ArtShare

Here it is

You can access the paper here or by searching Jacob Bailey and looking under the DMS tab.

(wow my portfolio page is old)

Anyway hope everyone has a great break

End of Adventures in Wonderland

Here is a link to my final paper: link.

I suppose this is the end of my jaunts down the rabbit hole. If you just can't imagine the future without these trips you can always find me at my website here.

SiN,

Christopher M King

Here is the link to my wonderful paper. Simply click on DMS paper under Final drafts. https://www.portfolio.du.edu/pc/editport2?page=2&uid=13737

Final Paper Link

You can access my paper in my DU Portfolio under "Course Work," Leslie Bass - Final Paper.

https://portfolio.du.edu/pc/port.detail?id=96679, or search Leslie Bass on the Portfolio search page. :)

Final Paper

My final is posted in MyPortfolio under 'photos'.

Have a great break :)

https://portfolio.du.edu/pc/editport

Yay!

Here is my Final Paper. http://framerunneryume.blogspot.com/

MR. STINKY

Here is the link to my final paper. I uploaded it through du portfollio, so if the link doesn't work, you can get it through that website: just search Katie McCoy. Thank you. Have a good break everyone!

https://portfolio.du.edu/pc/editport?uid=8184

Forget-Me-Nots

Link to Final Essay: Forget-Me-Nots (PDF)

A New Consciousness

There is something that Alan Watts and I both seem to agree on – we need a new consciousness. I’ll even go so far as to say that that we need a consciousness that is very similar to consciousness ecology. What will surprise you is that I believe we already have this consciousness. It is a part of us from birth but we have long since forgotten how to tap into it, to use it. Like a muscle this part of our consciousness has atrophied with lack of use. It is imperative that we learn to tap into this consciousness so that we can steer clear of the oncoming catastrophe.

The Indian belief that details these phases of existence is not so different than the Judeo Christian belief that the world has a time of creation and a time of destruction. In both these beliefs the end, this destruction, is destined to happen despite human intervention. This works like a self-fulfilling prophecy where the end is predetermined and we make no effort to change the course of history because it has already set.

In order to form this new consciousness, to wake up, we must first rid ourselves with these self-fulfilling prophecies so that we can learn to be responsible for our actions and learn to see how these actions have an effect on the world around us.

This only strengthens the argument that I’ve offered throughout this quarter. The steps to this new consciousness have already been detailed in many of my previous blogs. The first steps is self-consciousness, to become self aware of both our actions and the motives behind them. We need to see how our actions are interlinked with the world around us. This if a lofty goal at best but if this is to be reached we can then glimpse objective consciousness at which point we gain and understanding of not only ourselves but the world around us.

Once we begin to understand how we are connected we can begin to entertain a very real respect for one another and begin to exercise ‘care’.

I really liked how Watts discussed the idea of ‘nature’ and ‘natural’ as a human-made concept. He says that we created this idea of nature as being outside of us, as something we are not a part of. We see nature as the birds, bees and the trees and as humans as being something outside of that. Nature often is used to refer to impulses and instincts, which humans look down upon. We are so advanced and so intelligent that we should be able t control these ‘natural’ urges at all times. It really frightens me when people claim they are ‘more of an indoor person’. What are they trying to say? That they are too good for the all-natural, dirty, smelly, always-changing natural world we live in? Must they separate themselves from the ‘outside world’ in order to push it further and further away and pretend that they are not a part of it?

I felt like Watts was trying to say that western ideas push away from nature and feel that they are too good for it. As technology has advanced, the concept of God and religion has been pushed farther and farther to the side. If we can create all these technologies on our own, do we really need a God to create anything for us?

I really like how Watts compared the western ideas to China and India and showed just how different they are. Chinese embrace nature and natural urges. They accept the fact that humans can be selfish as well as selfless. We have a good and a bad, and they admit that. They embrace the spontaneity of nature and trust nature to keep the world spinning, the sun rising, the hair on our heads to grow and the heart to keep beating. They don’t question how and why but just accept it. Indians see the world as a stage and that everything that the body senses and the experiences it goes through are vibrations on the self. Their whole concept of human is that everything has to do with the self. Again, this culture accepts the face that humans are selfish and the world often resolves around the self while westerners are always trying to come up with excuses to avoid admitting to this fact.

Tati’s comments on wars were interesting to me. Watts says when you fight, fight to be selfish. I like how he just says it. We always try to pretend like there is anther motive for many of the things we do but when it comes down to it, everything we do in our daily life involves self-interest. I like how she talks about Iraq and how we claim that we are there to spread democracy but is that really the reason? I am definitely not an expert on the war but some say we are there to show our dominance over them and prove we are powerful. Is America there not trying to help rehabilitate a country but to make a name for us? His comment on how people kill people and fight wars in the name of God really struck me. He came right out and said that you should just admit that you do it for selfish reasons. I think many people may have this view but are too scared to admit it yet he just comes right out and says it.

