Final

1. Book groups: the additional texts have been a key component of the course. How has the work in your book groups differed from that which takes place in our discussions of the other texts in class and elsewhere (plurk & blogs)? What kinds of discussions are possible in the setting of the book groups? What is not possible within these settings?

I found that my book group was very successful, everyone participated and the book was very entertaining. I was surprised that our book group worked out so well because we had to figure out how to set it up, with no restrictions or guidelines, this could have easily been a complete disaster. We were able to base our discussion off of some of the main topics in class and from the other books, and in addition we had the freedom to explore other issues and topics we had with the book, that we might not have been able to in class.
For our book group we took a different approach to discussion and used Facebook, which turned out to be very useful, our statements were able to be a lot longer than the usual 140 characters we are given on plurk. Facebook was very similar to a forum like format, instead of a blog all of our contributions were kept in the same place, making it very convenient. Facebook is also a place that I go everyday, which made it easy for me to keep up with the conversation. Our book was different from class because we did not talk face to face about the book, except for the couple of meetings we had in class. And we also did not have one person stimulating the conversation and trying to direct the conversation in a certain way, each of us posted topic meant to stimulate the conversation and most of the time they didn’t pertain to the topic before it, this made it so our conversation went in many unexpected directions. I think this made it very successful because we covered a lot of interesting things taking place in the book, instead of one or two that was stretched out into a long conversation. I think our book group differed quite a bit from what usually goes on in and out of class, except for the themes of the book that related to the other books and class discussions.
Even though I thought the book group was very successful if I were to do it again I would have done it a little different. During our short book group meeting in class I found that our discussion about the book flowed a lot better between us than it did through the facebook forum. I was able to get a better idea as to where we were at when we had our meetings and really get a feel as to how everyone else felt about the book when we used out human voices and not our keyboards to discuss the book. So I think that it would have been wise to get together and have one or two good discussions about the book. I also thought while reading it would have been nice to get on plurk and just say what I was thinking about what I just read as I was going along. I thought this would have been fun; a kind of note taking that others would comment on and be apart of. It would almost make us more closely linked together, as one, almost in the same way plurk does for the class. One final thing missing from the group was the teacher to point out themes and ideas that we may have missed that would have brought us closer to the theme of the class.

2. Plurk: Without it the class would not be the class. Using the texts we have read in class explain how plurk fits in with the issues of technology and the human body that we have discussed thus far.

Plurk, what do I have to say about plurk? I have to admit that when it was first introduced to the class as part of your grade, I had no I deal what the point was. I thought, well this is useless, every week we get an assignment to do on plurk and that’s it. Then I started sharing things with plurk, I carefully picked what I was going to share, then as the quarter went on I became less careful and just shared whatever I wanted. Finally in the end I realized what plurk is all about, it isn’t about the assignments (that became nonexistence in the end, which could be attributed to the high traffic and comments already occurring on plurk) or the karma level (even if it is fun to see how high it will be the next day), its about bringing a bunch of people (the big) together on one website to share 140 characters at a time (the small).
It is true that the class would not be the same without plurk, the heart of the class would be missing. Without the continual beat of the heart we would die and that is the same thing for plurk, without the constant plurking and responses plurk would die off. Everyone in class is a part of the super organism, known as plurk, and everyone keep the super organism functioning and makes it possible for it to continue to grow. Through plurk our class was able to function as one and always stay connected inside and outside of class. People have the opportunity to share things that normally they would not feel comfortable sharing in class, making the class even more successful because we were able to hear (read) even more opinions, expanding the class and giving it more depth.
With plurk we are able to create a kind of doppelganger of ourselves. When I am on plurk and blogspot I am no longer Kaitlin, but I am a piece of Kaitlin known as Babyduff, my physical self is different than the mask I put on for plurking. I can say things that I would not say in other situations, it gives me the opportunity to share what ever I please. The screen names we create are things that mask us from the world, but at the same time allow us to share who we truly are.
The technology world is evolving at an extremely fast pace and continues to get faster, as we saw in those wonderfully creepy videos. Plurk has come along with the new fad of “Twitter”, it may be much more under appreciated, even if it is a more efficient system. But it gets to the same point, the ability to give the world up to the moment update of your actions and thoughts throughout the day, giving the world the option of listening and commenting on your plurks. This technology allows you to put. Well “you” out there or at least a piece of you. This piece of you, no matter how much you share is very small compared to the larger technology it is contained in, known as the World Wide Web. Plurk is a nanotechnology, and the things we share on plurk is our nanotext. The final question is will we continue Plurk after the class has officially come to an end? Will we still have a need to put ourselves out there?

