okay. i must state that i absolutely LOVE how almost everyone begins there blog with some little story that is completely off topic (just like this one) about how they like addressing prompts, or providing a warning of their upcoming gibberish. these stories help me look forward to reading other people's blogs. ;]
anyways....
postmodernism. a very interesting way of thinking don't you think? Obviously after our class discussion on whatever day it may have been, it's safe to say that we all know what a narrative is - correct? people, does not matter what type of person one may be, uses these niffty things to justify ideas, beliefs, whatever floats your boat. no matter what you do, you always have to turn to narratives to justify your case. then from there you have the choice to a metanarrative and a local narratives. mettanarrative are “big stories, stories of mythic proportions – that claim to be able to account for, explain and subordinate all lesser, little, local narratives” (Powell 29). a local narrative is merely a smaller story that is part of the bigger story....
when i first read that definition i immediately thought of religion. i think of religion as one gigantic metanarrative since there are no real hard core facts, at least in my opinion. this helps create the foundation of thier beliefs, lifestyle, morality, and so forth.... so it is their way of providing a "why" for all those questions that make one break a mental sweat (i.e. what is the meaning of life).
in BNW the grandnarrative is the compiled values of technology, efficency, community, identity, and stability. Bernard Marx shows the danger of a postmodernistic society as he feels rather oppressed by his society's grand narrative. He feels that he does not truly belong in a place where everything and everyone is shared. When gazing at the sea, he remarks "It makes me feel as though....I were more me, if you see what I mean. More on my own, not so completely a part of something else. Not just a cell in the social body (Huxley 90)."
alright. i'm done blabbing.
9.20.2009
Brave New World: beyond trippy
Okay. This book is obviously really trippy. I think we can all agree on that. For me, the thing that trips me out the most from Brave New World is...okay there is more than one thing. I think it's most of their beliefs. For example, "generalities are intellectually necessary evils. Not philosophers but fretsawyers and stamp collectors compose the backbone if society." when i first read this i seriously paused and then blurted out "really?" what's so great about having a stable society? Nothing interesting happens. in my opinion, it just seems rather lame and boring. Oh and then it gets even better. the whole concept of "progress." the whole description from page six of how like ninety-six "humans" can be made from one embryo. i would understand if you were talking about like production junk and whatnot, but humans? how in the world is this progress???? What is so beneficial from having tons of people who look alike, have the same name, and were created for the same function? the D.H.C. just goes off about how this process is the key to social stability. hmmm. it's just hard to wrap my mind around this concept. .
Question: did anyone else catch like all the satirical religious references? like the whole A.F. deal. “after ford,” like today’s calendar system begins with the birth of Jesus (Anno Domini, meaning “in the year of the lord”). and the whole shindig with predestination and whatnot.......anyone???
I found it rather depressing when they condition people to not feel emotions. i don't feel like going back into the book and finding the exact quote, but it was something to do with like parents, romance, etc. and then the kids just start cringing at the sound of those words. oh and the books and flowers thing! how cruel!!! they just like electrocuted babies!! the D.H.C claims that reading is a waste of the communities time; so does this mean we are wasting our time reading Huxley's book?? alrighty so i'm going to see if i understand the motive behind hating flowers. flowers = nature = no consumptions of goods = bad. is that correct? they want the consumption of goods to continue to rise and nature only cause the consumption of transportation.
this world is just a weird, perverted society; i would never understand why anyone would want to live in such conditions. ah i found the quote if anyone cares: "mother, monogamy, romance" another question: what is the whole deal with sex? why must everyone, starting at a very young age, be very very promiscuous?? does it show that they are devoted to society or something? that's one thing i just don't really get at all about this book.
Bernard Max. is he looking for something more meaningful than sex? or is just a big grump? someone please explain this to me. or not. i think it'll become more clear as the book goes along??? hopefully.
alrighty. i'm wrapping up this big hodgepodge of thoughts. thanks for reading it! :]
Question: did anyone else catch like all the satirical religious references? like the whole A.F. deal. “after ford,” like today’s calendar system begins with the birth of Jesus (Anno Domini, meaning “in the year of the lord”). and the whole shindig with predestination and whatnot.......anyone???
I found it rather depressing when they condition people to not feel emotions. i don't feel like going back into the book and finding the exact quote, but it was something to do with like parents, romance, etc. and then the kids just start cringing at the sound of those words. oh and the books and flowers thing! how cruel!!! they just like electrocuted babies!! the D.H.C claims that reading is a waste of the communities time; so does this mean we are wasting our time reading Huxley's book?? alrighty so i'm going to see if i understand the motive behind hating flowers. flowers = nature = no consumptions of goods = bad. is that correct? they want the consumption of goods to continue to rise and nature only cause the consumption of transportation.
this world is just a weird, perverted society; i would never understand why anyone would want to live in such conditions. ah i found the quote if anyone cares: "mother, monogamy, romance" another question: what is the whole deal with sex? why must everyone, starting at a very young age, be very very promiscuous?? does it show that they are devoted to society or something? that's one thing i just don't really get at all about this book.
