Postmodernism Applied To Cat's Cradle

So let me start off by saying... Will we ever not have to connect something to Postmodernism? Haha just kidding... But really.

Essentially Postmodernism was derived by 18th century thinkers who wanted to get rid of all myths and holy ideas. They wanted to emphasize the ideas of science, logic, and reason.

In the text early on it states, "The first sentence in the Books of Bokonon is this: 'All of the true things I am about to tell you are harmless lies.'" (5) So what this means is that the religion itself is not truly a religion at all. All of the rules and books are just made up lies, proving that you should believe what you feel is morally right. I think this ties in with Postmodernism well. A large amount of people would agree that today's religions are lies made up to keep people to have faith in what they have no idea to be true. The same goes with the ideas of Postmodernism. The thinkers of that time period wanted to eliminate religion and societal myths as a whole. Cat's Cradle's religion of Bokononism shows that it is possible to have a religion in which nothing is true. Which to me just shows that it isn't truly a religion at all, if anything just the opposite.

Another quote I found very interesting in the text is, "'Nothing generous about it. New knowledge is the most valuable commodity on earth. The more truth we have to work with, the richer we become.'" (41) So this in itself shows that truth and knowledge is powerful. In Postmodernism, this is the exact idea they were getting at. By eliminating lies and the myths that society holds, they become all that more powerful. Science is also a major idea of this text, and finding the truth and having more knowledge. With Postmodernism, these same ideas emerge. The people who came up with Postmodernism came to believe that science is the power of logic, which seems to tie in with the scientist's idea in Cat's Cradle as well.

Yeah this is definitely late.....

Okay, so after finally finishing Brave New World, i can finally blog on it.


For this upcoming essay, I am going to use Brave New World Revisited, The Tempest, and possibly 1984. I found a lot of parallels from both novels we read before this in respect to how the people were controlled.

In The Tempest, Miranda was controlled by Prospero, as with Caliban as well. Prospero brainwashed Miranda into believing what he wanted, and she believed him. Caliban also was pressured to conform to the changes his once native land had. In Brave New World, the people were filled with soma and were genetically engineered to like whatever they did. Even though they were happy, they were ignorant of the truth and reality.

In 1984, I can find the most parallels between the two texts. In 1984, the people in the party are unaware of reality. Their freedom is taken away because they are constantly watched and monitored. In Brave New World, I find many parallels. While the people were actually happy, they were genetically engineered to fit into their job occupation and be content with where they were placed in society. They were given soma to make them content in whatever situation they were in. While they were happy, it wasn't really real.

There are quite a few social parallels I can find between the texts thus far, which is exciting. I feel like I have a good basis of the books to write a thorough essay and find
Many points to talk about.

Okay and again I'm sorry this is late, but I really wanted to have fully read the essay before planning out what I want to talk about.... :)

Brave New Education...

I would love to know why that video was so intriguing, haha. That guy had a very good presentation and I felt he had very good points people don't always think of.

I like that the speaker was able to draw out the fact that education was created for a different time. Like it is said in the video, how can you say that just because you are the same age you are at the same level of education? While the school system has reasons for the way it is set up, it does not work for today's world. You cannot classify students under the same level of education just because they are the same age. Also, his reference to ADHD was very interesting as well. ADHD is looked at as an 'epidemic', even though we seem to overexaggerate. He brings up an interesting point in saying that we are essentially "drugging" children with ADHD, and making them almost robots in school.

I definitely find many parallels with Brave New World and this video. Like I just mentioned, children that are diagnosed with ADHD are drugged and treated as though they just need medicine to mute their disorder. I feel that Brave New World is in a way the same. They genetically engineered the people to make them content with how they are, except their creativity is destroyed within the process. In Brave New World, they say "And that, put in the director sententiously, "that is the secret of happiness and virtue-liking what you've got to do. All conditioning aims at that: making people like their inescapable social destiny." Ch. 1. I believe the children have no control over how they are controlled in a school environment, which in ways is similar. People in Brave New World have no control over the people they have become, since they are engineered to like whatever environment they are placed in.