3. The Small: this class focused on the small—at least it was supposed to at this point—that is here at the end—what does “the small” mean to you? Draw upon our readings, discussions, random websites, to develop your position.

I look at the small a little differently than I use to, the small I thought about seems a lot larger than it use to, but at the same time some of the things I did not think of as small, seem very small now. Compared to the universe, even Earth, I am miniscule, makes me think that my life has no purpose when compared to the scale of everything. Even in terms of my life, what I’m doing right now (I guess it’s in the past now) will be very small in comparison to what I will do with the rest of my life. But naturally I don’t think that way, I am big because I am living in my life which is really my only concern and what I am doing is not insignificant when it is part of my day. But then there is the point if a pen that can have an entire book on it, which makes me feel that the idea of what is small, is hard to describe and figure out what it really means. I guess the small that relates to me is something I normally don’t think of as small.
Looking at the small in terms of technology has been apart of the class discussions, Plurk, Blogs and videos. One of my favorite class discussions we had this year was about aesthetics versus politics, these don’t seem to relate to the idea of “the small”, but I see them that way after looking back. These two views are so small in the scale of who a person really is, we are not concerned with why people have these views, and how they got to this point. We are more concerned with who they voted for or what CD they are playing in their car. These things are so small in comparison to who a person really is, but to us they seem really important and make a big difference. Plurk easily fits into the small because we are almost always able say as much as we want (with the exception of a text) and suddenly we have to express ourselves in 140 characters, quite small. Then there are our blogs which are small in a different way, I’m able to say as much as I want, but in comparison to the rest of the internet and the blog world, my opinion I put out there suddenly seems very small. We saw many videos this year, The Power of 10, which really showed us how small we are, as well as probably the most entertaining video with the Seven Dwarfs and the extremes they go to, to protect themselves from mosquitoes (small) and malaria (big) they bring with them that destroys your life. I found it interesting that something so small can seem like such a big threat to us. The small came up in many aspect of the class inside and outside and I also found myself looking for and many times missing the small that is in the books we read.
Many of the books we read, you had look at the small, not the book as a whole, to get something more meaningful out of it. In the case of the Filth it was extremely important to look at the small on every page, taking a Where’s Waldo approach to the pictures on the pictures. The pictures play just as big a role (if not bigger) in the theme and the story of the Filth as the dialog does. I found it especially interesting when the Mickey Mouse ears and Donald Duck were pointed out to me in class, these were something that blended into the back ground and if you scan over them and only look at the bog picture you will miss the hidden theme of the loss of childhood. I have always found it hard to find themes and points that are hidden within the text, I’ve never been good at finding and looking at the small within a book. This may be why for much of the class I was lost, the reading did not always make sense to me and the beginning of the discussions in class seemed out of no where, but eventually when the themes I looked over (usually the small) were pointed out to me, and it clicked. Everything works together and the small is extremely important to the big picture because without understanding the small you really don’t understand the big picture to it’s fullest potential.

4. Animals and Machines: our texts have been filled with both of these things. Working with Ribofunk and Ronell & Kac’s text Life Extreme, make a case for the difference between animals and machines. Is there such a difference? And where do humans fit in all of this?

