Looking To Windward: Pre-Class Reaction

Reading this book was different from others the world was so different from our reality: all the various alien cultures, the complex technologies and social practices, soul storing, etc. all these things combined created a very alien world. And I must admit in the begging it was hard to keep track of it all, because the usual presence of things we are used to was a lot less than in other works of fiction we have read. For example the names, titles and terms were hard to keep track of and conceptualize, but eventually I was able to sort things out and get used to Bank’s created world. Despite the initial confusion, I enjoyed what came out of Bank’s imagination, the different species and the interactions between their cultures were a curious read.

The idea that really stuck in my mind and I want to discuss in my post is the idea of 2 minds sharing one body. Huyler and Quil were able to hold conversations and influence each other’ decisions and were both contributors to the acts of one “physical’ being. They are obviously different personalities in the same body, so the idea that struck me the most is the pros and cons of having two personalities affecting the same act. The two act sometimes like a system of checks and balances. For example Quil often kept in check Huyler’s tendency to say heated things, but he also didn’t completely disregard Huyler and used some of his ideas. So the question that struck me is what would be more effective/efficient: just one person acting on their own, or in some cases is it better to have two (or more) personalities in one body so they can have instant interaction and use each other as recourses? And further, would two people working together, each in their own body be just as effective?

And to finish this post like others, I would like to thank all of you for the fun conversations and sharing your ideas. It’s been fun, and I do agree with Jen, we should keep in touch via this and the facebook group. Good luck and hope you all have a fun summer.

Children of God: Post-class Reaction

I think the topic that was most interesting to me in our class discussion is how one tends to impose their own concepts on the other: one tend to view them as something from history (past) or something else that is current and one is familiar with. We saw this in Russell’s second book, especially in Sofia’s character who, in agreement with Jen, I didn’t like much. Over all like most, I preferred The Sparrow, and in large part that is due to the characters there. I thought The Sparrow had more interesting characters and better humor. Also in agreement with a number of people in class I believe her attempting to resolve the religious dilemma she left us with in the first book was unnecessary. I enjoyed reading about the other side of the story for example Supaari’s point of view in his interaction with the foreigners during the first mission, but the turn her theme took with religion left me unhappy. I had a few moments of “you got to be kidding me” in this book…especially when Isaac sounded like God’s messenger bringing God’s music and Emilio’s reaction. I don’t know why but I have developed something that I can almost call aversion to organized religion in the past few years, so reading about people who blindly give themselves to faith is a little disturbing to me, so Emilio again starting to lean towards that mindset really disturbed me (I am not saying he embraced God again, but there was still some small references to him coming to terms with religion and God). I guess the most I took away from this book is the cultural interaction aspect of it, and the damage something foreign can do to a system. We see this in Sparrow with radical change in Runa behavior due to the foreigners and in large part Sofia. And we see this in Todorov with the arrival of the Spaniards. This makes me wonder if it is possible for someone to arrive into a different cultural setting and be strictly an observer and not impact that culture, or be a catalyst for radical change. Personally, I think it is impossible, so then the question is what can one do to minimize the affect they have on society because as we have seen, more often than not many latent and negative affects arise even if the intentions are good. So I guess the big question that was in my mind at the end of the class was what is it that makes a foreign entity such a big catalyst? And does anyone have the right to impose their own values on another culture and try and change it, and if yes in which cases is it ok and in which cases is it not?

Children of God: Pre-class Reaction

Like everyone, this book didn’t have as intense of an effect on me as The Sparrow. But I still think it is a well written book and raises many new key points, and also builds on points made in the first book.

In the beginning when we find out Supaari’s perception of the situation concerning the foreigners, Sandoz and overall his perception of society was one of my favorite twists in the book. It just says so much. First off at the end of the last book one would consider Supaari to be like Carlo, a shrewd businessman who would sell anything and anyone as long as it got him what he wanted. But we realize that his actions actually did have good intent and were just a gross misunderstanding. The way Russell orchestrated the conversation was flawless, because it truly demonstrates just how easy it is for two cultures to be so completely on different pages. They were talking about different cultural practices, without realizing how poorly they were phrasing their ideas. It seems to me to be one of the biggest pitfalls; thinking that the other culture has something that is the same or similar that can be relate to and thus understood. Supaari who was marginalized by his place in society and couldn’t have the family he wanted was in no way able to understand Sandoz’s ambiguous explanation as to why he chooses to remain celibate. So I hold more sympathy for him and I am not sure if “he got what he deserved” I guess it may have been his time to die, but I don’t think he had anything coming to him because he was never truly malicious and he worked hard to correct his mistakes.