I felt that the Alan Watts recording that we listened to in class on Tuesday was actually pretty interesting. After he went through the Western, Chinese, and Indian cultures views towards nature and the body, I couldn’t help but notice I had mixture of these ideas for my own view. Watts used the phrase “human nature” to explain how western civilization sees humans as an artifact created by God. It is a product which can betray itself with a libido that can cause man to temporarily behave in a certain negative manner. As for the eastern philosophies, I find their theories and thoughts towards nature and the body much more appealing. Indian culture believes that nature unfolds itself as a drama that stems through eternities and that the ultimate reality is the Universe itself. Chinese culture feels that the course of the nature is spontaneous and of itself. Also that virtues and human heartedness are important in understanding and connecting with surrounding nature.

Alan Watts

After hearing the speech by Alan Watts, I felt like he was talking about many different ideas at once. He talked about the various different types of trains of thoughts. He would talk about how the nature of the West has machines while India's philosophies come from drama in nature. He also talked about how China has the two main philosophies of Taoism and Confuscianism. I found it interesting how in Confuscianism you are like one drop in an ocean and that the real you is part of an entire universe. I also like how he mentioned that wars that are fought over for moral principles are some of the worst kind of wars. That makes me think of the Iraq war we are in now. It is meant to be righteous which is one of the scariest kinds of wars. America is trying spread this concept of democracy onto people but it's making a lot of turmoil in Iraq. It's like how America was against the Russians in the Cold Wars. Forcing different ideologies onto other people can be some of the most oppressive forms you can do to people. It's like you are saying that your views are right and everyone else's views aren't so it gives you the right to correct them. Watts said that is is very selfish and that you shouldn't for example, fight in the name of God because you are a sadist no matter what.

Watts about Nature

In the artifact, Alan Watts makes an interesting point that we become more aware of our unknown self through nature. Katie touches on the popular western belief that we only exist inside our human skin, but I feel that in order to unravel the hidden identity that Watts mentions; we must avoid this common image of self. When I experience nature, through a hike in the mountains for example, I feel a certain peacefulness and harmony rise from within my consciousness. I hear a voice telling me I belong here, because nature and I were created to live in unity. This type of experience is hard to put into words, but certainly relates to Watts’ notion of looking beyond the hallucination that we only exist inside our bodies.

I also thought it was captivating how Watts’ tried to create a bridge between western and eastern theories on nature. He explains that western society views nature as a machine or an artifact created by God, but I do not completely agree with this notion. I see nature as a resource to create machines or artifacts rather than an artificial mechanism itself, which contradicts the essence of nature altogether. His idea places an excessively negative connotation on the West’s interpretation of nature. Later Watts traces the Chinese theory of nature, which has no boss and is created out of spontaneous, involuntary action. They believe that nature stems from trust and virtue. Watts shines a brighter light on the Eastern theory, but as a listened to the concepts of Zidran and the Tao, I wandered where do Eastern theorists believe nature comes from? Human power? To me this just seems irrational to believe there is no boss in nature. Nonetheless, I was intrigued by Watts’ analyses of eastern and western theories.

Unable to Anticipate

Even after sitting with Watts' ideas for a day, I still feel a bit overwhelmed by being confronted with and really recognizing the multitude of perspectives concerning time, space, the physical body, and nature that span the international and cultuarlly delineated "human universe." However, in reading Katie's post, I found the following idea to be both terrifying and more overwhelming than any number of ideas, conflicting and abstract, we have talked about in class:

"The fatalist view of humans as puppets being pushed around in life is much easier to accept, although its implications are not always pleasant. It is much easier to take what life has handed to you or what you feel life has handed you and live in that small bubble."

I have never bought in to the fatalistic view of existence, and people I've met that do seem to be markedly less stressed, worried, and anxious than I, but are particularly dumb. This is not to say they are intellectually dumb, but dumb in the sense that they do not find argument or problem in the world, as it simply is the way it is and we must take what we get. If Martin Luther King Jr. "took what he could get," would racial prejudice - and perhaps even slavery - still be rampant in our society? Why is living without what I might call "life friction" so tantalizing? Isn't that a massive part of negotiating our own existence, and doesn't it give us a great sense of purpose we otherwise lack? Perhaps I am, like Erika noted, too caught up in my own human construction and belief system, but it seems that the fatalists are people who are completely secure with events because they can displace them, much like the way that humans who view the body as an entity separate from nature, community, or the universe cannot reconcile the systematic movement of everything together. To them, the body was handed down and it must be "conquered" for success.