Bernard Max. is he looking for something more meaningful than sex? or is just a big grump? someone please explain this to me. or not. i think it'll become more clear as the book goes along??? hopefully.
alrighty. i'm wrapping up this big hodgepodge of thoughts. thanks for reading it! :]
9.09.2009
history and religion: not such a good mix.
Sorry if this doesn't make loads of sense or is all fragmented. I mereley wrote what came to mind at the moment.
Last Wednesday we "discussed" history, religion, miniorties, and all that good stuff. In my opinion, this whole debate makes me feel like the public has turned into little kids fighting over a toy or something. I think Texas should just relax. Just because the country doesn't unamiously agree that Christianity should be shoved down people's throats doesn't mean it needs to over react and attempt to sucede from the U.S.
I do believe that Christianity did indeed play a vital role in influencing this country, but I do think we should consider other factors as well besides religion. If my mind is doing me justice, I believe that the first successful place that was settled was Jamestown, Virginia. It was settled for economic reasons, was it not? Then from there religous affilations that were being prosecuted back in their mother country felt the need to escape so they could get religious freedom. Eventually, as the colonies were settled it slowly split to the south being more economically founded while the north based more on religion. So why is religion emphasized? I think both of these should be emphasized equally.
I know in the Constitution is does not state in bold print that there is seperation of church and state, but don't you think this would be wise especially after 1692 (we all know how well it went for all the "witches" in that time). But alas, this is somewhat impossible to implement when it comes to history, since it did have somewhat of an impact. I believe that history books should state the facts and provide a mini explanation of the incident. Just like Connie stated in class, "history books can't just say 'They were Christians. There has to be some sort of an explanation.'" The goal is an unbiased textbook, but we ALL know that's rather impossible. It would be like beating a dead horse. Rather pointless.
Anyways, I do indeed that we are suppose to tie this discussion with 1984 aren't we not? Well you know that one quote "Who controls the past, controls the future: who controls the present, controls the past." It seems like we are in this dilemna. Religious affilations, minorities, political parties are all trying to prove why their way is the way to go. It feels like each one of these groups is trying to justify the reason why they are the "best." Honestly, what happened to thinking for ourselves? Remember the good ole days when we were able to generate opinions off facts and not off biased propaganda. Alright. These "good ole days" I'm referring to go further back than the early nineties. Wait. I take that back. I don't these days I speak of even exsist because (I think) there has always been at least a smidge of bias. Oh boy. The process of thought is rather complicated.
Anywhoo, to wrap this sucker up I think that it would be simply rather rad if there was a way to include all perspectives on every event in history into one book. Yeah. That would be a HUGE book. Until that day comes I guess we'll continue to debate this issue.....
Last Wednesday we "discussed" history, religion, miniorties, and all that good stuff. In my opinion, this whole debate makes me feel like the public has turned into little kids fighting over a toy or something. I think Texas should just relax. Just because the country doesn't unamiously agree that Christianity should be shoved down people's throats doesn't mean it needs to over react and attempt to sucede from the U.S.
I do believe that Christianity did indeed play a vital role in influencing this country, but I do think we should consider other factors as well besides religion. If my mind is doing me justice, I believe that the first successful place that was settled was Jamestown, Virginia. It was settled for economic reasons, was it not? Then from there religous affilations that were being prosecuted back in their mother country felt the need to escape so they could get religious freedom. Eventually, as the colonies were settled it slowly split to the south being more economically founded while the north based more on religion. So why is religion emphasized? I think both of these should be emphasized equally.
I know in the Constitution is does not state in bold print that there is seperation of church and state, but don't you think this would be wise especially after 1692 (we all know how well it went for all the "witches" in that time). But alas, this is somewhat impossible to implement when it comes to history, since it did have somewhat of an impact. I believe that history books should state the facts and provide a mini explanation of the incident. Just like Connie stated in class, "history books can't just say 'They were Christians. There has to be some sort of an explanation.'" The goal is an unbiased textbook, but we ALL know that's rather impossible. It would be like beating a dead horse. Rather pointless.
Anyways, I do indeed that we are suppose to tie this discussion with 1984 aren't we not? Well you know that one quote "Who controls the past, controls the future: who controls the present, controls the past." It seems like we are in this dilemna. Religious affilations, minorities, political parties are all trying to prove why their way is the way to go. It feels like each one of these groups is trying to justify the reason why they are the "best." Honestly, what happened to thinking for ourselves? Remember the good ole days when we were able to generate opinions off facts and not off biased propaganda. Alright. These "good ole days" I'm referring to go further back than the early nineties. Wait. I take that back. I don't these days I speak of even exsist because (I think) there has always been at least a smidge of bias. Oh boy. The process of thought is rather complicated.
Anywhoo, to wrap this sucker up I think that it would be simply rather rad if there was a way to include all perspectives on every event in history into one book. Yeah. That would be a HUGE book. Until that day comes I guess we'll continue to debate this issue.....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)