The other thing that I would like to mention is the constant repetition of the theme of “the end justifying the means” I was reminded of this concept after reading Jen’s reaction to Hlavin. He did change the Ja’anala culture for the better, but was not the nicest person, nor were his means all that nice. He was manipulative and risked a lot to get what he wanted, but I feel like there have been people in history who have been forgiven for their deeds because the end was considered justified. So I have mixed feelings about Hlavin. And this theme is also tied to Danny, the Father General, and even the Runa.

The Conquest of America: Post-Class Reaction

One of the main thoughts that lingered in my mind after class, was how does knowledge affect human interaction? We discussed at length the different ways Cortez and Columbus used information, and the book talked about the different ways cultures processed information. So my question is what type of culture is better prepared for cross-cultural interaction, a primitive one or an advanced one, or does that have no effect? Is a culture that values superstitions over science a better or worse communicator? First world countries claim to be very worldly and understanding, but does their broad knowledge actually hinder them because it makes them view themselves as superior and thus act condescending?

I also wondered about how does learning about another culture change you. Because one can’t simply be a removed observer, by interacting with an “other” you are bound to undergo at least a slight change. I guess over all our classes discussion once again really made me think about what communication should be like, what is the right way to interact with others.

The Conquest of America: Pre-Class Reaction

I say that one of the best lines (well at least most amusing) is something along the lines of: so the important thing was the parrots. Although it is said with humor I think it relates to an important point. As Jen pointed out, Columbus’s perception of the world makes one want to scream in frustration. But then again he was to an extent a product of his society, so he wasn’t the only one with a faulty personality. I found the concept that black people and parrots signify gold nearby to be a hilarious idea. To us that sounds completely ridiculous but it is funny to find out what “signs” and “facts” people relied on at the time. I too was surprised by this insight into Columbus’s motivation and perception. For one thing I forgot that people at the time still believed in things like sirens and monsters. And it is fascinating to find out just hypocritical, biased and to an extent naïve Columbus was. As Mike pointed out, the author provides several sources as evidence, so I find the picture he painted of Columbus very believable. To me cultures are valuable, so Columbus’s careless and disrespectful treatment of the native cultures is something that frustrates me. As Jen pointed out he just went around renaming things and disregarding what the natives said, unless it was convenient for him to listen to them (if he “understood” them in the first place). That is another interesting concept to his character, his interpretation of language…any language he encountered he viewed through a bias of his own language: he tried to apply their words to European concepts and practices. That is a distinct difference between him and Emilio. Emilio tried to use the language in order to understand how the culture functions, of course he had to do that in reference to what he knows about human interaction, but he recognized that there was a fundamental difference between the languages of Earth that he knows and this new alien language. And through these differenced he was able to understand some of the cultural differences. Columbus on the other hand saw the natives simply as potential Christians or as savages to be killed or exploited. His opinion of them seemed to change overtime, but he always twisted facts to support his theories or ideas. For example, on page 40 he talks about how they are cowardly and not a threat, and so chooses to leave some of his men behind, and then comes back to find them murdered…so he makes up some theory about how they are easily scared but also vile creatures who kill when someone gets separated from the group. Reading that just made me laugh. He is so hypocritical and engrossed in his own views that he is truly blind to the reality around him.

Cortes on the other hand seems to be more aware and observant of things, even though he is just as manipulative. Like Columbus he too manipulates facts and “signs” in order to achieve his goals, but he still seems more aware of reality. Also, the whole concept of “signs” as presented in this book was a fascinating idea to me. People have always tied symbolism to things; even the common action of naming an object creates a function or explanation for it. And it was interesting to read how differently cultures can use signs and symbolism. It is interesting to think that, as Todorov says, the Spaniards were able to defeat the natives using signs. Looking at the big picture it does make sense that the Spanish were able to come out on top because unlike the Aztecs they were able to (to an extent) learn about the other culture and then use what they found out about it to manipulate and destroy it. (Goes back to the idea in Card’s book that you must understand your enemy in order to eliminate them). Mike raises this point in his post as well: the fact that Cortez needed to know something about the culture in order to manipulate it to his own benefit.

In the end such cultural interacts are basically frustrating to me, because it is not respectful of cultures.