I found it very interesting when animals became apart of this class, machines were always apart of the. And to think of the two as similar when they seem like opposites, one being man made and the other being organic. Oh wait…that’s the point not all animals are so organic anymore, we especially see this in Ribofunk’s “Little Worker” and the many horrifying pictures and descriptions in Life Extreme. I took a biology class last quarter that introduce DNA modifying, but I never thought of the extreme that Ribofunk took it to, which is starting to become a reality.
Ribofunku had many interesting stories in it, but one that suck out to me and we had a long discussion about in class was “Little Worker”. It seems unthinkable that science would think to create a hybrid of 12 different species, which include human and wolverine. The interesting thing is how all those species blend together and the consequences of mixing them in this way, it seems that the major conflict with this in the story is the unhealthy emotional attachment that Little Work takes towards her master. This story takes into account the consequences of playing God.
Life Extreme was an interesting text, using quotes along side pictures of beautiful thing or quite horrifying things. After reading each quote it does not seem that these would go along with some of these pictures, then you realize that the purpose of the book is to look at the beauty of the natural world, along side the effect humans are having on what should be beautiful, and take quotes that make you think about how past views don’t work any more because of human interaction.
During class we also got a real close look at technology and where it may be headed in Technocalyps. The fact that there could be robots that learn and develop in a very similar way to humans is scary. That we are making and heading towards the creation of technology that could lead to our demise as humans. Creating things that have the potential to be smarter and stronger than humans could ever be.
So where does this leave us? How does this all relate? I think it is obvious that now that humans have started to interfere with nature it has made them less than organic and more manmade. “Manmade” is not a word we usually relate to animals, but is more closely related to the machines we have invented. Machines are in no way natural, while animals would normally be without question considered natural, until now…It seem soon animals will become closer to machines than to what they originally were. What would Darwin say?
After describing all of this it seems that is now harder to find the difference between animals (modified) and machines. But they have to be different right? First of all animals will always have to be made up of DNA, no matter how different it is from its original form. Animals grow and develop in a way that machines will never be able to (at least I don’t think they will be able to), machines may be able to learn in similar ways to animals, but animals go through stages of development. Animals can evolve on their own, while machines must be change physically.
It seems that humans are the cause of all this, we use animals for experiments, usually in the hopes to better our life by finding cures for diseases. But we experiment on animals to see how much we can play God. First man created tools and then we created machine, all in an effort to create a better life. But now it seems that we are taking it to the extreme, I think eventually we won’t have to do anything, little machines like an iphone, will do anything we want it to do. There’s basically an app for anything already. I hope that’s all we have to worry about (not doing anything), not the machine that takes over the humans.
Well, after taking this class and thinking about how we are digging ourselves a hole through the constant need to create new things and change what is naturally there. And here I thought “The Inconvenient Truth” was all I had to deal with.

5. Doubles/Doppelgang: Beginning with our first novel, The Invention of Morel, the theme of doubles or copies has been coming up again and again. First, explain how you see the notion of the double in each of the thematic sections of the course:

1. The photographic double: Morel, The Ticket that Exploded, Film in general
2. The biological double: the clone, the splice, the twin
3. The double achieved through other means: brainwashing, time travel, pataphysics

Using these three types as a departure point explore how the concept of the double changes with the technology that produces it. Does the notion of just one double hold in the twenty-first century?

1. I never though of a photograph or a video of me as a double, I only considered it a capture of a moment in my life and in time. But after being introduced to the idea that a picture or video is me, just in another form, is an interesting concept. I live most of my life without it being documented by a camera, so I start to wonder what happens to the past me, I guess that means I no longer exists in any form. So there is only one of me, the present me. But what happens when on the rare, special or hopefully epic event that I do use a camera? This must mean that I am creating a double of myself that will forever be more than a memory of that moment or moments. This double can then be located in more than one place (does that mean there are multiple doubles of one moment?) on my computer, camera, ipod, album, disc drive and the list goes on and on. This double made through a camera is a part of me that is frozen in that moment that I can now look back on and bring up many of the feelings I had when that double was made.
2. The clone or the double is difficult to think about since it is not as closely linked to my life as a photograph is. We mostly talked about the clone as a doppelganger, which is an interesting concept. Someone who is biologically you, same DNA, but expresses itself in a different way than the original you does. The original self is raised one way and their experiences make them the person they are, so when a copy is made of that person it cannot be expected that the clone or doppelganger will have the same personality and act with the same restraints. I consider clones different people with the same DNA, similar to twins. I just don’t see people as defined by their DNA, but by their actions.
3. The most interesting and confusing video we watch all quarter was Primer, which dealt with time travel and the doubles that are created through it. This movie was very confusing to me so I don’t quite understand what happens to the doubles. I’m not sure if they disappear after a period of time or if every time they time travel they create another copy of themselves that lives until it dies like any other human. I got the feeling that they just keep duplicating copies of themselves and then those doubles start off with the same personality as the original (basically the same person), and then through their personal experiences they grow and develop on their own.

