Graded Blog

Inhuman Reading Assignment

Jean-FranCois Lyotard’s “Can Thought go on without a Body?” is quite probably the most confusing, frustrating, and inexplicably difficult to read essay I have ever ventured to comprehend in the history of my existence. From the first paragraph his musings seem to strike a chord between poetry, philosophy, and outright fanatical gibberish written by a person that may not have even understood it himself. Take for example this line from page 10 “But the death of the sun is death of the mind, because it is the death of death as the life of the mind.” oddly poetic and hard to decipher at first. The essay uses needlessly long words such as “phenomenological” and wording that rivals Yoda. Upon deeper inspection, however, there is substance; you just have to be looking hard enough. Many of the points Lyotard makes are coded in quizi-riddles seeming to run backwards and forwards at the same time. One paragraph in particular stood out as more confusing than the rest though and, fittingly, it was the last paragraph of the essay.

The paragraph begins with the line “but once again that analogizing power, which belongs to body and mind analogically and mutually and which body and mind share with each other in the art of invention, is inconsequential compared to an irreparable transcendence inscribed on the body by gender difference. Not only calculation, but even analogy cannot do away with the remainder left by this difference. The difference makes thought go on endlessly and won’t allow itself to be thought. Thought is inseparable from the phenomenological body.” To properly understand the argument presented here dissection is necessary as the parts are more easily decipherable than the whole and once we have the parts the whole will become clearer. To begin with take “once again that analogizing power, which belongs to body and mind analogically and mutually and which body and mind share with each other in the art of invention” First one must notice the use of analogy as pertaining to the mind and body. Analogy in the paragraph previous was intertwined with thought mentioning that thought “makes lavish use of analogy.” This creates a sense that the line deals with the need to resolve the issue of the mind needing the body as a vessel to create analogy or thought. Although further down, Lyotard claims, “art of invention, is inconsequential compared to an irreparable transcendence inscribed on the body by gender difference. Not only calculation, but even analogy cannot do away with the remainder left by this difference. The difference makes thought go on endlessly and won’t allow itself to be thought. Thought is inseparable from the phenomenological body”. This section articulates that this problem is insignificant compared to the problem presented by replicating gender difference in non-human beings. Lyotard continues by asserting that this difference cannot be done away with by calculation or analogy and must be addressed for thought to propagate. Without this perception of gender thought cannot be had for they are inseparable from each other, gender creates thought.

After piecing this section together Lyotard’s argument in this section, by my estimation, is that although solving the problem that is presented by replicating a facsimile of the human body and mind is important it pales in comparison to the effort that must be made to create a sense of gender difference in this creation for otherwise thought is not reasonably possible.

Formal Blog # 2

In his essay, Can Thought go on without a Body, Lyotard attempts to explain the complexities of thought and the difficulty in creating an artificial intelligence that can think like humans do. In one paragraph Lyotard attempts to explain how we perceive things, the limits of language and how writing does not stop where the words do.

“In any serious discussion of analogy it’s this experience that is meant, this blur, this uncertainty, this faith in the inexhaustibility of the perceivable, and not just a mode of transfer of the data onto an inscription-surface not originally its own.” (Lyotard 17)

In this long sentence Lyotard is explaining how the mind perceives things. The mind accounts for more than what is just on the surface. It fills in blanks and draws conclusions based on past experiences and ties them all together when analyzing what we are seeing. Put more simply our minds to not act simply like video cameras that transfer data onto a tape, but instead our minds interpret and analyze details, create new thoughts and fill in blanks. Lyotard believes that this process is extremely complex and is a major barrier to creating a human artificial intelligence. Lyotard then goes on to apply this idea to writing as well.

“Similarly, writing plunges into the field of phrases moving forward by means of adumbrations, groping towards what it ‘means’ and never unaware, when it stops…beyond the writing that has stopped, an infinity of words, phrases and meaning in a latent state, held in abeyance, with as many things ‘to be said’ as at the beginning” (Lyotard 17)

Here Lyotard further emphasizes the complexities of language. He states that the writing itself is only the beginning of what is being expressed. It only begins to sketch the picture, a picture that can have an infinite number of interpretations and ideas spawn from it. The words themselves have much more potential than what is explicitly stated. These complexities of language are what make creating an artificial intelligence so difficult.

“Real ‘analogy’ requires a thinking or representing machine to be in its data just as the eye is in the visual field or writing is in language. It isn’t enough for these machines to simulate the results of vision or of writing fairly well. It’s a matter of…’giving body’ to the artificial thought of which they are capable.” (Lyotard 17)

Here Lyotard attempts to summarize his points as related to creating a thinking machine. When Lyotard mentions analogy he means it in the sense of “resemblance of relations or attributes forming a ground of reasoning” (Oxford online Dictionary). Essentially giving life to their ideas beyond what is directly recorded. Lyotard believes that creating a type of artificial intelligence capable of doing this is the main step in creating artificial human thought.

Lyotard’s essay is essentially a philosophical essay about why intelligence and thought should be preserved beyond the existence of humans and what types of technological hurdles we need to overcome in order to achieve this. In this paragraph Lyotard attempts to explain why simple things such as language and perception are much more complicated than they appear on the surface. Not only will this artificial intelligence have to record video and understand writing, it will have to be able to analyze, interpret and draw parallels to them.

Answering why Lyotard uses difficult language is much more difficult task. I believe that Lyotard uses this difficult language for two reasons. First, because he wants to emphasize the complexities of language to better emphasize his point that language is an extremely complex thing for an artificial intelligence to master. The essay forces you to spend a lot of time analyzing and thinking about what is being said. This helps the reader understand what Lyotard is saying about writing being more than just the words on the paper. Second, because he wants you to spend more time reading the paragraph and therefore more time thinking about the ideas expressed in it. By using difficult language the reader spends more time trying to understand it and as a result walks away with a better understanding of what is being expressed.

Sources

Lyotard, Jean-Francois. “Can Thought Go on without a Body?”

Oxford English Dictionary “Analogy”

http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50007888?single=1&query_type=word&queryword=analogy&first=1&max_to_show=10

Formal Blog #2

Many world conquerors to be, have attempted to bring down the Established Church and, if the state of the Established Church is used as evidence, they have failed miserably. Mao, Leo III, Constantine and Scientology provide a few examples of attacks on Christianity. The Established Church’s strength is an attribute of the beliefs of its followers. Because a strong conviction is so hard to sway, the Established Church stands strong regardless of the power, size and “intelligence” of the attacker. To bring attention to the word “intelligence,” is to emphasize that the opposing side will believe their attackers are ignorant of the truth. Attacks are often initiated because of opposing views that drastically contradict the others, Christianity and Scientology specifically.

Hank Morgan, from Mark Twain’s A Connecticut Yankee at King Arthur’s Court, believes that he will be able to conquer the Established Church. “Rudimentary cleanliness among the nobility...would undermine the Church. I mean would be a step toward that. Next, education -- next, freedom -- and then she would begin to crumble. It being my conviction that any Established Church is an established crime, an established slave-pen, I had no scruples, but was willing to assail it in any way or with any weapon that promised to hurt it” (Twain 144-145).

Jean-François Lyotard, a twentieth century philosopher, describes a reason that Hank Morgan will fail in his essay “Can Thought go on Without a Body.” “A field of perception has limits, but these limits are always beyond reach. While a visual object is presenting one side to the eye, there are always other sides, still unseen. A direct, focused vision is always surrounded by a curved area where visibility is held in reserve yet isn’t absent. Continuing vision preserves along with it what was seen an instant before from another angle. It anticipates what will be seen shortly. These syntheses result in identifications of objects, identifications that never are completed, syntheses that a subsequent sighting can always unsettle or undo” (Lyotard 17). “Perceptual ‘recognition’ never satisfies the logical demand for complete description” (Lyotard 16).

