Knowlege!

Nobody likes to admit that they don’t know something, whether it is a scientific fact or a simple definition. In order to feel secure about the world we all live in, some people try to explain every little thing as if it gives them some sort ultimate of control over their lives. The statement ‘knowledge is power’ is taken far too literally, because knowledge only makes us aware of things we have no power over.There is this misconception that knowing something will give us an upper hand on it. Whoa gee, dogs only see in black and white- and there is nothing I can do about it. For the most part, we can’t control the processes of nature or even begin to comprehend why it all works the way it does. Science is a big believer in the power of knowledge, and tries at every turn to explain what is unknown. Everything has to be quantifiable in some way, or have some sort of pattern that allows it to fit in the ‘real’ world. But how useful is the knowledge really? Just knowing how something happens only beckons more questions- infuriating Science even more. The average person does not benefit from learning about the octet rule. I can’t force my atoms to want a full outer shell, or have any real control in the process at all. Even things such as emotions, which are instinctually understood, have to be explained through chemical processes. The major flaw is that Science in all ways must be rational, while human beings are not. Pure science does not exist because there are always human motives behind it, motives that cannot necessarily be explained by Science alone. Science gives facts, but humans provide the understanding- therefore tainting it merely by interpretation. Even Lyotard said, “Scientific knowledge is not the only kind of knowledge.”
Yes, knowledge is very cool, but it is only a mechanism in the bigger process of understanding. Science, superstition, intuition, all play a role in sculpting human understanding. Only through understanding can we use any of these mechanisms to better comprehend anything. Because Understanding is not purely scientific or intuitive, it must make use of all the mini-narratives in order to manifest and not rely solely on one meta-narrative.
So, memorize all the facts that you can, but there is no power gained through the act alone. You may know how many ridges there are on a dime (118) or be able to calculate the circumference of the Earth (40, 074.02 km), but the myth that knowledge begets power is still just a myth.p.s. here’s a cool website of random facts, because I still think they’re coolhttp://www.cs.cmu.edu/~bingbin/

Brave new World

Brave New Familiar World

Okay, since when did authors become psychic? The self-centered pleasure-obsessed society in Brave New World is eerily similar to our own with regards to technology and social attitudes. The lack of regard for what is ‘right’ is paralleled by the love of what is ‘easiest’.
The bio-technologies that are described in the beginning of the novel are terrifying, if only because they are possible. Manipulating genes in unborn children has been a hot topic of discussion in biology for quite some time. In one aspect, genetic diseases could be eradicated before the children fully develop, but this also opens up the market for ‘designer genes’- allowing parents to choose the sex, eye-color, and other physical aspects of their child. Children would be subject to the same fashion fads that clothes go through seasonally. This technology could seem ‘cool’ at first, but is it ethical? Would it be right to change the genetic makeup of a child to conform to fads instead of leaving it up to nature? The people in Brave New World valued conformity all too much and overestimated their power, “What man has joined, nature is powerless to put asunder."
Even the mind-set of the population in Brave New World is familiar to our society today. People tend to have a preconceived notion that we deserve to have ultimate happiness. The people were obsessed with finding ecstasy, whether it is through the drugs they were constantly popping or the sexual promiscuity they enjoyed. All semblance of integrity was missing in personal aspects and family aspects. Those citizens did not respect themselves as individuals with individual rights, “everybody belongs to everyone else.” There is no single personality in that society, and the individual is disappearing even now where people find conformity more appealing that uniqueness. The nuclear family is even suffering, where marriages are failing at higher and higher percentages. In Brave New World the nuclear family has ceased to exist at all in favor of a system that strips all responsibility from procreation, where nobody has a family identity at all.

My thoughts on discourse

There is a shift occurring in today’s society: differing opinions are more abundant than ever, the definition of language is beginning to shift radically, and the melting pot of ideals and beliefs is beginning to boil over. Of course, who says that this is a bad thing? Our exposure to new cultures gives us wonderful opportunities to explore and the foundations of tradition continue to offer support when we need it. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the treatment of the English language and the many discourses it supports.
All discourses are appropriate if used in the proper context, though it is often difficult to interchange them. For example, Slang and Proper English have always been at war, (Slang: “Take that, yo!”--- Proper English: “Please receive this unpleasant beating, sir!”), but both ultimately get the same meaning across. The whole point of language is to be able to express an idea in a verbal or written form, leaving it as an invaluable tool in our society. Therefore, as long as you can be understood in the manner you want to be- there is really no wrong way to use language. (I skimmed this website and I thought it was pretty informative: http://www.jacweb.org/Archived_volumes/Text_articles/V13_I2_Beaugrande.htm)
Recently there has been talk of catering to the different discourses, making tests according to the popular discourse in a given area and turning away from standard academic discourses. This can be a good thing and a bad thing. On one hand, if no discourse is wrong, why shouldn’t we cater to the other prominent discourses in our society and give the minor languages a chance. But, would it then be fair to send these kids to college only aware of a non-academic discourse? Would we then be required to make college classes in a variety of discourses for those students? How would any student then take to the work world after he or she has only been exposed to one section of the English language? Language has the power to bring people together, but it can also cause severe rifts in society. People automatically assume that their discourse is the ‘right’ or ‘best’ one, and by separating these discourses instead of allowing them to mix would possibly cause more prejudice in language. Just like in Brave New World , people would be placed into special distinctions almost from birth without the ability to learn to correspond with the other discourses. On the other hand, we risk the complete orthodoxy of 1984 if we only accept one overall discourse.
Ultimately, our society requires that we have to move in and out of these discourses in order to coexist with one another. There is no ‘wrong’ discourse but there is no universally ‘right’ one either, meaning everybody has to be open to new ways of effectively communicating.