As far as the notion of one double existing in the twenty-first century, under these standards, does not seem plausible. Especially when a picture or a video is considered a double, then there is the development of cloning, which may not be preformed on humans, but more than one double of an animal is possible. I think it is hard to determine what the twenty-first century will offer in terms of doubles.

Primer (Review?)

I have a feeling this is a movie that no matter how many times I see it I still won't have a complete grasp on it. I wonder whether the writers/director/actor, Shane Carruth, has all the details truly figured out, does he know what happens to all the doubles, that he does not show in the movie. There are many things that left me pondering what happened and what they meant. This is definitely a movie that is meant to be discussed, pondered and maybe even come to our own conclusions?

So as far as understanding the film, I would say that on a scale of 1 to 10, a 5. So if my conclusions and ideas are off, you will know why. I found this movie especially confusing because of the dialog, the way the two main characters talked to each other made it hard to follow most of the time. I found myself missing parts of what they said, like it went in one ear and out the other. I am almost positive this is not my fault because I was really trying to pay attention and I'm a big movie buff and I have never had that much trouble following the dialog. This caused there to have many holes in the story line for me. I was left with many questions, like what was there original invention suppose to be for? And what happened to the other two guys? The flow of the movie was static and hard to follow at times, I know this is to be expected in independent films, but this flow was as confusing as the time traveling that the characters were taking. Speaking of the time traveling, I somewhat understood how they did it, warm up machine, go back, spend time in a box and then you are back in the u-haul, back in time. How far back in time depends on how long you are in the aluminum box. I just didn't understand what happens to the doubles that they created, do they eventually disappear or are they around forever. In the end of the movie I only thought there were two left of the original characters, but if one double still existed then the rest must too, but what happened to them? Did I miss something?

So what happened to the other doubles? Did they disappear or do they forever alter the world around them? Well hypothetically I believe that they most of them came to the same conclusion, either stick around or get the hell out of there. I figure if a double of Aaron (or is it the original Aaron?) could leave his wife and kid easily, then well who knows what happened to the rest of his doubles. And his friend, well…stocking the originals or the doubles, making sure they don’t step out of line and do exactly what he did. I guess lessons learned by one double is a lesson learned for all.

Then there’s the thing about the ear bleeding, was that ever cleared up? So their ears started bleeding, Aaron after once in the box and Abe after a couple times. This means the damage (I’m assuming this is damage) is passed on to each double. So what does this mean for the doubles, are they going to be altered in some way? Personalities, mental capacity, life span…Is it possible that the effects on the doubles will also occur on the original? Is there even an original anymore? Oh wow, I just realized that all I have are questions about this movie, no real conclusion about what I saw. So what does this mean about how I feel about this movie?

“Prime” was the type of movie that draws you in by your complete confusion. You don’t know what is going on in the beginning so you keep watching, you don’t know what is going on in the middle of the movie, but you feel like you are getting closer to figuring it out so you continue watching, then in the end you still have no idea what is going on. Well this then makes you want to watch the movie again in the hopes that you will eventually figure it out. It’s a relatively entertaining movie, I probably won’t see it again, I just want someone to tell me the things I don’t understand. For a $7,000 dollar movie it is really good and I didn’t really notice the lack of technology in a science fiction movie, the aluminum boxes were believable. I give it a 7 out of 10. I just wish I would have understood it a little better.

Is a Jar of Peanut Butter the Best Way to Describe Me?

