion is acceptable) will never have a definitive answer given. There, there can be grey.

However, it seems that the world today is trying to eliminate the idea of black and white. People can be wrong, it's OK to think that they are wrong. (Although it is certainly not ok to ridicule someone you think is wrong, or alienate them). Think of it this way: If you knew a secret that was absolutely true, even if people had a hard time believing it, wouldn't you want them to know? With such heated topics as were discussed in our socriatic circle, I find that people don't properly "look at things from the other's viewpoint." We accept others opinions, we accept that they're there, but we don't always want (myself included) to hear the other side. It's there, we acknowledge it, but do we have to invite it to the party? I believe many people who talk so forcefullly about issues aren't nessecarily trying to force it down others throats, even though the other side can often feel that way. But, in a way, they believe this to be absolutely true. Perhaps they're worried about you because you don't know "The Truth" (whatever that may be). However, it is important to realize that this is a way that they care about you. Going back on the subject of religion, most believe that there is some sort of Heaven, Nirvana, or happiness that you can reach in the end (perhaps with the risk of a Hell, or nonexistence as punishment).

I think it speaks volumes that people are willing to risk their friendships with you, or your opinions of them, in an effort to share with you what they believe to be a lifechanging truth. On the minority issue, someone may want their ethnicity's story told, could feel things we would never think of. And we may say they are being overbearing, but they are taking a risk out of care. Trying to show others the truth. Caring for them. By realizing this, I think differences can be approached more harmoniously. And in that way, while we still may feel anger or embarrassment towards another, we can later realized that we were concerned for, prayed for. Cared for.

Andrea.