Hank Morgan thinks that he has his process for the destruction of the Established Church figured out. Confounding variables will be present that Hank will not be able to anticipate. These confounding variables will be the logical demand for complete description that can never be satisfied. No matter how Hank goes about looking at his possible scenarios, there will always be something that he will miss. Hank’s over confidence will lead to his inability to conquer his biggest foe. As interpreted from Lyotard, Hanks will never be able to conquer the Established Church because he will never be able to perceive all the variables.

Not all new world technologies that Hanks brings to the sixth century can be considered technologies in the sixth century. “Any material system is technological if it filters information useful to its survival, if it memorizes and processes that information useful to its survival, if it memorizes and processes that information and makes inferences based on the regulating effect of behavior, that is, if it intervenes on and impacts its environment so as to assure its perpetuation at least” (Lyotard 12).

“I took along a night-shift of monks, and taught them the mystery of the pump...To those monks that pump was a good deal of a miracle itself, and they were full of wonder over it; and of admiration, too, of the exceeding effectiveness of its performance” (Twain 214).

Because the technology Hanks brings to the people of the sixth century is not understood by the people who are using it, by Lyotard’s definition above, these would not be considered a technology. These monks that are in charge are unable to make the inferences needed to regulate and maintain this pump, therefore they will not be able to assure perpetuation. These monks see the pump as a miracle and most likely have no idea how this technology works.

After Hank is no longer able to be in the sixth century to repair the technologies that he has brought to them, the technology will begin to fail. Lyotard says that even if the hardware is present, the software must be perfected in order for the being to progress. The people that have been exposed to the technologies will not have the knowledge of how the technologies were developed; therefore, they will be disadvantaged in repairing and improving the technology.

Jean-François Lyotrad’s essay “Can Thought go on Without a Body” provides information that gives a reader of Mark Twain’s A Connecticut Yankee at King Arthur’s Court the ability to interpret the book in different ways. The reader should do this because it can be understood that not all the things that Hank does for the people of the sixth century are beneficial to them; it may be possible to go as far as saying that he is wasting their time. It is possible to say this because as Lyotard describes in his essay, a good technology is hard to develop, and unless it is developed properly, the new technology will not be able to lead to new enlightenment. If Hank is able to cause the church to crumble, would this be a good thing to the people of the sixth century? The most likely outcome of the removal of the church would be chaos; caused by the lack of the morals that are taught by the church. Even in today’s society where science has become highly accepted, religious morals are still very important in the education of right and wrong.

Worshiping the Machine

Something that I noticed in the movie Metropolis are machines being portrayed as gods. In Metropolis after the machines goes critical and the workers jump to their demise, the machines transforms into what slightly resembles a Mayan temple of worship.

The workers of Metropolis have to preform their job properly or else the machine will hurt them. As can be seen from watching the film, when the jobs are not carried out properly the machine retaliates. Like a angry god it releases its fury on the wrong doers causing them to jump to their deaths to escape its wrath.

The transformation of the machine into a god is also seen in the way the workers give themselves to it. In large groups the workers ascend the stairs to the mouth of the machine and sacrifice themselves to it. This practice is not far off from the sacrificial practices of the Maya. The workers without any apparent hesitation jump into the depths that they where to never return from.

The machine must be tended to in order for the workers lives to continue. Without work they will starve, without performing the proper work the machine will kill or injure them. So they must respect the machine and its power, similar to the ways that early civilizations respected and worshiped their gods.

Formal Blog #2 Lyotard & Hank Morgan

“There were no stoves yet, and so there could be nothing serious about stove-polish. All that the agent needed to do was to deftly and by degrees prepare the public for the great change, and have them established in predilections towards neatness against the time when the stove should appear upon the stage.” (Twain 175).

“This obviously has nothing to do with tabula rasa, with what Descartes (vainly) wanted to be a starting from scratch on the part of knowing – a starting that paradoxically can only be a starting all over again. In what we call thinking the mind isn’t ‘directed’ but suspended. You don’t give it rules. You teach it to receive.” (Lyotard 19).

In A Connecticut Yankee at King Arthur’s Court, Twain’s main character, Hank Morgan, immediately begins to apply his 19^th century values and knowledge to his new home, 6^th century England. Almost as quickly, he realizes that he possesses a great power and opportunity, for he not only knows what the future holds – he can use his knowledge to bring the technology of the 19^th century to “Olde England” and re-shape the entire culture in America’s image – effectively changing history. At least that is Morgan’s plan.

Morgan begins to educate small, select portions of King Arthur’s kingdom in the arts of contemporary (19^th century) warfare, communications and social theory (i.e. the glories of revolution). He creates a secret primary school, as well as a military school, and begins to lay wires for a comprehensive communication system that will connect all of the larger communities within the kingdom. He uses his superior scientific knowledge to perform “great miracles” in predicting eclipses, repairing wells and generally blowing things up to ensure his role as a leader and advisor within Arthur’s court. Morgan sends out knightly emissaries to spread messages regarding tooth care, house-cleaning, soap and stove-polish to the great unwashed masses in the kingdom (even though, as the excerpt above notes, there are no stoves as of yet for the population to be cleaning.) He does all of these things to execute his plan to create “first, a modified monarchy, till Arthur’s days were done, then the destruction of the throne, nobility abolished, every member of it bound out to some useful trade, universal suffrage instituted, and the whole government placed in the hands of the men and women of the nation, there to remain” (Twain 280).

What Morgan takes for granted, and a problem that in another context Lyotard’s essay cautions against, is the belief that Morgan’s new “blank canvas” (Olde England) with the application of 19^th century technologies, will develop into a new, glorious version of 19^th century America with himself in a leadership (if not the leadership) position or, at the very least, those he believes worthy of leadership roles. Hank looks at himself as the guiding force, to bring these unwashed, ignorant “children” into the light and liberty of 19^th century America. If Hank is unable to travel forward in time to return home – then he will bring England into the future with rapid deployment of his troops, emissaries and technologies. But how can he be sure that this path will be the one taken? How can he be certain that the stove polish will actually have a purpose?

After all, Hank has a sense of how he thinks society should evolve but these people are not 19^th century Americans who have debated and been indoctrinated in the idea of human freedom, democracy and liberty for over 100 years. These are people who have been beaten down, indoctrinated by the Church, and who suffer under a king and a aristocracy that determines every portion of their lives.

Lyotard’s article emphasizes the wide variety of factors that go into making a body capable of thought. He explores issues surrounding pain, suffering, gendered experiences, intuition and how all of these elements influence thought. If one were to apply this to Hank’s master plan, it is easy to see what Hank is missing from the picture. This country, at this particular time, has experiences, circumstances, and elements that are unique to it – just as 19^th century America had elements that were unique to its development, economically, technically and socially. Applying American technological advances to 6^th century England does not guarantee that Hank will be able to create a utopia. The 6^th century populations may decide not to follow the “rules” he lays out.

Lyotard writes that, “Words, phrases in the act of writing, the latent nuances and timbres at the horizon of a painting or a musical composition as it’s being created all lend themselves to us for the occasion and yet slip through our fingers” (Lyotard 18). It seems likely that despite Hank Morgan’s best intentions this dream to create a new utopian society will also likely slip through his fingers. The people that live in the 6^th century are not “blank slates” (Descartes’ tabula rasa) instead they are products of their times who will react to Morgan’s technologies in a way that is appropriate to their experiences and in a way (which one would suspect) that Morgan will be unable to predict.

Assignment for Blog #2

First, thanks to Erika & Courtney for a couple great posts, which take us into rather different areas of thought.

Second, as a reminder, anyone who didn't do a graded blog entry last week needs to do one this week.

Here are some options for your graded blog entry (they are modified versions of assignments 2 and 3 from last semester):

#1) Find a difficult passage in Lyotard's essay and explain it. By difficult, I mean that it should be one of the more difficult passages in the essay, such that you really don't understand it at all at first. By explain, I mean you should analyze it it in detail to explain the sentence (or phrase, or paragraph) both by itself and in context. You may need to look some things up, maybe in an unabridged dictionary or a dictionary of philosophy. Finally, once you understand it you should explain (or justify) why it's so hard. Why does he need to make a sentence (or paragraph, or phrase) so difficult?