The Sparrow: Post-class Reaction

This book is so complex and raises such intricate issues that we obviously weren’t able to exhaust discussion about it. I agree with Tim, it was interesting to focus on who would be qualified for such a mission and try to make a list out of it. I think our discussion concerning that got most interesting when people started raising the issue of what would be the goal of the mission: making contact or gathering information? Which led to the whole idea of a series of missions and what kind of mission should go first. I think we established as a class that the Jesuit mission didn’t think things entirely through, but then again what can you expect, they seemed to have expected God to take care of the things they overlooked.

The other part of discussion that I think was very important originated with Phil saying that the people on the mission got too comfortable. And that led to the question of how scientific were they actually acting and at which point did they make their mistake(s). I am also interested to see how the second book will flip things around. I think that it will be able to tell us more about the mistakes of the first expedition.

Lastly I want to mention a thought that crossed my mind during discussion. While we were discussing Supaari and debating how they should have interacted with him and viewed him, the thing that I thought is: despite his appearance, claws and carnivorous nature, he exhibits very human qualities. He desires to have a family and although he is marginalized by society he does his best to figure out a way to achieve his goals. We may find him selling Emilio as a means of getting what he wants as “inhumane” but if we look at our own history, humans have used other humans to reach their own goals on numerous occasions. And if you think about it when people have created aliens (in various forms of fiction) the aliens always to some extent exhibit human characteristics and desires; that is because that is the only way we can perceive things, I don’t know if anyone can actually create a truly “non-human” alien.

The Sparrow: Pre-class Reaction

The issue I had with this book, is that I loved the humor and the characters and the relationships they were starting to build (although the marriage between Sofia and Jimmy seemed to convenient and strained to me). But I loved Emilio’s personality and humor, and Anne and George are amazing in their interactions and in how they interacted with others, plus I enjoyed Sofia’s growth and how the rest of the characters all became a family. The problem I had is that early in the book I knew all but one would die, and Emilio ends up mentally and physically damaged. It was in a way depressing, but I guess it serves the book’s purpose.

First, I want to comment on the nature of the deaths, they were mostly accidents or a situation getting out of hand. The thing that gets to me is the point this makes. These people went in good nature with good intentions…and the thing that got most of them was taking a walk and being unaware of danger and planting a garden. It made me think just how powerful some latent effects can be. They were all smart and took a lot of time planning, obviously they didn’t (nor could have) account for everything. I am big on cross cultural communications and understanding, which was exactly their goal. So the lesson I take away from this is how important it is to be careful in such an alien (no pun intended) setting. Their mistake was that they let their guard down and didn’t pay attention to the warnings and they viewed this world too much through their own biased lenses, and it is very hard to get out of that view, or to gain enough knowledge to gain an objectified view on things. But they brought in elements into this alien society without thinking too far down the line (the gardens), I find it ironic that such a seemingly small detailed led to such chaos.

Second, I would like to briefly mention the questioning of faith. As I mentioned in my response to Tim’s post for some reason some religions especially Christianity, Judaism and Islam (Buddhism doesn’t have this affect on me) very easily call up a negative response in me…they just rub me the wrong way. The fact that hopeless devotion seems to have let Emilio and his friends to this end (he even says he was blinded by his love for God and he trusted God so much he let his guard down…he uses the metaphor of nakedness) is “amusing” to me, in a sad ironic kind of way. I don’t find pleasure from their end (as I said I liked these characters) but I find blind devotion scary just for that reason, people become narrow minded and seem to miss so much and just focus on pleasing God. I like what Anne said at one point…I live a good life for myself not because I fear or want to please God. I find that better motivation for good values and actions rather than some belief in an all powerful being directing me in my life. And I also agree with the point she raises…people always make excuses for God, at some point people stop questioning: “It must be God’s will.” And I found it scary that in the end the Father General said that Emilio was closer to God after this experience, the only thing I can do is groan in frustration. Bad things happen in life, and some don’t have a reason or an explanation, the same for good things…and people always try to attribute it to luck or fate or destiny or God…things happen and pitting your life on some unseen force to me seems like a life that can easily be wasted. One shouldn’t try to justify death or suffering as some supreme beings will, it is a part of life, and something everyone needs to learn to cope with. I don’t mean to come across as negative, I am not sure in my views of life, I am 20 years old, there is no way I can be, and I know that there are things that are bigger than me and that I can never grasp or understand, because I am human, but I REALLY can’t understand blind devotion to some “GOD.”