But where do we draw the line? I will be the first to confess that I certainly see my body as a machine (and, although this might be a pure construct of my Westernized identity, it is nonetheless a driving force in how I communicate, understand, and treat others, myself, and the world). When I first began having severe stomach pains Spring Quarter of last year, I immediately went to the Health Center and followed a wild goose chase to doctor after doctor to figure out why my body was not functioning as I thought a body should, or at least, to find out why there was a kink or a cog missing in the machine. In September, when my doctors finally recognized that I had a disfunctional gallbladder and recommended that I might need surgery to remove it, I was not the least bit fazed - I had to do what I had to do to ensure that my body, the machine where my consciousness is stored, was working properly, and perhaps even to its optimum potential. Part of me was so willing to go ahead with a surgery that I was told may not relieve all of my symptoms because I was tired of being in pain, but I think most of me was just so conditioned to using my body as a tool that I felt I could not function at my full potential without this fully functional machine behind me.

So where is that line between "conquering" or "commanding" the body and appreciating its own nature? I often look at my body as something I must treat gently, kindly, something that I use to give physical voice to my self-expression. I dress it, I groom it, sometimes I put makeup on it. I use my body to do what my mind cannot on its own, and I try to respect it accordingly. I understand that I am not in full control of it, however, and that my body really has no boss - not me, not my DNA, not G-d. It is, as nature as, its own autonomous entity. However, as I do recognize and appreciate the nature of the body, I also recognize and appreciate that my body is meant to create action and motion originated by my consciousness. In this respect, the body is certainly a machine where all the parts need to work together, without problem, to achieve the ultimate goal of full physical and mental capability. After all, isn't sex really a purely physical act (in other words, can't one have sex, and procreate, with ONLY the use of the physical body)? So, can the Western idea of body as machine and the Eastern idea of the boss-less nature and trust of nature in spite of and perhaps because of its dual "good and bad parts," exist together peacefully?

I'm not sure if Watts really put a bit of a negative spin on his discussion of the Western theory of the body or if the class put it that way, but for some reason I walked away with a sort of antagonistic view of the idea of the body as a machine. However, isn't this also a positive? In cultures where the body is not seen as a machine, medicine is typically not as advanced or readily available. Is this because those cultures appreciate the nature of the body for what it is, and when it malfunctions, it is not unexpected? What if we saw the machine, but understand that it was ungoverned?

So, ultimately, isn't the body a machine that functions as a part of the wider machine of the universe? The scientific nature of both entities exists and can be studied, and the parts of these wholes do work as a machine does, with mechanical precision and a precise order. This does not mean, however, that the machine can be conquered. Just because we understand how something works does not mean we can command it or predetermine what it may do. Machines can break, and sometimes machines even undergo completely unexplained changes. We can study how the machine functions, but we will never be able to predict its capacity. Therefore, inadvertently, doesn't this post exemplify how technology could overtake man? Machines are tricky for just this reason: we understand how they work, and can sometimes work them to our advantage, but cannot, by any means, anticipate their full potentiality for use or misuse, function or disfunction, good or bad.

It's just a body

When thinking about the idea that humans are fundamentally a part of the universe, I have to agree with Katie in that it is “more common to separate the universe from the self so that the self is not responsible for the Universe.” But why is this? Why do we think of ourselves as all mighty and powerful creatures when we are really no better than the other plants and animals on our planet – in existence? Also, listening to Watt’s example of a wave in the ocean, I immediately pictured the ending Men In Black when the camera zooms out from the tiny marble like galaxy into our Galaxy, and into another group of galaxies, and finally we see it as just a marble for some aliens to play with. Thinking in these terms, we seem so insignificant, but our human tendency for greed has made us believe that we are special. We feel that our existence is far greater than anything else.

I found it interesting how Katie explained that “We take from the universe what we want and treat it however we want to treat it. How we treat it is a reflection of our sense of relation to it. If we don't sense it as ourselves, we tend to treat it badly.” I question this aspect of treating it badly. Who is to say or judge our actions? We behave in a certain way and get a certain result, but isn’t this just agreeing with the idea that the universe is a part of us as we are a part of it? It may be that I am having trouble abandoning my human construct of beliefs and that we are a product of our universe. We are shaped by it as well as we shape our universe.

In a sense, we and everything around us is nature. Everything we create comes from some sort of substance. We don’t create things out of non-existence. We simply augment what resources we have and I thought it was interesting that Watt explained our buildings as essentially the same as a bird’s nest. The only difference is that our buildings may have gone through treatments by machines, but then again, machines or technology is just an amplification of ourselves, therefore, the process of making our buildings is the same as a bird’s.

