Blogs

There are people in my spot.

I repeat, there are people in my spot.

At first, I was incredibly disoriented by this. It wasn’t one person, opening up the possibility of bonding, but an entire class of them, not one of which I recognized. I’m upset by it- how could they find this place I had begun to associate with myself. I had found it, I had figmented it in my mind. It was as if they had found me, or at least a piece of me I had been hiding from everyone else.

But now, I am trying to see this is an opportunity. A chance to practice wild writing in an unexpected encounter. How does the pond feel about their presence? I had been hoping to practice some natural writing by writing about alternate personas of the place, but I had begun to practice the words in my head, taking away their spontaneity. Because I was completely surprised by the presence of people at my spot, I can write for nature, from a place of natural.

Let’s see how this goes:

They slip the still, shallow shape onto my surface, insinuating it just above my soul, using it as a vessel to look inward at me. I react, as one does (obviously); little ripples, a path behind their natural intrusion. Newtonian sense I’ve known intrinsically since infanthood; afterall, he based it on my brethren.

I am going to tell my walking story in the manner of a Keres tale. A dictionary can be found here (Queres = Keres).

FIRST TELLING

Where weathered rock and flowing water meet

When hot, moist air retreats at summer’s end;

Above, the vivid boughs do speak of fall

While underfoot the earth prepares for sleep.

The sparrow hops upon the iron rail

While under trees cicadas speak their death.

KERES TELLING

Not so long ago. In Kuwami from Tidyami the ts'itsi arrived. Here came Shuum'ə Daaw'aatra from Uw'aititaan Daaw'aatra, from Tidyami. K'uisrka went and k'uuchini came to the trees. Many animals go at kasraiti's end. 

I tweeted about this, but I also wanted to post the link on here. Diane Von Furstenberg (the designer) taped her runway show using Google Glasses. She, along with some of her collaborators and models wore the glasses and it was edited in to a video. Watch it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30Pjl31cyDY

I had a hard time reading Offending Women, not because of the level of it's cohesiveness or vocabulary, but because of how angry it made me. The examples Haney gave of the treatment women faced at Alliance made me question how they could be justified in continuing thier program. Though I'm sure living in a house with few restrictions was far more comfortable than living in a prison, the verbal and mental abuse the women faced was uncalled for and unjustified in my opinion. 

In class, our group discussed Clark’s cyborg readings and how that played into our feelings towards the class. There was a general consensus amongst the people in our group that the Clark reading was more confusing rather than informative. The main reason I think this is, is the writing style that Clark adopts. In his writing, Clark tends to try to prove concepts by examples rather than solidifying his claims and arguments by using original research. Thus, Clark’s text seems more like a thoughtful muse, rather than a piece of writing meant to prove a certain fact.

I'm still struggling with figuring out what should education provide for humans, considering the new role of technology.  I keep hearing the opinion that with computers around to help us, we can bypass the basics of math/science, depending on the computers for that knowledge, and skip right to the quantum mechanics and other higher-level ideas that we haven't taught computers how to do yet.  My hesitation is that I am not convinced that higher-level ideas can be accessed without an understanding of how the basics work, especially when we want to put our current ideas to the test.  I have trouble imagining a creative scientific process that relies on information feeding from computers.  Also, I think it would be really difficult to solve a higher-level problem without having first grappled with the lower-level ideas first.  Just because a machine can produce relevant information instantaneously doesn't automatically give this information meaning.  What are ways a teacher can facilitate a deeper understanding/meaning to a concept, not burdening the student with calculations that computers can do, but still bearing in mind that any program created to help foster this understanding is a human creation and can still be (and should be) called into question.

Towards the end of our last class we watched a TED video in which the speaker suggests that we reevaluate the way we think about technology, computers, and scientific "advancement."  He suggested that, rather than think of technology as something we're losing control over or as something that's growing more powerful than we are, that we consider it as a kind of new partnership.  I found this theory simple--so simple, in fact, that it seems obvious--but also deep and multileveled.  

Watching the TED Talks lecture in class yesterday made me think about Siri, the greatest and worst function of the iPhone 4s and 5. We were talking about how men who weren't great at chess worked with computers that weren't top of the line and how they beat the best computers and the best men. I have to admit that I got really distracted and started thinking about man's attachment to and reliance on technology. So for the sake of this discussion, let's take Siri. Apple essentially created a pocket secretary. Siri's great. You can dictate things to her, you can have her call you by a different name, and you can have her remind you of things. The iPhone 5 has expanded on these functions so you now can have her tell you results of sporting events and I think she might be able to translate things for you. The best attribute that Siri possesses is that she is immensely entertaining. I could ask her ridiculous questions all day and never get bored.

Our readings for this week really reminded of the consequences of placing an identity on somebody else. How our entire interactions are based on who we think individuals are, and how that should influence the ways in which we treat them, connect with them, listen to them and understand them. This was especially true in Offending Women, where it was clear that the young mothers that were part of the program were given a narrative of what their lives were or ought to be, which completely shaped all of the interactions between the staff and them. The staff saw them as either victims or bloodsuckers, and consistently reminded them that neither of these things would lead to their independence (from the state, from blaming others etc). What would have happened if they had seen these women differently, If they hadn't assigned them that specific identity? Again, this identity idea is restated in Colored Amazons, where the author talks about the ways in which prisoners and (black) women were impacted by a story about who they where. The whole prison system was based on this judgment of their morals, biology, racial hierarchy and ability to be "restored." I definitely think that this practice is alive and well today, where we assign identities that have deep consequences that people have to live with (I'm thinking of Tuck's damage-centered research). How can we be active in creating different narratives for ourselves with the hope that others will also have the same opportunities?