Overall I definitely liked what this speaker had to say and enjoyed connecting the text we are reading to what he had to say.

Brave New World

Okay so first off I am just going to say how thankful I am that we are past The Tempest and on to something new! Okay now I can start. :P

From what I have read of Brave New World, it is becoming apparent the kind of world the people live in. People are genetically engineered by machines and people to be built for different purposes. In the first chapter, Mr Foster states "We decant our babies as socialized human beings, as Alphas or Epsilons, as future sewage workers or future..." The children that are genetically engineered are used for different social purposes. Mr. Foster continues on in saying, "The lower the caste... The shorter the oxygen." With the lower caste genetically engineered embryo they expose it to less oxygen so it is used to being in the conditions under which job it will work.

The people that are engineered in the book seem to be of no importance, they are just used by society to make things run smoothly. The book even states the fact that the people believe procreation to be a waste and inefficient to their purpose in survival.

The quote you wanted us to explain shows that there is someone needed for every task, and they must have people designed to work under each job and profession.

The Tempest never gets old... Not.

In discussions of The Tempest, one controversial issue has been whether or not there is a specific political interpretation to be taken from the writing. On the one hand, critics argue that the main focus on The Tempest is based on Imperialism (or any other specific interpretation for that matter). On the other hand, other critics argue that this interpretation of the text has been taken way too far out of context. Others even maintain neutral in their thoughts, believing that it could go either way. However, my own view is that to say the interpretation of The Tempest to be focused on imperialism is far too much of a stretch. Like I talked about it my last blog posting, I believe too often critics over analyze works of writing. Not all authors write a book or novel with a specific almost "hidden" interpretation, they just write to write. I believe it is unrealistic to say that Shakespeare wrote The Tempest with a basis on Imperialism. I take George Will's view in saying that "Critics displace literature and critics displace authors as bestowers of meaning." You cannot just say that a piece of writing has a certain meaning, and that the meaning it has was specifically written by the author. Lots of times it seems that critics and readers can make their own interpretation of the text and believe it to be the author's intention. I think critics and readers need to stop over analyzing works of writing and focus more on the interpretation they personally took away from the story.

And that is my two cents!

**Oh by the way I was absent, hence why this is late.

Greenblatt & Will.

After reading both of the arguments made in each essay, I can see truths to both sides of the story. The argument being made by George Will is that all works of literature (i.e. The Tempest by William Shakespeare) have a political interpretation of some kind. On the other side of the argument, Stephen Greenblatt says that writing includes a message other than it's literal interpretation, such as religion or . He believes that the world is saturated with the beliefs that all works of writing have unnecessary political ties. Will states, "The MLA, composed mostly of professors of literature and languages, is shocked-- shocked! -- that people suspect it of political motives." Greenblatt argues, "these preoccupation with political power were not at all unfamiliar to Shakespeare and his audience, and that recognizing the presence of issues of colonialism and slavery in Shakespeare should deepen the ordinary reader's pleasure rather than undermine it."
I really don't think I could pick a side with either of the arguments because honestly, they both have their truths. However, with that being said, I think works of writing are often over-analyzed and are read too far out of context. I really don't think EVERY writer sits down and decides they want their writing to have some out of the blue meaning that isn't expected in the text. I can see their arguments in their own way, because I do think most writings can have a deeper interpretation, but not all writing has either political or religious ties.
I also don't believe with the claim that all writing should be interpreted one way. I believe writing was meant to have multiple interpretations, and that a reader should decide what they take away from a work of writing.

Colonialism & The Tempest

In the video you had us watch, "How Hollywood Shaped the Native Americans", we are shown how Hollywood manipulated and twisted the roles of Native Americans to have a negative connotation in the movie industry. It was portrayed that white were the minority in comparison to the Indians, and that they were "out for blood". White people were also shown as being super, and always won the fight against the Indians. Over 4,000 movies used this example of Native Americans, twisting our view of them. At the end of the video, the speaker's final note is that "A Nation who does not know its history has no future." This is a powerful ending statement, showing that if we are ignorant of the things that happened in the past, it will be impossible for us to move on to the future. I think this creates a parallel with Caliban, because Prospero took over the island right when he arrived. He then made Caliban believe that he saved his life, and manipulated him into thinking what he wanted him to. Caliban thinks that the island is rightfully his, and while he is a slave, he still talks back to Prospero. 