The Concept of the Political: Post-Class Reactions

I feel like this class discussion was one of the most interesting we have had. In the end it really made me think about the future possibilities of humanity. Ultimately we came to the conclusion that Schmitt thinks that enemies are necessary for a state to function properly. So the question that came to my mind towards the end of class was: is it always going to be just about conflict? To me that just seems depressing. Especially since now conflicts do seem to take that “we are fighting for humanity and you are against humanity if you are against us” theme, which Schmitt says is a bad idea. And as we have seen it creates very intense and hateful conflict, plus to me it seems like that type of conflict can easily be taken to the “ultimate conflict” level, especially with the damage modern weapons can do. In my other class where I have been reading about Dalai Lama and similar peaceful leader, and those readings presented me with an insight to people who believe that if people try then the world can be more peaceful, and societies would live in harmony and understanding. So in the end I was contrasting these two views and trying to see which is more likely, or will it be something in between or something else. Can humanity ever come to a point where it won’t be so quick to label the “other” as an enemy, and try to understand before destroy. Can people become better at cross cultural communications? Or will it be like Schmitt says, always about friends and enemies.

The Concept of the Political: Pre-Class Reactions

Originally, when I first read the part on pages 26-28 I couldn’t help but disagree to an extent, I just didn’t see the political as something that belongs in a different category from economics or other social forces. But to me the term political and state applies to governments of various forms and nation states, since nation states are the ones considered as the sole actors in the world and the only ones that can officially wage war by international relations standards (since the time Schmitt writing this globalization has changed the playing field a lot, even though IR still claims states as sole actors in international relations). On page 35 I started to truly see that he was using the words differently from what I am used to when he says that a religious community that persecutes the other side is then acting politically, by current international standards that isn’t the case, at least not with the terms he uses, since only states have the “legitimate” rights to violence and a large part of nation states have separated government from religion. So the main issue I have with this paper is I see political in the same category with for example economical or religious because it is just another aspect of society and affects a particular part of people’s lives. His use of political is a whole different thing because it doesn’t apply solely to governments.

And his point about the enemy vs. friend made me realize just how much this mentality affects our world. Since the “other” is often labeled as enemy, that automatically decrease the chances for peaceful or useful interaction. On page 35 he says that a world without war is a world where the distinction between friend and foe can’t be made and since the opposing side is often just labeled as the enemy it seems unlikely that true peace and understand can exist. People often see different as bad or negative: they don’t live like we do or they don’t act like we do or their moral values are not like ours. And often that is said with a bias, as in: our way of life and morals are correct or superior, they are wrong or bad. So it is easy to see why violent conflict is so prevalent in humanities history. I hope people will eventually learn to first try to learn about and understand the other side and only then make decisions. Humanity tends to have difficulties with “agreeing to disagree” people always want to convert or destroy the other side. I hope peaceful coexistence is something we as race can better adapt. Of course there are some opposing views that need to be stood up against. If one morning I wake up and decide to start randomly killing people I believe deserve to die, I would hope someone would try and stop me. The difference I guess is that when someone chooses to lead a malicious life style then others should try and change that.

Finally I would like to point out the begging of the last paragraph on page 95. What he says there is so true and just powerful. People always justify themselves and often they do commit horrible things thinking they are doing good, and in other cases people use the cover of good ideals to do bad things for other reasons. This hypocrisy seems to be humanities curse that it can’t seem to escape.

Ender's Game: Post-class Reaction

Our class discussion about Ender’s Game was in large part a topic that is really important to me: communication (or lack of it) between two different sides. I agree with Mike that lack of communication has been responsible for a lot of destruction and violence in our history. And I truly believe that if people tried harder to communicate and understand “the other” whoever that other may be then a lot of problems could be resolved and the situation would not turn to violence. I see a lot of conflicts around the world where both sides just try to make the other side look more monstrous and just want to destroy or suppress them. Such violence, hate and narrow-mindedness can never lead to good. But I also agree with Jen’s point where she says that well sometimes the other side really does mean you harm for whatever reason. So I guess when it comes to matters of life and death and a situation of hostility it is important to try and fix things by trying to communicate and understand but one also can’t just stand by and let themselves be destroyed.