#2) Use some aspect of Lyotard's essay, as represented by one or more quotes, (re)interpret some aspect of Twain, as represented by one or more quotes. You should argue both that we can and should read Twain differently because we have read Lyotard.

#3) Lyotard's essay/story, which I excerpted from his great (and frustrating) book The Inhuman is interested in what some thinkers (e.g, Katherine Hayles in her book How We Became Posthuman) have called "the Posthuman" - the idea that our current technological endeavors will lead to a sentient existence, which, while continuous with ours, can no longer properly be called "human." Making use of Lyotard, if only to define some aspect of the inhuman/posthuman, discuss ways in which Twain anticipates or prefigures "the Posthuman." You might want to include a brief discussion of what the terms "human" and "posthuman" mean to you.

Out of This Furnace/Marx

I am taking an American history course this semester and we are reading a book called Out of This Furnace, written by Thomas Bell. It is a novel about immigrant labor in America. It pretty much follows three Slovaks through their lives in the mills. The setting is the Pittsburgh area, mostly centered around Braddock and Homestead. After class yesterday I was reading this book. I just so happened to come across a few passages that related to the Marx quote. Marx referred to workers as becoming appendages to the machines that pretty much ruled them. In out of this furnace Bell states some of the same ideas.

In the one part one of the men is talking about the General Superintendent paying a visit to the mill. The man talks of him as being a very high figure and says, "It was now his furnace and they its servants, and his;"(Bell, 166). This grabbed my attention because we discussed in class how workers in the mills were pretty much thought of as slaves and servants. I believe the date in the book was around 1907. I don't know when in relation that is to Marx (I am really bad with dates).

In another passage shortly following the one above the same man says, "Exhaustion slowly numbed his body, mercifully fogged his mind; he ceased to be a human being, became a mere appendage to the furnace, a lost, damned creature" (Bell, 167). The Marx quote says pretty much exactly the same thing. Marx said, "In the factory we have a lifeless mechanism which is independent of the workers, who are incorporated into it as its living appendages" (Marx, Capital 548). Bell's character was stating that with all of the long, exhausting hours in the mill, he really has become just a human appendage to the furnace. As soon as I read the word "appendage" in Bell's book, the Marx quote came to mind immediately.

I just thought it was kind of interesting to see that an author would write that as a worker actually stating that he is an appendage to the furnace. Sort of facing the facts that he was probably going to be working there until he died if he didn't actually die as a result of the mills.

Just thought it would be interesting to post about seeing that I wasn't even reading that book for this class!


Bell, Thomas. Out Of This Furnace: A Novel of Immigrant Labor in America. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1976.

Rodin

After the discussion last night- I had to look up Rodin (yes, I am that big of a dork) and see when he was active creatively. When reading the description of the sculpture in "Life the Iron Mills" I had pictured something very much like some of Rodin's more expressive works (of course, as I admitted last night I had no really grasp on when the story was written) and figured that he had to be an influence on the description of the sculpture in the story.

What I discovered is that he actually was born in the 1840's- so it is highly unlikely that his work was the inspiration of descriptions contained in "Iron Mills." Which means that Davis was quite inspired or prescient in her descriptions. But I found this interesting description on Wikipedia that sounds very similar to the ideas/descriptions expressed in the story...

"Rodin was a naturalist, less concerned with monumental expression than with character and emotion.^[45] Departing with centuries of tradition, he turned away from the idealism of the Greeks, and the decorative beauty of the Baroque and neo-Baroque movements. His sculpture emphasized the individual and the concreteness of flesh, and suggested emotion through detailed, textured surfaces, and the interplay of light and shadow. To a greater degree than his contemporaries, Rodin believed that an individual's character was revealed by his physical features.^[2]"

I wonder if Rodin read "Life in the Iron Mills"....

Modern times

Chaplin's movie “Modern Times" is tinged with sarcasm. The word "modern" expresses a new age, a wave of change, leaving the old for the better, instead the movie portrayed quite the opposite. Chaplin expressed the hardship of the masses resulting from the elimination of the middle class, the wave of industrialization and their fight for survival.

Modern times is a movie about strife during the birth of industrialization, coupled with the economic crisis faced by the masses. It expresses the hardships of the early 20th century, a period of depression.

Finding employment was difficult and retaining it was an even more daunting task. This was a result of the wave of industrialization as the workers gradually lost their jobs to the machines. A common thread throughout the movie is that of the struggle to survive. Chaplin illustrates this in the characters of Gamin stealing a loaf of bread, the thieves robbing for food and even Chaplin himself who would prefer jail to life outside.

There was also the stratification of classes that occurred during this time as seen in the scene with the boss sitting comfortably in his office while overworking his employees. Also attempting to maximize the input of his workers by minimizing their time off the assembly line, Chaplin reinforces the Marxist idea that in an industrialized society people become less valued than machines.

“Modern times, a story of industry, of individual enterprise –humanity crusading in the pursuit of happiness.” This statement epitomizes the sarcasm.

Twain vs. Marx

In Twain's book A CONNECTICUT YANKEE AT KING ARTHUR'S COURT and Marx quote they both refer to the machines. They both talked of these machines in different respect. Twain

expresses the machine in term of Men while Marx approaches the idea form and industrial perspective.

Twain’s novel expresses the classification and social injustices that existed within King Arthur’s courts. The king was the factory, and the slaves his workers. They did work for menial pay while they were stripped of their basic living amenities. “…you soon saw that brains were not needed in a society like that and indeed would have marred it, hindered it, spoiled its symmetry -perhaps rendered its existence impossible.” (Twain 22) This quote explains the oppression the people had to endure. It also conveys the fact that the masters were aware of the dangers enlightenment of the slaves posses to their existence.

The Yankee was the key to civilization after his near death escape. He hoped to use his brilliance to improve humanity. He felt civilization was the way to close the ever widening gap of social inequality. However, he also realizes the obstacles he faces with the church and the king in achieving this goal. He believed that if he could break down the iron grips of theses institutions he can free the people, and possibly improve their lives.

In understanding the relationship between Marx’s quote and Twains' book it is necessary to examine the fundamentals of Marx’s theory. He believed that men with some day be replace by machines, becoming appendages that pick up their slack.

Marx’s believes that industrialization is an entrapment that looms over humans through civilization. “One basis of Marxism and Communism is the idea, as detailed above, that industrial workers under capitalism become little more than cogs in the machine themselves.” Marx explains that the growing industrialization with eventually replace men. This will in turn create a class; the bourgeoisie and the proletariat which will eventually eliminate the middle class.

Twain poses a possible solution to the problem of machine vs. men in his book, in this context the machine being the institutions and men the slaves, with civilization. However, Marx will argue that he was replacing a machine with another- factory (industry) machine. I strong believe that although industrialization may come with a price, but if handle appropriately it not as costly to man.

Twain, Mark. A CONNECTICUT YANKEE AT KING ARTHUR'S COURT. London: Penguin Books, 1971.

Joe Liu's Graded Blog # 1

The idea of the worker as being a cog in the machine on the basis of Marxism and Communism is definitely an interesting point to make. If one thinks about it, in order to produce mass amounts of products and at the same time employ as many people as possible, it only works if the factory machine “makes use of him.” Many are used to operate one large piece of machinery in a big assembly line, and the factory is indeed a “lifeless mechanism which is independent of the workers, who are incorporated into it as its living appendages.” Just like in the movie Modern Times, Charlie Chaplain and his other co-workers all worked together at the factory and each person had his own individual task to maintain. Although it was very humorous, whenever Charlie Chaplain would stop even for a split second, the rest of the assembly line would clog up, and no progress would be made.