Finally, I wanted to talk a little more about the concept that we do not identify with our bodies. Actually, I believe that we don’t identify really anyone else that we truly know by their physical body. I urge anyone to first, look in the mirror at yourself. Really look. It may take 30 seconds or it may take a couple minutes, but if you’re like me, you will begin to freak yourself out. What you will see in the mirror is usually not who you think you are. You will see shapes, colors, and depth that create a transport for your “mind”. Then after you do this, do the same with someone you think you really know. I remember one time I did this to my dad. It was really odd to see his face as simply a face. It did not define who he was. In the semiotics sense, his face or entire body was the referent, but when I thought of my dad, I thought of the person I loved that had raised me and that loved me. I didn’t see him as that face. It’s really creepy to think of our bodies as this but I really think it’s true. This doesn’t mean that I don’t feel that our bodies help define who we are. I agree that the experiences we have are due in part to the limitations of our physical body, but if I were to abandon my current body now and move onto another, I would retain my sense of self and from there continue to add on to it.

Alan Watts

I think Watt's analysis of thinking of the self as only the skin you're in is completely accurate. I don't thik we think of ourselves as the whole universe. It is more common to seperate the universe from the self so that the self is not responsible for the Universe. Thus, the Universe becomes responsible for the self which gives humans an exuse for their actions and situations. The fatalist view of humans as puppets being pushed around in life is much easier to accept, although its implications are not always pleasant. It is much easier to take what life has handed to you or what you feel life has handed you and live in that small bubble. There is no effort required to change your situation, because your situation has been given to you, and that is it. Watt's challenges us to flip flop our notion of the individual and the universe.

The Individual is something the whole universe is doing. This really didn't click with me until the wave example was given. Just like every wave is something that the whole ocean is doing so is every human something the whole universe is doing. Our body is a part of a body, the universe. It is when we do not consider the universe that we mistreat the universe. We take from the universe what we want and treat it however we want to treat it. How we treat it is a reflection of our sense of relation to it. If we don't sense it as ourselves, we tend to treat it badly. The world, on the other hand, does not do this to us. The universe treats us as we truly are; it treats us as it since we are it.

In the beginning, the West treated the world as a construct of god. With the question of the existence of god, we lost the sense of all power in god's hands and took it into our own. The problem is that this means treating the world as a machine, a machine who's operation is unknown to most. Like Watt's says, most people don't even have an understanding of how the human body works, even though it is our own habitat, and we use and manipulate it as if we do know what is the essence of it. This results in irrational combinations such as morals invoked via war. This is a complete contradiction. Morals and war do not go together, and should not be used to achieve one another. To kill in the name of righteousness is unhuman. You would be killing part of the universe, yourself.

The Art of Care

Time is an issue that I battle with on a constant basis. There are the events of the past, and those events have affected our lives in the present through their reverberation through history, our rememberance of past events. Then the events of the future, yet to happen, yet easily worried about by the human mind. Many people are too anxious to experience the future and make it the past, yet always holding on for the future even as it arrives as the present.

I usually realte with alot of the things Chris says, and his use of Ouspensky is very on point. humans are so scattered, and uncentered. There are so many people I know that go around day to day still angry from events that happened days ago, dwelling in the past. And others I know are afraid to act on their present feelings because they are afraid of what it will bring in the future.

Life is a balance and I agree that this balance comes from what we are experienceing in the now. The present is always giving us new information, but our Beings sometimes aren't enough in tune with the present to perceive them fully.

Thinking, Dasienly

Like many of you, I had a hard time coming o grasp with Heidegger and his deep, amazing, all important idea of Dasein. After much searching and reading on the internet, I finally got somewhat of a clear definition. This definition came from the encyclopedia of the people, aka wikipedia, so I know that it is right. Anyway what I came to understand Desein as was closly related to Descartes and his famous saying, "I think therefore I am". Except now Heidegger takes it one step further and just essentially says "being is". It is somewhat of a circle interpretation of life because he also says we must question being by asking about a being in regards to its being. This is way to many beings.
I liked Marks post and how he tried to relate this concept to the Matrix scenes we watched in class. I would like to go down that path as well except use my own interpretation of the word Dasein. I feel this concept doesn't really answer any questions as to what it is to BE. BUt instead is a way for someone contemplating philosophy a first step in getting to the big questions. It doesn't really answer why we are here but who is here and what they are going to do with their life. It is interesting in the matrix movies that there is a lot of religious themes. First Morpheus rescues Neo from this wrong world and brings him back to a new and different time. And then Neo becomes the savior of all man kind. So this idea of life and being Dasein relates to how Neo thought he was in real life but then a catalyst, MorpheUs, and the idea of Dasein saved him and then he became the savior of the world.

Follow the White Rabbit..

Along the course of this class I’ve been known to so often compare these works with other’s that I know, others that I am truly fond of and resonate within me. This post will offer little in contrast to that but it should be fun all the same.

There was once a Buddhist master who commented on the states of being. To do this he presented a stick. This stick he then balanced on the tip of one finger so that his finger was acting as a pivot in the center of the stick. He said that the stick was time and one end represented the past, the other the future and in the center, where his finger held the stick, was the present.