In one of my classes we are currently looking at the issue in Tibet and I just read one of the Dalai Lama’s books. The things he advocates are truly beautiful. He talks of peace and a symbiotic relationship between China and Tibet (he is not even demanding Tibet independence, he is just asking for just treatment of his people), he also wants to make Tibet a land of “Ahimsa” which means a place of peace and non-violence, and he advocates caring for the Earth and nature. One key point he makes is “Universal Responsibility” and he says that all of humanity needs to realize that they are responsible for this world and that one can’t just live separate from issues that happen in it, because we are all connected. I mention the issue between Tibet and China because it is the perfect example of a clash of two cultures...China has been basically raping Tibet for half a century, but a lot of the Tibetans, including the Dalai Lama are still pushing for understanding, communication and peace, now the younger generations are getting restless and are starting to consider more violent ways to fight back. So this is the perfect example of the issue we faced in class…what to do with an aggressive “Other” because that is what China is. Plus the Tibetan people are fighting for their survival (China is basically slowly committing cultural and religious genocide). And there is a great communication gap between the two. I just learned more about his issue, so it is fresh in my mind and something that really frustrates me because I just can’t understand why things like this keep happening. Which goes back to the point I made in the first part of this post: if only people made an effort to communicate and understand then maybe interactions with “the Others” won’t be as negative and violent.

And finally I would like to say that I also agree with Tim, this book really is one of the best we have read and it made me really think about important ideas.

Ender's Game: Pre-class Reaction

The big theme that really resonated with me is the idea of failure to communicate. In science fiction the interaction with “the other” is obviously taken to a new level, with the interaction with a completely different alien species. But like all good science fiction, usually one can tie that to the contemporary world. Cultural interaction is about interaction with an “other” they may look like “buggers” but some cultures can seem alien to us too. The twist at the end was alluded to (Ender asks, well what if it’s just a mistake, and the reply he gets is survive first ask questions later), and I am glad the author did it that way; because it shows that the “other” is not monstrous, just misunderstood. The phrase that comes to mind is “to err is human” in the end we find that the aliens are not some malicious monsters bent on galactic domination, but just a society so different from ours that they realized their mistake too late. This theme of understanding and communication can also be seen in other fiction works, in Ursula Le Guin’s Left Hand of Darkness (I did a wiki on this in case you want to know more about it). There is also an interaction between two alien races, and even though they have the physical means to communicate (something the buggers did not), the two main characters still miscommunicate at first, in large due to bias and not bothering to truly understand. That’s another issue with communication, often one regards his culture (or race) as superior or they believe their way is the right way. Something new or different or unknown is feared, it’s too dangerous to just embrace something like that and people tend to become very cautious and build walls to protect themselves, or fear (which can lead to anger or hatred) consumes them. True communication and understanding is a delicate balance. One can’t simply disregard their own background and nature and embrace the other, but one can’t also completely reject the other. I look forward to seeing what other authors do with the theme of “the other.”

Another issue in the book that I found interesting was the tactics used with the kids, the sheer manipulation for the ultimate goal. And I agree with Jen’s point, one kind of needs to accept the fact that at some parts of the book the characters are about 6 years old, just get used to the fact that they are super children and move on with the story. But how the kids acted is not too farfetched, because games are still what is used to teach them. That’s why they had to keep it as games: if it didn’t have that title it would be completely different. It’s not like the children believe at the time of the games they have an impact on the world, they believe they are just being trained for things later in the future, and in the first school it was indeed just training games. In a way lots of children’s games even in real life are meant to “train” the child for life. It’s just that in the book the children were trained for a different type of life and more intensely. But the human mind is designed to try and solve problems, and games train the mind to think that way. Every game has a goal and the player needs to figure out how to reach it. In the case of Ender and the kids, their goal was to win against the other team. By putting things into such simple terms for them they made it easy for the kids. In the case of games; when their team won, the other team was still ok in the end, not dead. It would be different and would have had a whole different weight if they were taught using battles to the death. That would have produced completely different people. I also found the fact that the adults kept the truth from Ender the only way it would have worked with him. By making him think he is still playing games, the rules of a game still applied, real life holds more consequence, and they let him make real life decisions without having to worry about those consequences (since he didn’t know they existed). In the end his actions still lie heavy on his shoulders, but the situation in which the decisions were made matters.

All in all I found that this book really made me think about a lot of things, and it indeed raises a lot of issues and interesting ideas.