In the Life in the Iron-Mills, by Rebecca Harding Davis, it is very interesting to note that the author contains the same view of the factory/worker relationship that Marxism/Communism embodies. Davis states:

“Not many even of the inhabitants of a manufacturing town know the vast machinery of system by which the bodies of workmen are governed, that goes on unceasingly from year to year. The hands of each mill are divided into watches that relieve each other as regularly as the sentinels of an army. By night and day the work goes on, the unsleeping engines groan and shriek, the fiery pools of metal boil and surge. Only for a day in the week, in half-courtesy to public censure, the fires are partially veiled; but as soon as the clock strikes midnight, the great furnaces break forth with renewed fury, the clamor begins with fresh, breathless vigor, the engines sob and shriek like “gods in pain.””

She even explicitly gives the description of the watches that relieve one another as “sentinels of an army,” which is definitive evidence of her similar views with Marx. As a cog in a machine, a worker in a factory would need to eventually be relieved (which wasn’t quite portrayed in Modern Times); however, it is very clearly described in Davis’ “Sentinel” comparison. Just like the factory workers, guards protecting a castle or prison cannot be alert and awake all day and night. They are routinely relieved of their post by well rested guards, and only does this efficient cycle ensure that the sentinels properly keep watch over a piece of property. Indeed, the author indicates her view that the workers are part of the living mechanism of the factory that is incorporated into its “living appendages.”

However, Davis’ concept of industrial labor may differ in one crucial aspect when in comparison with Marx’s ideas. In Marx’s writings, he describes the machine and worker relationship as one that must occur for the machine to operate. The workers are the machine’s appendages and must be in place for proper operation. Therefore, the machine does not show any evidence of wanting to harm the workers in any way. Just like we have arms and legs, since they allow us to walk and finish various tasks, we would not want to damage our appendages in any way. However, Davis states that the “great furnaces break forth with renewed fury, the clamor begins with fresh, breathless vigor, the engines sob and shriek like “gods in pain.” These images provide a negative and evil feeling within someone. The diction includes words such as “shriek” and “pain,” which give the impression that the machines do not give the working environment a positive feeling for the workers. It almost seems as if the machines suck the workers in and consume them, as can happen in Iron-Mills, and if this unfortunate situation does occur, then just like a sentinel, he can be replaced very readily with someone else.

Davis’ writings give a very interesting outlook on industrial labor when compared with Marxism/Communistic ideas. Through various sections in her work, similarities and differences can be seen which almost can be viewed as contradictory. Workers are crucial for a machine to operate. It seems as if Marx believes that the machine treats the workers as parts of its own body in order to maximize its production; therefore, the machine would try to protect the worker. However, through Davis’ statements, it seems as if the machine tries to consume the workers, knowing that relief is readily at hand due to the fact that during the time, many people were in need of employment. With these thoughts in mind, it is quite interesting to think about how a machine/factory is in a way alive with its own thoughts and intentions.

Graded Post #1

Twain expresses the meaning of the word “technology” much like it is commonly used today to show industry or some sort of mechanical device, but also parallels are used with the meaning of the word “technique” with the reasoning or ideals of the people. Early in the text is the best example I have found of the contrast of present and past society’s technologies. It also shows how the lives of the people are being changed by the presence of just one man. Clarence is a perfect example of this change when the narrator describes Clarence’s condition at the time, “Of late I had been training him for journalism…he talked sixth century and wrote nineteenth.” This man of only 22 years of age had been changed in the matter of 4 years to now be almost up to date with the 19^th century in not only his writing habits but also in being able to articulate ideas well enough to create a newspaper. In this example speech is being used more as a tool than a technique, it is used to write a newspaper which would then give rise to new thoughts or discussions in the area, much like our media does today. This shows the process from technology to technique and almost suggests that technology can be easily implanted but technique can only be discovered. Much like the technology given to Clarence the entire area was being changed with the placement of schools and factories, the placement of electricity, phone lines, etc; all of this in the hopes that it would lead to future technique much like the industrial revolution has done in our society. The technology of the people is continually getting better and advancing, yet the reasoning and the technique of the people is not advancing in the same stride, probably also paralleling Twain’s time.

A better example to express the lack of technique is seen within King Arthur’s court. King Arthur’s court is often visited by people from surrounding areas which bring upon them a challenge or a tale of adventure. The narrator compares these people to that of the homeless or beggars of his time. They come to the castle and tell their tales so that they may be put up and fed while telling their tale and while going on this adventure. There seems to be a need for this because these newcomers are always welcome much like a “corpse is to a coroner.” The court brings this girl into the court and she tells her story of a far away land in which many princesses are held hostage by a 4 armed ogre or something of the sort and they need the courts assistance. The court of course believes every word of this without any question. The ignorance in all of this shows that though the technology (industry) of the area is advancing, the people still rely on the old way of reasoning (technique). This is not so astonishing to me in the book but I believe it shows comparison to what is happening in Twain’s time as well. The world in Twain’s time is advancing in industry and mechanical aspects but there still isn’t this push for education and understanding like we see in 2008. I believe he is trying to bring this idea out with these passages and perhaps try to mock these types of people in his society or to mock society itself.

References

Twain, Mark. A Connecticut Yankee at King Arthur’s Court. Penguin Classics: 1986.

Graded Post #1 -Davis

In life everyone is just trying to get ahead and make it to the next day. This is never more apparent then is the workplace. Everyone has a job that they either love or hate, but they show up every day, do their work and go home only to return the next day and do it all over again. This monotonous life is lead by millions of people around the world. People who go about their life miserable because they have fallen into a horrible cycle of perpetual work. Marx describes how people use a tool or machine and the machine in return ends up making use of them. This is true in many industrial factories. “In the factory we have a lifeless mechanism which is independent of the workers, who are incorporated into it as its living appendages.” (Marx)

In Life in the Iron Mills Davis describes the unfulfilling life of several men who work long hours in a mill. They often go to work drunk and do not focus on their tasks. The men seem to live to work and work to live. They are cooped up at work and seem to never leave.

“The old man, like many of the puddlers and feeders of the mills, was Welsh,--had spent half of his life in the Cornish tin-mines. You may pick the Welsh emigrants, Cornish miners, out of the throng passing the windows, any day. They are a trifle more filthy; their muscles are not so brawny; they stoop more. When they are drunk, they neither yell, nor shout, nor stagger, but skulk along like beaten hounds. A pure, unmixed blood, I fancy: shows itself in the slight angular bodies and sharply-cut facial lines. It is nearly thirty years since the Wolfes lived here. Their lives were like those of their class: incessant labor, sleeping in kennel-like rooms, eating rank pork and molasses, drinking--God and the distillers only know what; with an occasional night in jail, to atone for some drunken excess. Is that all of their lives?”

She describes how work consumes most of their life and how the working class has no way of escaping the machine work. Davis describes industrial labor as being arduous and daunting where as Twain describes industrial labor as a big revelation in technology and how great it is that industry is possible. Davis describes the horrible life that technology has brought and how people become slaves to the machines that they operate. Twain describes how useful and necessary technology and machines are to modern times. When Twain’s character returned to more “primitive” time he could not understand how they could live without all the conveniences that he was used to. Both authors are similar when they describe how technology is present in everything that occurs. Everyone is dependent on new innovations and becomes a slave to them.

Marx takes the side of Davis when he describes the theory of industrial labor because he comments on how people depend on machines and how machines depend on people. Davis describes how people become almost like a machine. They have no emotions when they are drunk and tired at work. They act like machines doing the same boring thing all day. They basically become lifeless like a machine. The workers want to bring change and escape their working class lives and stop working for money alone. They want to live a more free life and live to be happy.

