tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post7064388694004874580..comments2023-11-05T07:27:43.837-05:00Comments on Narrative and Technology: Essay 2 Group 1- Prompt 1Adamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post-88736388051354359972008-09-23T16:12:00.000-04:002008-09-23T16:12:00.000-04:00Phil - great feedback.Chris - the rewritten versio...Phil - great feedback.<BR/><BR/>Chris - the rewritten version has the virtues of clarity and focus. It also has a single key difficulty: you do relatively little beyond repeating what Lyotard has to say in a slightly different way, and repeating some context that we discussed in detail in class. There is absolutely nothing of substance here about analyzing the passage itself, explaining why it's difficult or how we can figure it out (I think Phil raised the same issue about the earlier version). Instead it's all about the context - a context that we mostly raised in class anyway.Adam Johnshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11588769281227456640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post-24782737291748947322008-09-20T20:09:00.000-04:002008-09-20T20:09:00.000-04:00Recreation of human though; is it possible? Lyotar...Recreation of human though; is it possible? Lyotard's essay is a complex discussion of what may lie ahead for mankind. The essay itself is very complicated to read. There are a few reasons why it was difficult to comprehend. Some issues were gramatical; his sentence structure is unlike anything I have read before. Also, Lyotard's wording can be difficult. He uses words that some of them I have never seen before, and in a few cases, he almost seemed to contradict himself in a single sentence. While all of these issues were problems for me, it became apparent that Lyotard had a very deliberate intent when writing the piece in such a unique, although very confusing, manner.<BR/><BR/>"I'm granting to physics theory that technilogical-scientific development is, on the surface of the earth, the present-day form of a process of negentropy or complexification that has been underway since earth began its existance. I'm granting that human beings aren't and never have been a motor of this complexification, but an effect and carrier of this negentropy, its continuer." (22).<BR/><BR/>When I finished reading these two sentences, it seemed to me that maybe I misread them. I reread the paragraph 2 or 3 more times, but I was still unsure.<BR/><BR/>What confused me the most was the fact that Lyotard says that technological development is "complexification" of the earth. However, he states that human beings are not the motor to technological development, just its continuer. To understand what he was getting at, I had to read a little more down the page.<BR/><BR/>"In granting all this, I concede that it isn't any human desire to know or transform reality that propels this techno-science, but a cosmic circumstance." (22).<BR/><BR/>What I took from this was that what Lyotard was trying to get at is technology was not something created by humans. It was discovered. As life evolved from a single cell, to humans, so did the need for these technological changes in order for our survival. It tied into the premise of creating a non-biological human life form because it is a fact that our biological home may not be suited for biological life in the future. So if humans are going to survive, it may have to be through technology.<BR/><BR/>As for the reason why Lyotard wrote in such a confusing manner, the answer might be quite simple. To understand this essay, it takes very in-depth thinking, problem solving, and contextual clues. He is proving how amazing the machine of human thought actually is. How could somebody program an equivalent to human thought? How can anyone truely describe it? The way in which this essay is written, is a point all in itself, and it is a point well taken. There is still a lot of time to figure this problem out, but for now it seems impossible to create human thought.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06278336652410269936noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post-3142402659391267222008-09-18T00:54:00.000-04:002008-09-18T00:54:00.000-04:00While I can sympathize with and clearly see where ...While I can sympathize with and clearly see where you are coming from with your difficulties in understanding the passage you selected, I don’t think you took it far enough. Part of the assignment was to explain what you selected both by itself and in context to the rest of Lyotard’s essay. On occasion, you delved deeper into the meaning of the sentence (such as with the third sentence) but for most of the passage, you simply stated the sentence, your translation, and then moved on. As a reader, I want to know why this passage troubled you, beyond the wording.<BR/><BR/> Along with looking deeper at what the sentences mean, you also need to add more to tie your translations back to the section you chose and Lyotard’s essay as a whole. <BR/><BR/> Another thing that bothered me and made it harder to stay interested in your essay was the constant use of phrases such as “I thought,” “I don’t know,” “I think” (as in self-doubt), and “I guess.” These make you sound unsure of yourself; and even if you are, as a reader it makes it harder for me to take what you are saying seriously. If you’re not confident in what you’re saying, why should I take the time to read it? Removing or rewording these phrases to make what you’re saying sound more definite will rectify this.<BR/><BR/> I have to disagree with your reasoning behind why Lyotard made his essay so complex and hard to read. With a five minute online search, I found enough material to suggest that Lyotard was well enough established when he wrote the essay that he didn’t need to use complex language to sound credible (much like Joy and “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us”). With what we talked about in class, we all have a better understanding Lyotard’s intent.<BR/><BR/> Moving on from content, something I don’t think your essay needs is the first two sentences in the second paragraph. As you point out yourself, they simple restate what you said in the previous paragraph. It disrupts the flow and feels like listening to a scratched CD that just skipped. Also, in your opening paragraph when you are describing Lyotard’s essay, you say he uses “big words.” This phrase seems out of place and almost childish given the subject of both essays. Another term that seems out of place is “overkill” in the seventh paragraph.<BR/><BR/> You have a good base to work on, you just need to explain your translations some more and tie them back to the section and the rest of the essay.Philiphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14891839298075253649noreply@blogger.com