0 comments

sorry if this is does not make much sense

Like my title says, sorry if my ideas are not in any order and are just really random.

So first before i say anything else, wow Postmodernism for Beginners is wierd. I know that they are trying to help explain what exactly postmodernism is, but sometimes it just confuses me. It is Post modernism for beginners, shouldn't it be more understandable?

So this last week in Mr. Dominguez's class we talked about postmodernism and Lyotard's view point on it. He talked about local narratives and metanarratives. A local narrative are a small piece of the bigger metanarrative which is used to explain a local narrative. Narratives help to explain parts of our world and what happens in to/to it without using scientific elements of the subject at hand. People used to explain the unexplainable with myths or metanarratives that would explain something that needed explaining. For example in Brave New World, when Linda can not explain where chemicals come from, John goes to the old men of the reservation for an answer. They tell him of the "Four wombs" and the "Fog of Increase." John sayd later that the "men of the pueblo had much more definite answers"(130). Why is this? Is it because the old men did not hesitate to answer him and that they were taught this to be true so they think it is true? For John it was easier to accept what the old men said than his mother's (opps, I said it) non-answer.

Narratives though have controlled some societies; an example that popes into my head is the ancient tribe, the Aztecs. Narratives helped explain everything like their health and weather. If the tribe became unhealthy or the crops were dying, they would think they did something wrong and what would that lead to, a sacrifice! The thought of a virus going around and making people sick or that the plants just weren't taken care of correctly never came into mind.

Narratives have had great power over some societies, why you might ask. Well, people grew up with certain traditions and were taught the way that there parents were taught about the world, they were taught that everything that happens like the gods being made was true because they always thought it was true. (sorry if that doesn't make much sense) Scientific discourse will be able to overrule narrative discourses when the human population becomes more civilized or when everybody thinks the same way.
read more
0 comments

So...wow...Brave New World is... different

The society in the novel is crazy wierd. Everything is planned, and no can be an individual, everyone is one, everyone is the same in one class. People are programmed, kids are programmed! Why would anybody in their right mind do that, seriously?! Books are bad, flowers are bad, come on! Nature and reading are freaking awesome! Why would you want to have people not like those things, little kids not liking those things, wtf! Electricuting babies! The only progress that they have is that they consume more, they have to buy a lot of things to play or do pretty much anything. I think Huxley is trying to say...I don't know, honestly, I have read waaayyy past where we had to, and I don't really know yet. I think I will have to read the whole thing. In 1984 the government is against the people, and in this book, the government seems like it is trying to help people, in a wierd way it works in some aspects. I think he is writing what he thinks society should be, or he is showing us what society might end up being, one way he is with it, or the other he isn't. I am not sure if so far the book is a relative critique of our society. I think he may be writing what he thinks society will be. I don't know yet, I will have finish reading the whole book and think more about it. I think it might be if things were more controlled, things are that controlled now, ie: the teabagger, haha, they had no clue what they were talking about!
Okay back to the book: what about the whole a.f thing. WTF! Whenever anybody in the book talks about Ford, they use his name as though he is God, they have replaced his name with God's, ie: "our Ford" instead of out God. Wierd!
Also, why must everyone, I mean everyone be promiscuous? It is bad if toddlers aren't going around playing "games" with each other (i don't know what they call it, i am calling it games here).
This book is well wierd, but on another level I think i like it, i don't know why, but it is wierd, and it makes me think about societies and how different they can be.
read more
3 comments

Is Change Always Good?

Well, i am going to babble, so sorry if i doesn't seem to make sense.

"There is nothing wrong with change, if it is in the right direction"



The word "change" means to make the form of something different from once it once was; but most people do not like change. The "right direction" for some people may not be right in other people's opinions. From our discussion in class though, I saw that most people did not agree with the changes the Texas Board of Education wanted to make to what was being taught in US History classes-many did not believe that what the Board wanted was the "right direction." The Board of Education wanted to get rid or in a sense erase people from history books. One of those people is Anne Hutchinson, she was "exiled...for teaching religious views at odds with the officially sanctioned faith." Is she to not be written in history books because she did not agree with the "sanctioned faith" back then?. So because she did not agree she is to be erased; if this were to happen to everybody who did not agree with the "sanctioned faith" of the time, then the United States would never have come to be. Some of the original thirteen colonies were established by English settlers who wished to practice their own belief without discrimination. The United States started because of religious reasons, but that doesn't mean that religion, or Christianity, should be forced down kids or teenagers throats in school.

History books should have nothing but facts, true, this may not always happen because everybody has a bias. Historians or people that are correctly qualified should write history books, reverends and politicians should not write history books; true there is a bias both ways, but one is not visible as the other. Everybody grows up a certain way, a different way than other people. We are taught certain things by our parents throughout our life, conscious or not. We grow up with the beliefs that our parents have and more often than not we will probably grow up to be exactly like our parents.

Back on the subject, when one groups beliefs become more powerful than what most people is right, what most people can not erased is the change they want a good thing? Should people or events in history be changed, altered, or even erased because of the "all-out moral and spiritual civil war for the soul of America, and the record of American history is right at the heart of it." Is America really in an all out spiritual war, and is changing the history and erasing important figures the right thing to do? There is nothing wrong with the current history books now, what is the need for this change, do people just want to get their religious foot in the door? In this situation, change is not good, why change something that has never let people down so far?
read more