Reference:

Life in the Iron-Mills

by Rebecca Harding Davis

Marx, Capital 548

Graded Entry 1- option 2

When we say the word technology, most of us (including myself) think about the everyday electronics and machinery we use in our lives. There is such a range of definitions for the word "technology" that its actually extremely hard to pinpoint. Each individual has their own take on what it means to them, and I'm going to explore Mark Twain's take on it in his book, "A Conneticut Yankee at King Arthur's Court.

When thinking about how Twain interprets technology in the novel, chapter 7, "Merlin's Tower", stuck out like a sore thumb if you will. It is after the Yankee's terms are met and he is treated as royalty. He describes the living quarters in this way...
"As for convieniences, properly speaking, there weren't any. I mean little convieniences;
it is the little convieniences that make the real comfort of life. The big oaken chairs,
graced with rude carvings, were well enough, but that was a stopping-place. There was
no soap, no matches, no looking glass- except a metal one, about as powerful as a pail of
water. " (Twain, 79).
It is the little "convieniences" that we take for granted. These are included in technology, for I believe Twain views technology as progression, and "convieniences" that make life a whole lot easier. He extends past this passage about the living quarters and leads to the fact that we don't really know just how much technology is intertwined with our lives until we lose it. Technology represents a developed society for Twain, one where people are of high intelligence and use machinery in their daily lives. In the beginning, the Yankee describes the people of King Arthurs Court almost childlike, and this is very interesting to me. Technology is a symbol for progress, and it helps us develop into complex and intelligent beings whereas the people of the Court are still at a child's level of emotion, complexity and intelligence.

The Yankee uses technology to his advantage, when he outsmarts the kingdom into thinking he is some sort of magician. He begins to create factories and schools to increase the amount of technology in society, but does this in secret. Something as simple as reading and writing is a scarcity in this 6th century, and it shows just how much we take those little things for granted. For instance when the Yankee is on his adventure to the castle, he doesn't understand how these people can go without bathing or changing out of armour. It is a matter of what you are used to. Technology can go unnoticed when it is there all around you.

"It is a little thing-glass is- until it is absent, then it becomes a big thing,"(Twain 81). Twain's main theme that I can make out so far is the importance of technology or progress and how much we don't appreciate it until it is taken away. It is an interesting concept to put a 20th century factory owner, whose life is run by technology, into the 6th century where technology is so much less developed that it seems absent completely.

Sources

Twain, Mark. A conneticut Yankee at King Arthur's Court. Penguin Books. New York City, New York. 1986.

Graded Entry #1 - Sean Dolinar - Technique

One of the more striking passages I noticed when I read Mark Twain’s A Connecticut Yankee at King Arthur’s Court was when the Yankee first appeared at the round table.  The Yankee calls them “a childlike and innocent lot” (53). These medieval people from the perspective of the 19^th century Yankee or our 21^st century perspective are backward.  They have unscientific ways.  They believe in magic and tall tales that are told at the Round Table.  This is neither the first nor the last reference to the people of this age being like children.  The analogy keeps on reoccurring when comparing the uneducated backwardness of the citizens of the past.

 

This analogy is a tool or technique that Twain is using to convey the what we as modern people might think about these inhabitants of centuries ago.  This viewpoint is held by the Yankee and is part of his inspiration to improve their lives with his knowledge.  Twain is in this instance showing that man of King Arthur’s time to be inferior to today’s civilization.

 

This bias is different from the two other narratives we have been exposed to in class: Modern Times and Life in the Iron Mills.  They take a negative view of technology, showing that man is caught up in all the machinery.  Twain, however, shows that the people with out this technology are uncivilized and lack the basic values that modern man has.

 

This scene in the court shows a few things.  First, people are ignorant because no one ever questions any of the stories that the knights are telling.  They just accept the far out stories as fact.  There are dogfights, which show that these people are savage enough to make dogs fight each other.  Surely, the civilized person of the 19^th century would be appalled by dogfighting.  Third, the people of high class spoke vulgarly.  This is peculiar to the Yankee, but he reasons that they did not know any better since the convention of speaking politely or with class had not been contrived.

 

If these medieval people are childlike, then to extend the analogy the Yankee would be an adult, sensible and educated.  However, instead of mere children, these people are dangerous.  This is evident in how they almost execute the Yankee.  These ‘children’ will not blindly believe the Yankee, because he has to be careful on what he says so he does not break the traditions of the time or anger the Catholic Church.

 

References

Twain, Mark. A Connecticut Yankee at King Arthur’s Court. Penguin Classics: 1986.

 

Graded Blog Entry #1: Option 1 (Marx/Twain)

In Mark Twain’s A Connecticut Yankee at King Arthur’s Court there is much political and social insight provided that can be compared with Marx’s quote on the place of industrial workers in the bigger machine. The passage I would like to examine is centered more on the political worth of the individual, but much of what Twain writes can be applied to the industrial workers of a capitalist society. Twain writes:

“You see my kind of loyalty was loyalty to one’s country, not to its institutions or its office-holders. The country is the real thing, the substantial thing, the eternal thing; it is the thing to watch over, and care for and be loyal to; institutions are extraneous, they are its mere clothing, and clothing can wear out, become ragged, cease to be comfortable, cease to protect the body from winter, disease, and death. To be loyal to rags, to shout for rags, to worship rags, to die for rags – that is loyalty of unreason, it is pure animal; it belongs to monarchy, was invented by monarchy; let monarchy keep it. I was from Connecticut, whose Constitution declares ‘that all political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their benefit; and that they have at all times an undeniable and indefeasible right to alter their form of government in such a manner as they may think expedient.” (Twain, 128-129)

It is easy to see the differences between Twain and Marx. Marx believes that “In the factory we have a lifeless mechanism which is independent of the workers, who are incorporated into it as its living appendages”. In Twain’s passage, he sees the situation from an opposite perspective – that, while the institution is independent, it is solely for the benefit of the workers and can be replaced – that the people are not cogs in the machine, but instead lead the machine in a capitalistic society like America. When Twain writes of such institutions in a political sense, they can easily be seen as the factories and workers that Marx described. From reading Marx’s statement it appears that the factory is the essential component in the factory/worker dynamic and that the individual is minimized under capitalistic systems. This is much different from Twain’s statement that “all political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their benefit” (Twain, 128). Again, much of this passage is a discussion of government rather than factory workers specifically, but one could infer that the individuals are the important components of a factory and that the factory is only there because of the workers’ desire to be a part of such a system and through innovation and improvements, the system can be upgraded and changed.

The main character, Hank Morgan, is himself an example of an individual’s ability to bring about change in a society. In his case, he has focused on social improvements like education but Twain shows the power of the individual to change such deeply ingrained institutions like the ones in medieval England. An extension of that is that the individual can be powerful in a capitalistic society because they are in charge of the institutions and government, not the other way around. As a result, if I were to alter Marx’s statements to comply more with Twain’s beliefs, I would simply append that the individual is both a part of the system as well as the director of the system and it is because of the individuals that the system exists in the first place.

Not everything that Marx states is in conflict from what Twain writes in the novel. Many of the people whom Hank Morgan encounters could easily be seen as a part of the capitalistic machine that Marx writes about. They are uneducated, follow the institutions blindly (hence Morgan’s explanation of American government) and are not in control of their own power. Perhaps Morgan’s ability to bring about change is more a reflection of his power of knowledge, rather than the power of an individual who is a part of the capitalist system that Marx describes. Still, it is the optimism and positivity with which Twain describes the American system of government that leads me to believe that his beliefs on government, society and more specifically, the role of the industrial worker differs from Marx.

Twain, Mark. A Connecticut Yankee at King Arthur’s Court. London. Penguin Books. 1986.

Graded Blog Entry #1: Techniques to Describe Technology

Technology is an important aspect of society and finds its way into everyday life and in most literature. The advancements of technologies in a society also can represent the status of the society. Nations with advanced communications, computer and medical technologies are referred to as developed nations while nations that are not as advanced are generally looked down upon and labeled as uncivilized. If one breaks down the Greek roots of the word technology to techne and logos, technology can be defined as words about techniques. This definition shows that different farming and hunting techniques or technologies that allow one nation to exist is still a technology even if it is looked at as primitive to advanced nations.