Star Wars Episode 4

So I stumbled upon this and I figured this would be a nice final post for all of you to enjoy as we approach spring break:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBM854BTGL0

V for Vendetta: Post-Class Reaction

Towards the end of class a concept struck me. Humans as individuals or in groups need to feel safe or in control, and often those two overlap. This came to me because in this novel and in other cases we have seen that when a disaster happens there is always someone who pulls everything together and tries to keep it together. In the case of Moore’s graphic novel the Leader pulled everything in too tight and the level of control he thought was necessary, was actually ultimately too much and detrimental. But think about it, even on a personal level, when things are going on that are distressing to you or feel bigger than you, don’t you wish that you were able to have full control of the situation or maybe that someone else took control of the situation? When things get overwhelming and there are tons of reading for school, tests, internships and whatever other things that tend to pile up become too much, then one becomes edgy, uncertain and stressed. The chance for a negative outcome is too distressing of a thought, one wants to know that it will all be alright in the end. Or maybe if some accident happens or things are a mess, like maybe you just suffered a bad car accident and you are panicking; some people would want for another person to handle the mess because it is too much for them in their state of panic. This is on the micro level of what happened to Britain due to the disaster of war and destruction around the world; some people wanted someone to fix it for them and others wanted to take control and do the fixing their way, which is what Leader must have done. And later V took control, and transformed Evey from a meek sheep that wanted someone to keep her safe (and control and make sure that everything in her life is ok) to someone who was able to assume that control. I just found that an interesting idea, because there seems to be need for that control on one level or another, and of course everyone wants different levels of control. But I can say that everyone (except maybe for a very small number) want to live in a controlled situation either by their own hand or by the hand they trust to keep things under control. Because very few people would say they want to live in chaos where nothing is certain, and the risks and dangers are high, because that’s like living your whole life with the ground ripped out from under your feet, always falling and twisting and not knowing what to do or what is coming at them next. People need a certain level of certainty in their life in order to stay sane, and control they accept (no matter who wields it) lets them live more at peace.

V for Vendetta: Pre-Class Reaction

As Mike talked about this book really does make you think about the society you live in and how plausible it is that could happen in our world. There is something really creepy about the way these people have come to live. And personally the hypocrisy of the government is another thing that really irks me; hypocrisy in any case is a pet peeve of mine. In this book characters like the pedophile clergymen (as Jen mentioned) the other corrupt government officials who see the other citizens as a joke and beneath them (like Lewis Prothero, and the other men working with him, or Creedy who on page 198 hires basically a thug to do the violence for him and promises him power). All these things would repulse anyone with a sense of justice.

But I want to talk a little about the characters. In the beginning I really disliked Evey and became indifferent to her in the end. I understand the growth of her character was important to show what V did for her and she symbolizes the sheep the people have become, but I guess I just didn’t like what she stood for. V was of course an interesting character that also quiet controversial. First of I feel like he is meant to represent a Godlike figure: he is manipulating peoples’ lives, watches everyone and knows what they are doing and he passes judgment on people. His past and cryptic talk makes him a mysterious although sometimes frustrating character (much like Evey finds him). This raises the ever complex question: did he have a right to do what he did? Just like in the Moon is a Harsh Mistress and in Dune the main characters shape the world how they see it should be for others and their society (often resorting to violence). A concept that ties to this is where V discusses anarchy, chaos and fascism; he tells Evey on page 195 that anarchy is voluntary order, compared to fascism which he earlier calls falls forced order and a society that is on thin ice. I found this one of the key points in the book. Also when looking back on this page I noticed that he called her Eve not Evey. But this raises the question: what will happen to society? Will people who were used to strict control and who just now tasted chaos be able to settle down and live in voluntary order?

The last concept that I found interesting is the concept of 2 faces of anarchy…the creator and the destroyer. This once again goes back to the theme of balance (for examples Zorg’s speech on chaos in the 5th Element). It is interesting that the authors presented this balance in 2 people, V and Evey. He is ruthless and methodical in his goals while she more than once expresses the fact that she doesn’t want to kill (on page 177 she says let it grow). I found that a very nice way to tie the story together and hint as to what will happen with her, and her role in society past the point where the book ends.