The monk went on to explain that there are many ways to ‘be’. We can ‘be’ at many different stages along this timeline but all are dangerous save for one. To demonstrate this he place his finger on the end representing the past and the timeline suddenly shifted as if some great weight threw off the balance of some cosmic scale. This, he said, was the danger of living in the past. Placing his finger on the other end of the stick a similar effect happened and he explained that this was the danger of living in the future. Finally he placed his finger in the center and with a mighty force he pressed against it but there was no shift in the balance of time. He explained then that the only place to be is in the present, in the center where we retain balance.

There are few who believe in a state of enlightenment and fewer still who decide to pursue it. This author, Ouspensky, that I have referred to throughout this quarter has offered insight into my understanding of this course and it seems that he has something to offer in the way of ‘being’ as well.

I’ve often said that we are all asleep and by this I mean that we are not aware. That’s right, you heard me, you are not aware. You are no more aware of yourself than you are of the mind of your neighbor and you are less aware of the world around you than you are of distant solar systems of which you’ve never even seen. This might come as some great shock to you and in the moment of this shock I dare say you are awake but the moment that this realization dawns on you that awareness it gone and back to sleep we return. I bring this to your attention now because I want you to understand that ‘being’ is a state of awareness.

Often in our lines, more often than not, we are in a state of waking sleep where we are on auto-pilot. We go about our days the same as we do every day and the choices that we make are merely an illusion. We often don’t bother to take the time to even consider our actions, why it is that we do them, the ulterior motives or the connection with our personality and our essential being. Rarely, if ever, are we stilled with such insight that suddenly all the pieces seem to fit together, our actions become clear to us and the dizzy haze of our sleep subsides to that for the briefest of moments we can see clearly – this is enlightenment.

It comes as little shock to me the Heidegger might consider the states of being and their connection with one another. It also fails to surprise me that The Matrix is filled with analogies to this same effect as well as metaphors referencing this sleeping and waking state when applied to consciousness.

I believe that the shock that many of us have confessed to, including Daemian, in regards to seeing the Matrix the first time is simply this – we were confronted, in a very real way, with the possibility that we are indeed in a state of non-being, of sleep. The matrix doesn’t need the high-tech gloss that this movie has given us to exists, it already has you. “You have been living in a dream world Neo.” While enlightenment may not grant us the superhuman powers that the movie offers it does hold one ultimate power worth the pursuit – clear sight.

I am the white rabbit.

To go off of Preston’s idea how we cannot escape technology in our life, I agree that it is taking over our lives and I fear this. We can’t even buy a cell phone today without being tracked and monitored with every step we take. Employers can track every single email you send and receive. Google Earth has made it possible to zoom in to other’s neighborhoods and private areas. Our pets are now being chipped so we can monitor their every move. Internet companies can follow every webpage you visit while browsing on the intranet. When does technology go from being helpful and productive to invasive and inappropriate?

The Matrix clips we watched in class were a great example of when technology goes too far. Technology became so advanced that it eventually ended society as we know it. Instead of helping mankind to grow and be better, it destroyed it and turned it into a horrible place. Everything became virtual. Humans literally layed down in a cell and were hooked up to virtual gear 24 hours a day. The world had become so horrible that they must escape it all day every day. Are people really human once this happens? Is it even worth living when what you are doing is never REALLY what you are doing?

Being there is a state of mind

From Heideggar's article on Dasein, he says that "...the mode of Being-There-that is, in the mode of a state of mind." I feel like this point can be applied to the Matrix scenes that we watched on Thursday. Neo was living in the Matrix which was a computer program designed to control people. This system of mental control allowed machines to use people as batteries essentially. Neo learns through the simulations after he is ejected from the Matrix and ends up with Morpheus and his crew that he must distinguish what is real and what is not. It was a matter of a state of mind from the virtual reality of the Matrix and the stark real world that the freed people lived in.

Another thing that Heideggar says is that "Fear is anxiety, fallen into the 'world', inauthentic, and, as such, hidden from itself." From this again it can be related to the Matrix. I see this from when Neo is afraid of finding out the truth about the real world an the Matrix. When Morpheus was explaining in the first scenes about the truth about the Matrix, Neo was in disbelief. Neo said that it was impossible that machines could control humans as energy and batteries. He was also in disbelief about the Matrix as a method of control. When Neo wakes up in the real world he goes crazy and vomits on the floor of Morpheus' ship. I would be afraid too if suddenly what I depended upon as real was suddenly a dream world meant for a hidden agenda for the entire human race.