In literature, different techniques can be used to tell a story. In the same regard, different techniques can be used to describe technologies used in a story. In the case of Mark Twain’s A Connecticut Yankee at King Arthur’s Court, he constantly describes the technologies of Camelot and new technologies brought by the ‘curious stranger’. The following passage is an example of this:

“We had another large departure on hand, too. This was a telegraph and a telephone; our first venture in this line. These wires were for private service only, as yet, and must be kept private until a riper day should come. We had a gang of men on the road, working mainly by night. They were stringing ground wires; we were afraid to put up poles, for they would attract too much inquiry. Ground wires were good enough, in both instances, for my wires were protected by an insulation of my own invention which was perfect. My men had orders to strike across country, avoiding roads, and establishing connection with any considerable towns whose lights betrayed their presence, and leaving experts in charge.” (Twain, 104).

It is first important to note that at the time this was written (1889), the patents for the telephone by Alexander Graham Bell was only about a decade old (1878-1880). (Invention). This meant that the telephone was a rather ‘high-tech’ device in this time period. This passage was one of many explaining how the ‘curious stranger’ brought nineteenth century civilization to Camelot, but I believe it best shows the techniques in which Twain discusses technology in this book.

When the prospect of telephone lines is being introduced, it is made obvious that this is far above the society’s current technologies and will make Camelot a much better society. Only experts will be allowed to use the telephone and telegraph lines and it would be kept secret from the masses because they would not be able to handle this. Even though Camelot may have been a high standing society in sixth century England, it was uncivilized to him and for civility to occur technologies must be implemented and the masses must be educated. To describe all of these technologies and new industries that were discussed throughout the novel, all of which were relatively ‘cutting edge’ at the time the novel was written, it was directly compared to the ways of an ‘uncivilized’ society.

I believe that Twain is commenting on how all of the advances in technology that occurred in the nineteenth century can easily be taken for granted. The ‘curious stranger’ constantly discussed how to have civilization you must first have the various industries and technologies he introduced to Camelot when he was in a society that was an advanced society in its time period. He could not comprehend a society existing without all of the modern technologies he was accustomed to in Connecticut. By showing this throughout his novel, Twain effectively shows how easy it is to take for granted advancements that had to occur over time that allow for everything that is available in current times.

“Invention of the Telephone” Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. 16 Jan 2008 : information reference for article: Coe, Lewis. The Telephone and Its Several Inventors: A History. North Carolina: McFarland, 1995.

Twain, Mark. A Connecticut Yankee at King Arthur’s Court. London: Penguin Books, 1986.

Graded blog entry # 1 - Twain vs. Marx

After reading the quote by Marx and after watching Modern Times, it is clear that under capitalism in the factory setting machines really do control the workers. The workers literally work for the machines; whatever the machine cannot do, the worker picks up. The workers are there to work as appendages to some machines. As of today, some machines really do have human-like appendages.

As I was reading Twain’s, A Connecticut Yankee at King Arthur’s Court, I came across a paragraph that reminded me in a way of the Marx quote. Twain said,

“The most of King Arthur's British nation were slaves, pure and simple, and bore that name, and wore the iron collar on their necks; and the rest were slaves in fact, but without the name; they imagined themselves men and freemen, and called themselves so. The truth was, the nation as a body was in the world for one object, and one only: to grovel before king and Church and noble; to slave for them, sweat blood for them, starve that they might be fed, work that they might play, drink misery to the dregs that they might be happy, go naked that they might wear silks and jewels, pay taxes that they might be spared from paying them, be familiar all their lives with the degrading language and postures of adulation that they might walk in pride and think themselves the gods of this world. And for all this, the thanks they got were cuffs and contempt; and so poor-spirited were they that they took even this sort of attention as an honor.” (Twain, 88)

I know this does not really have much to do with industry and factories but I found ways in which I believe it relates to Marx’s quote. From my perspective, the king, Church, and noble all represent the machine as it would be in a factory. The slaves and “freemen” represent the workers in the factory that act as appendages to the machine.

Just as the machine pretty much calls the shots in the factory setting, the king calls all of the shots in his kingdom. The kingdom can be related to a factory. The workers in a factory are there to help out the machine, while the slaves and freemen do all of the work for the king. Marx states, “here it is the movements of the machine that he must follow” (Marx, Capital 548). In relation to the kingdom I would change the sentence to say, “In the kingdom it is the movements of the king that his workers must follow.”

As the Twain quote explains, people of that time work for the king because they have to. All of the order and power goes through the king so there is no work that they can do without orders from the king either directly or indirectly. In the time of industry under capitalism people are forced to work with the machines because there are no other jobs. They work these jobs in hope that their lives will someday be better, that they will have money to pay for food, shelter, and other necessities. The only thanks that they ever got were low wages and bad lives.

In my opinion, the only real difference between Twain’s book and Marx’s quote is that the kingdom is before the time of industrialism. Since there were no such technological advances in that time, there were no machines for the people to have to work with. Marx’s language would need some altering to fit into the time of kings and kingdoms. The change would have to go from people working for machines, to people working for people (the king in this instance). If Twain and Marx were of the same time I believe they would have a similar outlook on labor. Industrial labor or not, the two still have some similarities.

Twain, Mark. A CONNECTICUT YANKEE AT KING ARTHUR'S COURT. London: Penguin Books, 1971.

Informal Post 1

Hey class! My name is Meghan Patton but you can call me Meg or General Patton if you prefer. I know it sounds weird, but it is my nickname. I am a sophomore here at Pitt and I am loving every minute of it. I am currently a business/communications dual major and one day I hope to go into advertising and make commercials. Either that or write for a comedy show (a girl can dream lol). On my free time I enjoy sports, hanging out with friends, obtaining street cred., singing, dancing, and yes the occasional video game tourny.

We all use technology in our daily lives, and I think its fascinating how accustomed we have become to it. When I think of technology, I think of all of the electronics and tools we use to help make our lives easier. You don't go anywhere without your cell phone, am I right? One might say technology is distorting reality, because much of the developed world relys on news and television shows to find out whats going on. It is almost as if technology is replacing our ability to act in social situations. Really, could we live without it? To everything from difibulators to computers to the microwave you used to cook your chef boyardee, we live in a technology-hungry society and I don't think people would know what to do without it as a crucial part of their lives. I would even count seemingly small things such as paper and pens as technology because we use technology to help make those, and they do make our lives easier. The Twain book kind of backs up my opinion in a way because it is about a man from the 20th century who goes back to the sixth century and realizes just how essential technology is to his everyday life. That's basically my take on technology, and I am really looking forward to learning a lot more about it in this class.

I really actually enjoyed the silent film, Modern Times, and I thought it was crazy how much we could figure out about the plot and what was going on without any dialogue except for the small tidbits. I agree with Brian when he says you really concentrate more on the body language and it tells the story itself. The body language being exaggerated almost has a more powerful effect than actual words would. I had a few film classes here at Pitt and in one of them we watched a silent film that just had sound effects. That was also really cool to see how the narrative developed with no dialogue. I also got a feel that the singing at the end did not make any sense. I found it rather strange that he has made it up off the top of his head. That's really interesting that it was the debut of Chaplan's voice on film. Does anyone know how many films he did before this one? Anyway, I really enjoyed the film.

Chaplin's Voice

Rather than commenting on each of your posts about Chaplin's voice, I thought I'd throw out my take on its significance. I'm interested in the fact that most of you found this scene a little disappointing, even impenetrable.

For me, the important point here is that the song, even though it sounds foreign, doesn't really make sense in any language. Your sense that it is nonsense is correct - hence the confusion and mild disappointment.

But here's the question: why do we have all this buildup towards nonsense, and why does Chaplin get to utter nonsense in a film which more or less forbids people to speak? Answering that question is pretty central to the film.