He, She and It: Post-class Reaction

I feel like an important part that we didn’t get to in our discussion is the nature of Yod’s creation. More than once it was said that both Joseph and Yod were not “born” like children from a mother. I find Yod’s coming to consciousness very interesting. He was just bombarded with sensation and knowledge, and his initial reaction was to retreat. And Shira even makes a comment that he came into the world just like all children: protesting and angry (page119). This coming into consciousness with all knowledge makes me think of Paul’s sister Alia in Dune. She too was born in such a way that basically skipped over childhood and made her more knowledgeable than the average human.
Another concept that that should be taken into consideration concerning the human vs. non-human argument is the hypocrisy of human, who believe they have the right to define who deserves human rights. As mentioned in class, humans more than once considered someone of different background as less than them and not really human, the obvious example being blacks. So humans (and in some cases specific groups of them) consider themselves the sole deserving organisms of the right to call themselves persons and deserving the natural rights given to humans (like the right to be in control of one’s life).

He, She and It: Pre-class Reaction

Our society seems to fear of tight control, many sci-fi movies and novels that I have encountered (mostly American or Western) depict the world after some type of catastrophe where everything has become insanely regulated and individuality has been destroyed. It almost seems like individuality led to the bad event so everyone had to be reined in. When reading or viewing such sci-fi stories the rigid control seems cruel and/or unnatural to us, but that is because we are used to our values. So in which case would the world be better as a whole…is it better to live in a more chaotic but more free world, or in a regulated one that keeps things under control at the expense of personal choice? On page 36 Shira notes how in her Y-S life she has used her senses less, which has a less human connotation. And later she speaks of how their emotions are a lot more controlled and not allowed to come out to their fullest.

I also found Yod’s self awareness and development an interesting commentary on humans, and their own search for identity. For example on page 117 when he says how can I know if what I label with a word is the same thing you feel. And also later he says how do I know what I feel is the same what a man would feel or you would feel and Shira says well even men and women perceive things differently. Which leads to the question what does it mean to act human. How does consciousness and self-awareness play in, and who is to say who or what is “human,” since it can be said that a person can be acting “inhumane.” On page 150 another related question is raised how does purpose play into this? Purpose set or chosen by oneself rather than Yod’s case in which he was created to defend…but this topic has gray areas, because society and social constructs shape a person and often their road and purpose in life, especially in some societies more than others. And on that same page the topic of hypocrisy slightly comes into play. Humans in this world (and to another extent in ours) have altered and improved themselves, especially in their where they have computer implants. So who decides what is ok and what is not? Or what can be defined as living or human? In a way it is all social construct, affected by culture and norms and deeply rooted believes (ex. Religion).

Another concept that this book raises is the aversion to something different or unknown. People seemed to be more defensive or aggressive rather than open with someone or something they don’t understand. Like some of the characters initial reaction to Yod or Nili.
On page 222 another interesting comment stuck me when Shira says that Nili seems more artificial than Yod. And I can see why she said that. Since Nili comes from a different culture and doesn’t have the slightest interest of changing or blending in. While Yod is trying his best to become more “human”. But even that label is a social construct of our society.
But I did notice how Yod’s mind is structured differently. For example on page 167 when we see the thought stream of Shira and Yod side by side, on 117 he expresses his inability to enjoy music the same way, on page 247 when they are dancing and he says it’s easier for him to perform human work related activities rather than letting lose (he is in large a computer and thus very logic oriented), or a few pages earlier where he states he doesn’t understand the concept of sexy. He seems to replicate and create new patterns, but he can’t just randomly create, he needs to analyze and test first

And the final idea I will mention is this societies’ need/addiction to virtual reality (talked about on 244). This addiction to the virtual and ephemeral seems to fit Gadi’s personality perfectly because it is about instant gratification. And I find it interesting that he is the character that represents our societies’ use of drugs, substances, excessive luxuries etc. because the book talks about how he knows what the adolescents want and he also speaks about using a spike, which is an illegal, altering “thing”. So it is just like drugs in our society but in virtual form.

Ok I think that is enough for now.

Politics as a Vocation: Post-class Reaction

It was indeed and interesting discussion. I find that questions like the ones we attempted to answer impossible to answer for a variety of reasons. One being that it all depends on how one defies the word or the term. For example in our discussion we didn’t have a concrete idea of what a messiah is, like who gives the messiah authority: is it the people who decide, something that is self-proclaimed, or is I granted by a great force that is at work in the universe? Since we do not know the answer or the answer can only be based on personal belief, it is impossible to come up with a unified answer. Another issue is from whose perspective? We ran into the issue well how does a concept travel across culture or religion. And can’t someone be a savior for one group but a pain in the butt to those who the people are being saved from? So can there be a THE Messiah that is the savior of all people, what would he/she be saving the people from? So since everything is subjective and each culture has its own sets of symbols and norm, I think it impossible to come to an all encompassing truth.