Dasien in the Matrix

The excerpt from Heidegger’s Being and Time was a very complex and abstracted reading that demanded further research and a dictionary at hand to make any sense whatsoever. After some contemplation, I interpreted Dasien as a temporary and abstract being which reveals the essence of human existence. Essentially, it is a question of what it means to be in this world. In the artifact for last class, the clips from the Matrix, I believe the directors are questioning Heidegger’s Dasien being through the main character, Neo. In Neo’s dream world, he exists as what we perceive to be a conventional human being, a computer programmer who enjoys partying and lives in a typical urban setting. However, when Morpheus contacts him about the Matrix, Neo discovers the reality of his existence is a world dominated by machines which enframe human beings as natural resources of energy. Later Morpheus shows Neo the powers of the Matrix, such as its ability to transport one into an entirely immersive virtual world where anything from human talents, to facial features, to a living room can be downloaded. The Matrix questions what defines reality and our sense of being in a world overtaken by technology.

Leslie noted how the unifying factor of anxiety is care, and how care brings a sense of unity within our existence. Heiddegger writes: “Care does not characterize just existentially…it embraces the unity of these ways in which Being may be characterized. Certainly in Neo’s case, the care of Morpheus and his crew unites Neo’s dream world with the reality of existence in a destructive machine-controlled society, and ultimately leads to Neo’s defeat of this dark, blood thirst civilization. The classic motion picture The Matrix echoes various aspects of Heidegger’s concept of Dasien through excessive symbolism and brilliant action sequences.

Technology and Dasein

Wow… so I’ve spent the last hour or so trying to figure out exactly what the heck Heidegger is saying, and to no avail, I still haven’t figured it out. Like Leslie, I somewhat understand this idea of Dasein as existence and being aware of that existence. And even with rounds of Google searches in hope of trying to find some dissection of this article, I found none that made any sense; therefore, I’m not going to try to pretend I know what I’m talking about. However, I will comment on Leslie’s take of technology and its lack of Dasein. It would make sense that technology is lacking in that it isn’t aware of its existence – all by itself, but what happens with the application of “cyborg”? What happens when we implant ourselves with technology? Doesn’t this technology now have a form of artificial intelligence, which seemingly we are relating to care? Take for instance an artificial heart-valve. Once implanted into our bodies it ideally works in perfect harmony with our body. Obviously, it doesn’t have a mind of its own, but it seems to have a sense of existence. To some extent it knows its role and “cares” for those around it. Well, because I could very well be way off-based I conclude with this idea that maybe technology can have Dasein.

Care as Separator of Human from Technology

I found the Heidegger excerpt from "Being and Time" on Dasein as care somewhat convoluted and hard to follow. After a little research into the Heideggerean concept of Dasein, I began to understand it as a being defined by temporality that exists with an acute awareness of that existence. Following a somewhat shaky understanding of this abstraction, it is interesting to read into Heidegger's assertion that Dasein "fills in the signification of the term 'care,' which is used in a purely ontologico-existential manner."

Heidegger determines that what gives unity to the existential structures of Dasein is revealed through the state of mind of anxiety. Furthermore, the unifying factor of anxiety is care. Care brings together the two seemingly conflicting modes of Being for Dasein: a being ahead-of-itself (future) already-in-the-world (present) and a being-alongside-others (past). Not only does this outline bring out the idea of individual identity vs. society that we have been studying so closely in class, but it also references the change in view of history and perception with new technology.

So, examining the idea of Dasein as care in the context of technology, it is apparent that the human exists in different states of history (future, present, and past) as well as different states of "oneness" (the individual already-in-the-world and the societial view of the being defined as a communal being, or a being-alongside-others). Heidegger's ideas, then, connect directly with the issues in technology that we have dissected in class. While the human could be defined as one being of Dasein, technology most certainly couldn't, considering its current inability to be aware of its own existence. Therefore, we see that the difference between humanity and technology, including the new technologies of artificial intelligence, will always be separated by Heidegger's definition of care. Personally, I agree with this interpretation of Heidegger's work, but I believe part of the reason that I feel this way is because technology has not yet surpassed the human intellect.

On our discussion topic of advertising, I feel that McLuhan has a very dated view. Had he seen the current state of advertising he would have changed his tune as to insinuating that advertising is a blessing rather than a plague. It has reached a state of saturation that was touched on in the class as making people “numb” but I believe it has a much greater effect than what most people consciously realize. In McLuhan’s time advertising changed gears in some ways, whether he was aware of it or not. The concept of “creating a need” through an advert campaign, is an integral foundation to what it has become today. Selling a lifestyle of what you need to be, shaping body image, and praying on the insecurities of an over stimulated populous. I found it humorous how it was mentioned, in connection to McLuhan’s correlation of adverts with art, that an artist lubricates the public to change. This was specifically referring to the adoption of capitalism in formerly soviet states. Well it’s certainly lubricating the public for something.

Consumerism is idea engrained into our psyches from the deluge of advertisements. The fact that the GDP is an acceptable way to gauge how the country is doing, rather than public school quality, or advances in medical science, among other things. Which, in my opinion, is disgusting.

Also, on a related note:

Buy nothing Day is coming up, click the picture for more info.

A.D.D.S.