Sure every time I go out I spread a little bit of myself on those that I interact with. And I really spread it on thick when I share my opinion and life story with someone. But the idea of a jar of peanut butter makes it sound like when I take some of myself out and share it with another person, I am losing that part. I know that I am constantly filling my jar, but do I have to be constantly emptying it to take more in? I also feel that I can share the same thing more than once, spreading myself even farther, but I can't do this if I already took that peanut butter out. I just don't feel that a jar of peanut butter is the best way to describe the way we take in our experiences and share those with others.

One way that I think makes it easier to understand, especially in this generation is texting (please don't think of me as a huge texter, I don't even text everyday, it's just the first thing that I thought of). Okay, here goes: For texting there is an inbox and an outbox and a phone saves all of the texts you send and recieve. You can then forward previous texts you have sent or recieved. You always get new texts and you keep your old texts, at least for a period of time. After a period of time or when the inbox and outbox get too full the oldest ones will be deleted, just like memories. But if a text really important you save that one and it will always be there, until you delete it. I just feel this is a better way to describe how people share themselves with those around them, but yet are ableto keep some of themselves.

Doppleganger

When I was younger I always thought someone out there in the world exactly like me. I 100% believed that the world is so big and there are so many people out there, that there were two of everyone. Part of me thought there was someone that looked exactly like me out there or someone who thought the same thoughts as me. This seemed like a definite possibility to me and it was comforting to me, I believe it was comforting because when your younger it feels good to know that you're not different than everyone else and there's someone you can relate to. Now I think to see someone who looks exactly like me would scare the sh*t out of me, even to think that there is someone who thinks the same things as me is frightening. To think that I am not an individual, that the way I look, the things I have done and gone through, and the way I look at the world can be reflected in another person, makes me feel like the way I have affected those around me is not as important or meaningful as I thought.

The idea of the evil side of me expressed in a doppelganger is even scarier. I know I have demons inside of me, as well as any person does (even the happiest and friendliest person I have met), but what makes me a good person is my ability to keep those demons under control. Some of the demons I know of include a bad temper (commonly known as the infamous "Duffy temper gene"), holding grudges, being judgmental, and anger. These are the ones that I consciously have to battle with, I know that deep down that there are even more demons (hey I'm human) that I don't have to consciously battle with often, but there still there. It would be frightening to see a doppelganger of my self that expresses these traits and keeps my good traits held under the surface. It sure would make you question who you really are, if someone who is essentially you could act that way, it would make you think about the possibility of you showing these horrible characteristics to others. Do we sometime unconsciously do this? I don't want to see my bad qualities, give me a doppelganger of all my good qualities.

Thinking about my evil doppelganger makes me want to be a better person, just to prove to myself that these qualities of my evil doppelganger are not me. The biggest problem I want to face with my doppelganger is not an emotional one, but the fight for survival when my friends can't tell me apart from my doppelganger, case in point: http://www.hulu.com/watch/1588/saturday-night-live-doppleganger.

Religion in everything?

After watching the last part of Technocalyps I began to think about all the other places we can find religion and faith. I don't think of myself as a religious, but I also don't think I am without religion or faith. I think it is impossible to live in the USA (well, anywhere) and not be affected by faith or religion. The video proved that religion is apart of science (or is it science is apart of religion?), religion can be found in the government, schools, economics, restaurants, hospitals, banks, and the list goes on and on.

The government may claim to be separate from religion and God, but in reality it is very much apart of the government of today, yesterday and will continue to be there. Just being considered conservative almost always means you are Catholic or a "hard core" Christian. One of the major controversies around the election this year was based on the question of President Barak Obama's religion. Was he a secret Muslim or a true Christian? Depending on which religion he is made a big difference to people, this was a big factor as to whether they would vote for him or not. Of course no true American wants to vote for a Muslim because those are the people that attacked us (I don't think this, just in case you didn't get the sarcasm). This is the type of thought that goes through a lot of people's head in the United States, this is just evidence to the fact that religion does matter in voting for our representative. God is present in our pledge of the allegiance, "One nation under God" and the original lyrics of our national anthem, "And this be our motto: 'In God is our trust.'" These are engraved into every American's head, from the moment they enter school, it is impossible to escape the reach of religion.