Politics as a Vocation: Pre-class Reaction

The concept that struck me the most from this essay is first mentioned on the 2nd page. And that is where Weber states that every state is based on force, and it has always been that way, the only way that would not be the case is when states did not exist and there was anarchy. I found it interesting that when “anarchy” is said many people assume total chaos , people going crazy, violence, and insanity. However, if one looks at the definition, anarchy is just when everyone is able to govern themselves, there is no higher authority that has a “legitimate” right to force. And anarchy doesn’t mean total absence of rules, people can agree on rules the difference is no higher authority is imposing them on the population. Which is why anarchy can’t exist in this world, in theory it sounds nice, but humanity is nowhere near that responsible. Which goes back to Weber and the constant theme of power in his essay, as I was reading it that fact sank into my mind more and more. Humanity is in large pushed by a desire for power; most humans want that prestigious status and that ability to control others. It is hard to imagine a world where someone wouldn’t try to gain power and control, whether that’s just for personal satisfaction or to further a cause. And many people do need to be lead or guided; they would be lost on their own, and nothing would get done, there would be little progress.

I would also love to hear what Weber would have to say about current status of politics with the pressing forces of globalization. In IR many scholars talk about how the state is dying and how globalization and international actors undermine the state. And that is true, but the state is still the only one that has a legitimate right to violence. So then in a world where “international” is becoming more and more important how will power and politics have to shift to accommodate for this international situation.

Dune: Post-class Reaction

I found our cyclical discussion in class very interesting. The discussion helped me understand the book a little more, even though it did raise more questions. It was also helpful to discuss the author’s intentions and style of writing. The discussion of concepts like fate, predestination and free will is always one that constantly folds in on itself. And we found that when discussing Paul, whenever someone made a point it could have been taken a number of ways. And more that once whenever the Professor asked so does that mean that Paul was in control of his fate, Paul was controlled by others or was his destiny set, I found myself pressed for an answer, because it is hard to give a straight answer without more evidence, either way it would just be an opinion. And what the Professor pointed out in the 3rd appendix (the part where it says the Bene Gesserits were part of a grander scheme of things) further muddles the question of who was in control of Paul’s fate, because it makes it seem like there is something so much larger going on.

Dune: Pre-class Reaction

Among many things I want to discuss is the cultural aspect of this book, as usual. Obviously here we see a clash of ways of life as well as idea. And what stood out to me is how all the various powers just brushed of the “concept of Fremen”: to them it was just a few scattered, desert beaten people, with nothing to learn from. That is a trap many cultures in our world have fallen. The book shows how such narrow-minded-ness can lead to a lot of violence and misunderstandings. Obviously here the fact that the Fremen were overlooked for years was beneficial for them and allowed them to grow and do what they wanted almost unhindered. But not thinking about the plot, I can’t help but image how things would have been if the Duke (Leto) was quicker to learn from and befriend the Fremen.
Another concept that stood out to me is how the Fremen lived a life of great refrain and respect for their resources and environment. It’s a harsh existence, but they were smart enough to adapt to it and use it to their best advantage. Which makes me think of our current environment situation and how people take so much for granted and just waste and consume. On page 275 there is a part where they say that there comes a point where you can’t keep stealing from the plan without thinking what else is to follow. And that quality in the Fremen of thinking ahead and being smart about their environment and doing something for a far tomorrow is admirable. Concerning resources the book makes a point I have learned in my human geography class. And that is the concept of surplus and the relationship between control of the resources /means of production and power. We see this concept on Dune. Whoever controlled the surplus of Spice or even water had the power. In this case surplus means anything that people don’t need for their own survival and that can be sold as a commodity. And without surplus a society can’t develop, it needs the surplus to make money or other gains from trade, and later it can use that money to develop its society (Paul keeps talking about how once they gain control they will have money and then they will finally be able to do what is needed for the planet). This struggle for control over resources or land can be seen in a large number of cases, past and present on our world.
Finally, I want to comment on the OC Bible quote on page 40 (the one that Paul reads out loud to the doctor and turns out to be Wanna’s favorite). It is one of my favorite from the book and it is a concept I myself have thought about a few times. It is just mind blowing to me whenever I try to grasp the concept of all the “things” I may not be “seeing” (well experiencing in general) just because I don’t know how or don’t have the capacity to.