After talking about the McLuhan article, I remember how he said that there is a change in mentality when people think about advertisements. We discussed in class how technology has affected the way people think. McLuhan in particular would reference how Gutenberg technology was innovative especially since it altered how people would relate to things in a typographic way. The printing press allowed replication of written works in a more efficient way and hence changed the mentality of people as they had more access to various texts.

In class, we talked about how advertisements are constantly trying to pry our attention and get us interested in what they want us to buy into. McLuhan said that with an overstimulus of the senses, you develop a numbness. This can be related to how we often develop a mental block or short attention span to the bombardment of advertisements. I know that I often get emails advertising like from Amazon.com or something in my email that are trying to promote special deals and I often delete them without reading them. I find it annoying to be interrupted so much with products. I feel like I develop A.D.D. and lose attention quite quickly when I am not interested in a certain line of products.

Artvertising

After reading Erika's blog, I really connected with what she had to say. I am actually a marketing major with a minor in DMS, so when I see an advertisement I enjoy dissecting everything about it in order to see what was done well and what could be improved. I then use this information when I am creating advertisements or marketing plans for school or work. I currently have an internship with a telecommunications company and my job is to help them come up with a marketing plan to advertise a new high speed internet product they have come out with. So now I look at advertisements done by Qwest or Comcast and evaluate what they have done with their telecommunications business. I would say then that I enjoy some advertisements because it helps me with the pursuit of my passions.

I like this idea that McLuhan has about the artistic value of marketing and the corporate image. But what is art anyway? One has to define this term before I can say if ads are artistic or not. so to me art is something that sparks new thought. Be it by totally creating new idea or taking something that we have seen a thousand times but never looked at it in a particular way before. That is what makes art appealing to me, making me think about something I have never thought of before. So some advertisements have this effect on me, the creativity behind some of these pieces is just memorizing to me. It could be an ad about a screaming little brat of a kid that tells you to use condoms, or it as simple as the arrow in the negative space in between the FedEx logo. I love the fact that advertisers must be constantly thinking outside the box for their ads to get noticed in the oversaturated marketplace. I love this challenge because it feels really good when you turn an idea into an actual piece of art that is enjoyed by your target market. There isn't an advertisement out there, just like there isn't a piece of art, that is appealing to everyone. So while it is obnoxious to be bombarded with all these advertisements that are not even targeted at us, it is nice to sometimes come across an ad that is aesthetically appealing, I can relate to, and makes me think in a new way. And when I come across an ad like this, I sit back and appreciate the work of art and after that is done I might even think about buying the product.

Lullabies We Live By…

Here is it, 12:20 in the morning and I have almost been awake for 24 hours straight now. At this state of near delirium I think it’s almost appropriate that I attempt to tackle one of McLuhan’s points that has the strongest pull for me. Since I don’t believe a paraphrase would do it justice I’ll offer a quote:

“That every generation poised on the edge of massive changes should later seem oblivious of the issues and the imminent event would seem to be natural enough. But it is necessary to understand the power and thrust of technologies to isolate the senses and thus hypnotize society. The formula for hypnosis is “one sense at a time.” And new technology possesses the power to hypnotize because it isolates the senses … Every new technology thus diminishes sense interplay and consciousness, precisely in the new area of novelty where a kind of identification of viewer and object occurs. This somnambulist conforming of beholder to the new form of structure renders those most deeply immersed in a revolution the least aware of its dynamic.”

I must admit that McLuhan’s work isn’t a favorite of mine thus far but this statement is incredibly powerful to me. We’ve spoken before about a work of Daniel Quinn called Ishmael. In this Ishmael puts a name to a ‘song’ he says is sung to keep the populace quiet, complacent and asleep. There he suggests that this song of Mother Culture is the very hymn that dulls our consciousness and prevents us from reacting, even mildly, to the cliff’s edge we so obviously seem to be hurdling towards at breakneck speed.

Could the hymn of technology and Mother Culture be one in the same? I’ve often noted that when McLuhan suggests technology allows us to extend our senses to incredible length that some form of numbness develops. So long as our senses are strained at these unnatural extents we seem oblivious to the immediate world around us. In this global village we’ve become so ‘aware’ of issues taking place all across our world that we’re often completely ignorant to the issues facing our immediate surroundings.

So often in this class I find myself playing the part of a pessimist but never have I been confronted with concepts that I feel are so very relevant to my view of this world. My ‘numbness’ to things like advertisement is not due to an over stimulus but from my active choice to moderate where my attention is given. The truth of the matter is that I see the cliff’s edge steadily approaching and I see it taking all of us further away from the world I love. If I did not close my eyes to these painful and blatant signs of forthcoming danger I couldn’t function; I would find myself screaming all my might to wake a world that has been so long asleep.