Faith can even be found in economics, it's hard to hear an economist talk about the current market without using the word faith. Economists believe in an invisible hand, that will hit down the greedy, according to Adam Smith (I guess we got a little too greedy). Some people may say that faith has nothing to do with religion, but faith by definition is a believe in a power beyond oneself.

Everywhere we go we see religion, at restaurants, hospitals, and banks. When I go to Italian restaurants I see pictures of beautiful churches and when I go to Red Robin I see pictures of the pope (even if there is a cartoon of red robin with his arm wrapped around his shoulder). A The bank there are tens of thousands to even millions (depending on the bank) of reminders of God, every single bill and coin has "In God we Trust" written across them. Ever single hospital has a chapel to pray for a miracle or for God to help heal people, hospitals are even ran by the Catholic Church (Providence across the western states), or named after saints (St. James Hospital in Bellingham). We are surrounded by religion, so why was I shocked to hear it had so much to do with science.

I went to a Catholic school my whole life (until now) and as surprising as it may sound they actually encouraged the learning of Darwin's theory of evolution. So I always knew that they encouraged the learning and understanding of science. But I never knew the degree to which the Catholics Church and other religions went to to research, understand and discover the mysteries of humans and Earth. I find it interesting that religions that rely on mystery put so much energy into figuring out the wonders and mysteries around us. I guess even the human need to acquire knowledge over throws or equals the need to have faith in something beyond us. I thought that religion would almost put limits on the development of Technology and have certain morals as to the development of artificial intelligence. But this video made it sound like most major religions support and encourage the development of technology without.

Religion has a hand in all aspects of our lives and now it seems that it will have a hand in our future. Does this mean that if religion has control over technology that it will once again have a larger role in government and in how we live our lives, like it once did in the past? Faith in a higher power, turning into faith in a higher technology, who would have thought? Oh boy do I love these Technocalyps videos ;).

Culture or Politics

What defines us? Our cultural choices or our political choices?

I personally define myself through my cultural choices, more than my political choices. I think the reason for this is because I view my political choices as mostly private and my cultural choices public. On my facebook page I post my favorite music, TV shows and (most importantly to me) movies. I also use cultural choices of others to, in a way, judge them. If I met someone and they said that their favorite movie was "I Know Who Killed Me" I would definitely question whether or not this person would match up with me as a friend. Just like if someone said their favorite TV show was "30 Rock" I would think that it would be impossible for us not to get along. Cultural choices define our personalities, while political choices define our personal beliefs. The personal beliefs of another person is important, when it comes down to it, but in reality they don't define the relationship I share with another person.

Politics just don't come up in conversations I have with other people, the conversation usually revolves around everyday things, but if politics are brought up, I usually feel uncomfortable and don't feel like sharing my opinion (which is extremely rare). I feel that by having a differing opinion about politics is almost insulting to the other person, I don't want them to think that I think my beliefs are more important than theirs because I respect everyone's beliefs and everyone should be able to express them. I just choose not to put the fact that I believe something different out their for someone to maybe judge me because of it, it will always be in the back of their mind. I know some people who don't respect the rights of the gay and lesbian comunity and that fact is always in the back of my mind. So what would stop someone from judging me because I am pro choice, while they are pro life. I just don't believe this should be a factor in the way I interact with another person. Politics just don't define my relationships with another person, the chemistry between us and the way they treat me define the relationships.

Politics and the Media, Where do they converge?