In the midst of the article "Cultural Studies: Postcolonialism, African-American Criticism, and Queer Theory", they define the philosophical concept called "alternity as "the others" are excluded from positions of power and viewed as different and inferior". Prospero does this to Caliban in several instances. Prospero manipulates Caliban into being a slave, and treats him as though he is nothing. Although Caliban knows Prospero is not the rightful owner of the island, he had to obey his commands. Prospero treats the people of the island like they are not worthy, and uses them as his slaves. I do think Shakespeare is sympathetic of Caliban, because he presents him in a somewhat positive light. He is bitter towards Prospero, but for good reason.

The Tempest Act I

Prompt: How is Prospero able to control other characters through his use of rhetoric? In other words, how does Prospero manipulate those around him by constructing historical narratives? Think about the way he composes particular versions of the past when speaking to Caliban, Miranda, and Ariel. How do these narratives allow him to maintain power over these individuals?

In Shakespeare's The Tempest,  Prospero is able to control the other characters in the story. He comes up with a completely different and false view of the past. He tells Miranda: "Your mother was extremely virtuous, and she said you were my daughter. And your father was Duke of Milan, and you were his heir, a Princess." Miranda did not know about her past, so Prospero filled her head with lies. Since she knows no better, Prospero is able to manipulate her into thinking anything he pleases. Prospero says "To make his political performance absolutely perfect, he [Antonio] simply had to become the Duke of Milan himself...He's so power-hungry that he allies himself with the King of Naples..." None of this information was correct, but he was able to manipulate Miranda into thinking what he wanted regardless.

Prospero also manipulates the minds of his slave, Ariel. She asks Prospero for freedom, and he responds by acting like her request was impossible and unfair. He manipulates her by saying, "Have you forgotten the torture I freed you from?.... You have forgotten, and you think it's a burden when I ask you to walk through the ocean, or run on the north wind..." He guilt trips her into thinking what she asks is preposterous.

Prospero manipulates the past into lies to make himself look better, altering the history of what happened. This connects to 1984 and the article we read in a sense because he is changing the past to "better" the future, even if it does no one benefit but himself.

He maintains power over the characters in the play by treating them like his puppets. Because he made up the past they all now believe, he can make them do whatever he pleases. Again this connects to 1984 in a huge sense. Big Brother was able to control and manipulate the people of Oceania into thinking whatever "he" so pleased.

Word count: 319

Socratic Circle Reflection

Option #2: Reflect on the conversations that took place in this week's socratic circle.

There really may be no true way to solve the "textbook issue" being debated. However, the way Texas is going about their proposed curriculum change is unfair and unethical. You cannot take important political figures out of history to fit the kind of curriculum you would like to see fit. Trying to take out Thomas Jefferson from history is absolutely ridiculous, as he played a vital role in the history of America. A standardized curriculum needs to be set for all of the United States.

To create an objective textbook would be a challenge in itself, but it is not just about that. The delivery of the history from the teacher is also another problem. It does matter what you include in the book, because students will form their opinions based off of the information they've been given. It needs to be delivered objectively so the students are free to form their own views, instead of having a teacher's insight pressed upon them.

Minority voices should be included in history. While they may not be as important as important figures in history, they still played a role in the forming of our current day America. It makes a statement that we as Americans make sure to highlight not only the vital figures in history, but the minorities that affected it as well.

It may be possible to construct a more efficient method of studying history. However, the roles the teachers play impact the students more than the curriculum itself. The way they deliver the curriculum is biased towards their opinions, which could be changed by presenting points of view in history that look at different sides. History is meant to be discussed and debated, not read to you in a black and white manner.

Well this is exciting.

So here is proof that I made a blog and know how to post on it.

My beautiful horse show picture :P