We’ve talked about advertising and how it is everywhere, both obvious and subtle. We’ve agreed, as Erika mentions, that it is a part of everything including our homes, our sanctuary and place of privacy. So willingly we bring these icons into our homes without a further thought; they’re harmless after all, right? But now I have to ask you, with all these sources pulling at us in every direction, invading our thoughts while we wake and even while we sleep, do you have any idea if these thoughts in your head truly belong to you? In a world where we’re entrenched, drowning in advertisement and subliminal messages we become, as Haraway says, nodes in this network. While we’re plugged in can we ever be truly certain that our thoughts, our feelings and our beliefs are truly our own or are they simply the product of this relay network propagating an ever constant signal?

I believe that there is hope and there is a chance to save these qualities of a world that is quickly becoming trivialized. I believe that this hope lies in consciousness, both self-consciousness and objective consciousness. I only hope that we can wake from Mother Culture’s hymn before it’s too late.

advertisement...

McLuhan's general position on advertising is that it can indeed be a legitimate mode of communication. Advertisement defuses high arts into the common consciousness. I would not like to argue against this stand, because I agree with the position that advertisement is a form of communication, but what I would like to discuss is that which is being advertised. Advertisement revolves around the commodity. The way advertising exists now is strictly a product of consumerism. It is a form of communication that is limited by the promotion of a good or service which is very often superficial and of minuscule importance in the scheme of the whole world. But what if advertising continued on with the "democratization of art" but with different intent and a de-emphasis on materialism and consumerism? What if the way in which news was presented to us was in the form of an ad? In class, we've talked about McLuhan's notion of selling your attention to companies that advertise towards you, so why couldn't we "sell" our attention to communicate with and pay attention to issues that really matter? This would not be profitable for the big company, unless if the sale of a good was somehow incorporated into the scheme. For example, if company X began an environmentally sound project in Honduras which was not only environmentally safe but also a benefit to Hondurans throughout the country, it could advertise its development and then say something like help our company continue these beneficial advances in Honduras and all over the world by buying our product, etc. But maybe the advertisement of world issues could go farther beyond what we currently understand advertisement as and not strive to sell a good or product at all. Since advertisement is an artistic means to communicate a certain message, that message can be decided by the creator. If this is true, then the creator can choose to not set the goal at promoting and selling a product in the way we know it but by selling and promoting information on serious issues in our world. I don't know what the effect would be, but if advertising works for the consumer world, why couldn't it work for the information world?

Ads, they're everywhere

Taking from Maggie and Leslie’s blogs, I am intrigued by what they had to say about ads as art. For me particularly, my goal is to be a graphic designer for a marketing group, which I fortunately got a start with my job this summer. I found it interesting to hear their reactions to ads and or billboards, as I was lucky enough to actually design some billboards that have been placed around the state and understand what went into the process of creating them. I was somewhat saddened to hear that ads can be seen as invasive and undesirable. I do agree that there is an overwhelming amount of them, but from my standpoint, I try to absorb whatever I can so I can make a better ad. Maggie pointed out that ads are virtually everywhere and that it takes a special advertisement to really stand out and make an impact on you. In relation to McLuhan, this all makes sense in that we are desensitized by the plethora of information our senses our receiving. He states that changes only occur when there are radical changes in the general structure or feeling of things. So does this mean in order to have an effective ad, it must be so drastic and outrageous to even get noticed?

Something else I wondered about had to do with again what Maggie said about an author of a book and his target market. In my opinion, this is the difficulty due to diversity and different attention structures. We are different – there’s no contesting that and if one person deems a writing style ineffective or lacking, someone else may find it Godly or entirely stimulating. Who knows?

Just another idea that this has sprung is the idea: Isn’t everything a form of advertising? Well, at least physical commodities? Actually, I take that back. Couldn’t my personality and how I converse with a friend be a way of advertising some experience I had? I know this may be slightly off topic, but that puzzles me. As I sit here, I look around my living room and see that everything is some form of advertising. (So, sorry Chris – you can’t escape it!) So this seems to be why we are so desensitized, but then again to play devil’s advocate, are we really that desensitized? We are a commodity driven society and like it or not we will continue to buy things that we feel we need. What is it that is telling us that we need something? A: It’s always some form of ad.

Finally, ads as art. I’m not about to disagree since I’m a DMS student that makes ads. Currently, for another class I am reading all about semiotics (the study of signs) and it’s interesting how much our lifestyles are shaped by our culture, which in turn is forming all these signs. As an example, our culture which reads left to right will view billboards differently than a Chinese culture may that reads right to left. If we were to split the ad vertically, we would view the left as something that is familiar and the right as something that is new or to be discovered. It is these sort of things that must be taken into account when creating ads, more importantly, effective ads that target this society. This could mean that different cultures respond differently when different senses are stimulated. So in that case, maybe we are stuck too deep into the idea of visual stimulation and that is why our ads have developed into this art form.