My point of view is that the film is arguing that in the age of mechanical reproduction* (of voice, of culture, of everything) only voices of authority (e.g., the boss's voice and the radio) are actually heard -- other voices, being merely organic, appear as nonsense.
Or, to put a more positive spin on it - nonsense is the only alternative to submission, the only way of rebelling against the system. Chaplin isn't much of a rebel - but on the other hand he's all we've got in the context of the film.

* I'm drawing here on Walter Benjamin's essay "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction," which was published in the same year as Modern Times, 1936.

Informal Post

My name is Brian Henzy and I am a sophomore majoring in finance or economics, or maybe both. I hope to enter the business world and become a successful financial advisor or consultant. I am from the Philly area and will probably remain there after college. As far as hobbies go I really like skiing, relaxing, going to the beach, working out, Pitt sports, and going out on weekends. I have worked at a car dealership since high school and am really into cars. Technology although not a direct impact on my life, like some others describing complex machinery and finite tools used at work, is still an integral part of everyday life. I have designed websites before and done some photo editing before. Although I am not very good at video games and rarely play I do enjoy ones that I am good at. Otherwise I normally get really frustrated and stop playing completely.

The movie Modern Times was a complete change from movies that I typically watch. I think it was the first silent film I have ever seen. I was impressed by how much plot development and elaboration the movie had even though there was no speaking. The body language and exaggerated facial expressions portrayed a lot of emotions. I too want to agree with everyone that Charlie Chaplain singing in a different language was weird but I think it went along with the rest of the movie. Because we still had no idea what was being said so it was just like saying nothing. We still had to inference what was going on by his tone and body language.

Informal Post 1

My name is Tony Finoli and I am a senior materials science and engineering major. I'm also am currently gaining a biology background because my work deals with bioreactor systems with respect to the materials and structure of them. We work mainly with artificial bone marrow and livers. Because of the nature of my work I work with many different technologies everyday ranging from very expensive high tech electron microscopes with computer aided interfaces that make use relatively easy, to rigs comprised of low tech labware tailored for custom use and to conserve grant money. Whether I am using an advanced computer system or tubing and a tank of air, technology is crucial to my work.

The most intriguing aspect of 'Modern Times' to me was worker's strife. When I was in middle school and high school I read several John Steinbeck novels, one my favorites being 'In Dubious Battle'. This book was focused on a communist group in the mid-1930's that promoted workers rights and eventually they go to a farm and start a strike and the novel chronicles the events that follow. I thought the movie did a great job in showing how these union strikes affected the common worker. Even though for the most part these strikes were designed to establish rights to the workers, at the same time the workers were left without work and much needed money. In 'In Dubious Battle' the striking workers had a save haven at a farm where food and shelter were somewhat provided but in 'Modern Times' Charlie Chaplin was left on the streets jobless. His character is quite happy being in jail and away from the free world where jobs are scarce and money is hard to come by.

Graded Blog #1

Mechanics: First, please remember to have these posted by 8:00 a.m. on Thursday morning. I will give partial credit to late entries, but I will not generally comment on them. The reason for the relatively firm deadlines is, as I said before, so the blog entries can provide a consistent starting point for our conversations. Include "Graded Blog Entry" as part of the title, just to avoid any possible confusion.

Grading: Remember, you will be graded on the quality of your argument: you should pursue interesting ideas, develop them in detail, and (possible/occasionally) provide research as needed. You should always plan on citing passages from the relevant text.

Options: Sometimes I will give a single option, sometimes two or occasionally three. If you really feel like you can't work well with a particular option, email me with an alternative idea at least two days in advance.

Formatting: I don't much care how your posts are formatted, but if you cut and paste from a Word document (as you probably should, to avoid losing your work), be sure to do any formatting necessary to make your paragraph breaks clear - a blank line between paragraphs is a wise choice on a blog.


Now, finally, the options for this week.

Option #1: Read the following quote:

In handicrafts and manufacture, the worker makes use of a tool; in the factory, the machine makes use of him. There the movements of the instrument of labor proceed from him, here it is the movements of the machine that he must follow. In manufacture the workers are the parts of a living mechanism. In the factory we have a lifeless mechanism which is independent of the workers, who are incorporated into it as its living appendages (Marx, Capital 548)*

One basis of Marxism and Communism (but which is hardly exclusive to these ideologies - many right-wing thinkers, e.g. Martin Heidegger, have though the same thing) is the idea, as detailed above, that industrial workers under capitalism become little more than cogs in the machine themselves.

Analyze a particular passage in either Twain or Davis in depth using the above passage from Marx's Capital. Some questions you might purse: do Twain/Davis have a similar understanding of industrial labor to Marx's? Where, if anywhere, does he/she differ from Marx? If you were going to present a theory of industrial labor rooted in Twain or Davis, would you need to alter Marx's language? Try to have something to say about both similarities and differences.

Option #2:

As we discussed at length in class, and as some of your informal posts have continued to discuss, if we remember the Greek roots of "technology," techne and logos, we might realize that practically all human activities, and perhaps many animal activities, have technologies (techniques); for instance, it's hard to imagine constructing a narrative without using some set of technologies to do so. Yet, we also have a habit of using "technology" to talk about a certain range of sophisticated machines, tools and techniques.

Keeping the complexity of "technology" in mind, write a blog entry discussing in detail
the technologies (techniques) that Davis or Twain use to represent technology (in the sense of industry, hi-tech, etc). Does either author use special or particular "technologies" to represent "technology"? As with the previous option, focus on a single passage, or at most a small set of passages: it's better to discuss one thing in depth than several things incoherently.

* Marx, Karl. Capital, Volume 1. Trans. Ben Fowkes. New York: Penguin, 1976.

Technology

Hi everyone! I’m Eric Bray and I’m a freshman. As I mentioned in class, I’m in the pre-pharmacy program. I eventually would like to be involved in drug research and development.  I come from the very small town of Kane, in northern Pennsylvania. Pittsburgh provided quite a shock, but I’ve adapted to the city life and enjoy every minute of it. I enjoy many types of music. I play the tenor saxophone in Pitt’s jazz band, and I’m teaching myself how to play guitar. I have always had an interest in technology and I’m currently employed at my home town’s school district as a technology assistant.  

As we discussed in class the word technology is based on the Greek words techne and logos. In my opinion a person can possess every imaginable device that could be classified as technology, but to this person it doesn’t become technology until he can use it.  Last semester I took Intro to Archeology. One of the many things I learned in this class was how early writing developed. As early writing systems developed the canvas and the scribing instrument where readily available. Together these items became a technology when they were used with some technique. The development of technology continues as we learn to manipulate and take advantage of the world around us.

In Modern Times development of technology can be seen through the progress of spoken words. The movie starts out with very mechanical sounding voices being produced by machinery, and ends with singing coming from a person.  This movie starts by showing where the motion picture was and ends by representing where it will be going. Moving forward is a major aspect of technology. The earliest forms of writing developed from small sets of cuneiform characters into the complex written languages that we have today. The changing of how voice is presented in Modern Times shows development in voice technology.

Technology

I'm Sean Dolinar.  I'm a senior chemistry major.  While I'm majoring in chemistry, I actually plan on going into a job in the video production field.  Most people look at me weird when I say that, but to me it make sense.  Aside from these two areas, I'm interested in economics, music, movies, and sports, in particular college football.

Between studying chemistry, using expensive, complicated video equipment, and just living in an age of electronic gadgets, I have become interested in technology.  I began to think when Adam put the greek roots of the technology on the board.  It made a lot of sense that techne had the meaning of 'how to do something' or 'technique'.  If you look at the 'low-tech' examples of technology is becomes more clear that the essence of technology is really knowledge.

Consider a simple piece of early technology such as a spear.  The spear is early technology with which you could hunt.  Making a spear is not hard.  You do not need big factories or  expensive machinery.  However, it does require knowledge.  Knowledge of what wood to use, how to construct, etc.  Furthermore, it require you to know how to hunt with it.