I think this years election had a huge blend between the media and politics, from adding and extra night of Saturday Night Live on Thursday (isn't that a contradiction?) about the election, to celebrities getting together to do stupid videos, trying to be funny about getting out and voting (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PN8YnX_vjAY). All pretty much pointing towards the same goal of getting people involved in the 2008 election. The part where media and the celebrities in the media went wrong was when they start forcing their opinions as to who should be elected on those who are obsessed with celebrities and don't care about researching for themselves who they should vote for. I understand when they share who they are voting for and why, but when they just make nonconstructive attempts to make fans of theirs vote for who they think they should, it disgusts me. Here's another wonderful video from the very wise and funny Hayden Panettiere (if you didn't get that, there is some major sarcasm in that comment): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uusA9c33LT8. I'm not saying that I voted for John McCain, or even that I smoked cigarettes, because I didn't do either, I'm just saying that how about these celebrities use their influences to point out issues important to them and how voting a certain way will support those issues. It's also very disrespectful to attack John McCain and those that vote for him, people have their resons for voting a certain way, how about they tell us why they're voting the way they are, instead of the generic, "McCain is just another Bush," that doesn't tell me why he is another "Bush". Although I do believe that SNL has helped many people stay involved over the election and continue to stay involved with politics, even if it is with a lean toward the liberal side and of course the comedic side.

As I mentioned in class I find it interesting how well Obama was able to use all the aspects of the media to help him dominate the poles, Hilary never had a chance she was to far behind in technology, the media, and speech giving skills. He was able to connect to so many people using the media, everyone felt like his friend and like they were going to help him make the change. Well now the elections over and I think he's having a little trouble separating himself from the campaign trail. But I guess that's a separate issue...

To not Know

As humans, we have a need to know. But at the same time there are things we don't want to know. We shut ourselves down when something is being said that we don't want to know, we avoid truths that can hurt us. Or maybe it is more dignifying not to know, respecting someone when they tell you to drop it or knowing that not knowing is safer. There is a relief of not knowing or an intense feeling of curiosity. To not know something that can be known is an odd thing to think about, I think to myself, "Of course I want to know what someone else knows," but then I think about all the things that I don't know because I choose not to know them. There are times when I don't press my friends for information because it seems inappropriate (social pressure) and times when I choose not to know because the truth will hurt me. To know or not to know, that is the question.

To not be able to Know

Many people challenge the unknown, while others wait and wait for someone else to figure out the unknown. I happen to be one of those people waiting, especially lately I am curious about the unknown (I think it may be this class), but I have no plans on figuring anything out for myself. The future is something that no one knows what is in store for us. The new knowledge I have acquired about the environment and (lately) the future of technology, has made me realize how much I don't know and what no one knows. It sucks not being able to know for sure, what I can expect in 10 years. There are predictions about what the future has in store for us (Those Technocalyps moves scare me), most of which don't sound all that appealing. I don't want to live in a world that is over populated, the sun could kill us, weather is unpredictable in an extreme way, vegetation destroyed and robots ruling over humans. I can only hope that all these predictions are over reactions and just ways to get us to pay attention to possibilities in the future. Not know the future and having no way to know, except to live until I reach it is frustrating. Certain thing I can easily live, even ignore the fact that I don't know and there is no way of knowing, but I am a little uneasy about the future.


To Know but forget that you Know

This is an interesting concept, the only thing I can personally relate it to clearly is my horrible eyesight. I know what it feels like to see in color blobs, extremely blurry, to the point that I have to put my alarm clock two inches from my face to see what time it is. I hate this feeling, waking up or walking to the bathroom blind is not fun, it can even be scary. But at the same time, I don't even think about it as soon as I put in my contacts, that feeling disappears. I no longer know that sensation anymore, it is actually kind of sad, everytime I take out my contacts I realize just how bad my eyesight is. Contacts, even glasses, make it so I can forget how bad my sight is. To feel as if I don't know what it is like to be blind (even though technically I am), I see people who are blind (even those that aren't completely blind) and I feel as if I don't have any idea as to what that is like. But after reflecting on it I kind of do, I know what is like not to be able to see the expression on my friends face when I talk to them, and I know what it is like to not be able to see what is right in front of my face. So, the point I am making is that we experience things, but we don't necessarily relate them to similar things, we forget that we know what something is like.


As far as knowing, I am lucky enough to got to college, so I have been taught more than the average Joe my age, therefore I know more. And I will continue to acquire knowledge, but I will really never scratch the surface of knowledge (as far as human capacity goes). I can easily accept that, not knowing is comforting in a way. The future of technology may change the capacity of knowledge, taking away the not knowing and the ability to forget certain things we know, is this something we want? I kind of think it isn't.