Now if you apply this thought process to something as complex as a computer, you can still see the root of the words have a useful application.  A computer has several different components but none as crucial as the CPU which consists of millions of transistors.  Considering just the CPU, you can see the knowledge necessary to construct a computer.  First, you would have to know about electricity.  Second, you would have understand transistors.  Third, you would have to figure a way to physically make the integrated circuit.  Fourth, you would have to figure out a way to make rest of the computer interact with the CPU to be useful.  This is a ton of knowledge.

I'm pretty sure you could do this kind of break down and in more detail for any piece of technology.

First Informal Post

Hello Everyone,

My name is Brittnee Alford and I am proud to say that I am a freshmen here at Pitt. I have not yet declared a major, but I'm interested in the Business, A&S Dual Major and I want to apply to the program by the end of this spring semester. I was born and raised in the nation's capital, Washington D.C., and that is the place that I will call home for life! No matter where I go there never seems to be a greater place than the D.C. Metropolitan Area, which includes Maryland and Northern Virginia. Some of the things I like to do include writing, traveling, listening to music, and surfing the Internet. I also have a new found passion for the piano, which I am so diligently learning how to play. I have to admit, I'm not really big on video games, but at the same time I'm excited to try something different when the time comes! Some of my future plans include graduating from Pitt of course, going to grad school and eventually I want to write my own book(s) along with whatever career path I choose.
Enough about me, and moving on to the subject of the film, Modern Times. I felt that the movie was a good start to prepare the class for what Narrative and Technology will be all about. First, the fact that there were no words from the actors emphasizes the major role that technology plays in this movie. The use of music, written words, and the dramatic actions and expressions of the actors were techniques that were necessary in order to replace the absence of spoken words. The storyline was easy to follow and it was clear what was going on in every scene, so this shows how powerful facial expressions and emotions are in conveying certain messages to the audience. Secondly, it was important that the movie points out that one can tell a story with just body movements and a change in facial expressions. I agree with what others have already said about Charlie Chaplin speaking in a foreign language; it was a bit random. However, maybe the directors wanted something overly dramatic and thought that on top of the singing a foreign language would grab the attention of the audience even more. Overall, I like the movie and it was something different, since I had never seen a black and white film without words.

First post!

Hello! I'm Courtney Rebich. I'm a sophomore and I am from around the Pittsburgh area. I enjoy music, volleyball, gymnastics, etc. My major is Communication Science Disorders. I am looking to be an SLP (Speech Language Pathologist).
When Adam first mentioned that "Modern Times" was a silent film I wasn't too excited to watch it, but I really did enjoy it. I agree with Joe and Kevin. When Charlie Chaplain sang, I was a bit disappointed. I was expecting it to be in English, but obviously it wasn't. I would have had no clue what he was singing about had it not been for his actions and body movements (even though I was still a little confused about what he was singing about). I had never really seen a silent film all the way through so I never noticed how much facial expressions and actions contributed to the emotion and understanding of a film until now. Even without speaking, Chaplain got every point across that he was trying to convey.
Music also played a big role in this film. Even in films today music is very crucial. It is even more important in silent films. It adds a lot of emotion. A movie would be very boring without it. In a silent film music is another way to convey what people are trying to say and what emotions they are trying to express.
Another point I would like to address is about the labor strife. It struck me as kind of odd, yet funny that Chaplain wanted to stay in jail. He was treated so much better while he was in jail. He was always fed and had somewhere to sleep, especially after he helped stop the breakout. He was always trying to find ways to get himself put back in. Since Chaplain seemed to always find a way to mess things up, such as the ship yard and the factory, things were especially hard. It is striking to see that things were that much worse in the 30's to the point that some people would rather be in jail than out in the real world. People these days wouldn't know what to do with themselves without all of the technologies we have today.

Kevin's Post on Himself and Modern Times

Hey everyone. I'm Kevin Mohler. I'm a Pharmacy major and a sophomore. I enjoy rock climbing, video games and long walks on the beach. Unfortunately for me there aren't too many beaches in Pittsburgh, so I mainly just stick to the first two.
I found Modern Times to be very interesting. Primarily because it was the first silent film that I have seen as well as the first full movie with Charlie Chaplin. Since this was a silent film there was almost no dialogue and as a result much of the story was portrayed through body language. I was really impressed with the amount of information that could be conveyed simply through facial expressions and gestures. Also the music becomes much more important when there is no dialogue. It had a much more active role than music would in a movie today.
As for the dialogue that was in the movie, it was all either synthesized or heard through a record player or radio. There was no direct speaking. I think the purpose of this was to emphasize the fact that technology can often be dehumanizing. This seems to be one of the main themes of the movie. This is shown especially well with the employee feeding machine. The operators of the machine don't really care about the person being fed, but only about whether their machine works.
I have to agree with Joe's post about Charlie's final song. Although I didn't find the build up to be that dull, I did think it was strange that the song would be in French when the rest of the movie was in English. I have to believe there was a reason for this, but I simply don't see it.

My first informal post

Hi Everyone! This is Joe, and I am making my first informal blog post.
As said before, I am a pre-dental (biology/chemistry) major, and this is probably my last year undergraduate. If all goes well, I’ll be at Pitt Dental school next year.
Some of my interests definitely include music. I love playing the violin in orchestral or chamber settings, and I also really like listening to classical music. I guess that sounds really geeky, but it is something I grew up with and it will always be a part of me. So hopefully I will have a clear enough mind to really make connections with music in class.
I guess I want to start this by discussing something we talked about earlier in class. As we were talking about “technique,” the first thing that came to my mind was what is the definition of the word “technique.” When I hear “technique,” the first thing that comes to mind is a musician’s technique. It is only improved by much practicing and time, which is obvious. The one definition from dictionary.com states that it is “the manner and ability with which an artist, writer, dancer, athlete, or the like employs the technical skills of a particular art or field of endeavor.” What I am wondering about though is how is this definition of “technique” used to help define “technology” when the word is split into “techne” and “logos?” It doesn’t quite make sense to me to define technology as “the discourse of techniques.” Maybe I’m not thinking of it all the right way, but nonetheless I am curious about how all of you think of the word “technology.”
Now about the movie “Modern Times,” I thought all of the buildup at the end just for Charlie Chaplain’s voice was really quite dull. Maybe it was because I couldn’t even understand what the heck he was singing. Why would they make him sing in a different language when the rest of the movie was in English? That fact did not make much sense to me. Maybe it is because this really was the first Charlie Chaplain movie I have ever watched from the beginning to the end. In a way, I can imagine that if I were to be all excited to hear his voice for the first time, I would be in for a really big disappointment after hearing him sing in a foreign language. That is all my opinion anyways.
Sorry for posting a really random first informal post. Hopefully my thoughts will be more organized as we get deeper into the semester.

Modern Times

A few things thoughts & comments about Modern Times, to get you thinking.

1) As I said in class, all the buildup to the song at the end is because Charlie Chaplain's voice had never been heard on screen before.

2) What role does voice play in the film? At the beginning it seems like the only voices we hear are mechanically reproduced ones - that is, the owner of the plant speaks, but not in person - only over the intercom. Similarly, we have voices on the radio. Then at the end we also get the voices of the waiters and of Chaplain. What do you make of all that?

3) Note the strong hint that "The Gamin" is engaged in prostitution at the beginning.

4) All the material about labor strife, communism, etc. would have hit very hard in the 30s: Chaplain is engaging head-on with the labor issues which circulate around industrialism.

5) Think about the different technologies which are represented, and how they relate to the technologies of film itself.

Welcome Spring Students!

Three things for today.

First, be sure to send me an email asking me to invite you to the class blog; my email address is on both handouts from today.

Second, to begin the habit of making informal posts to the blog, once I've invited you to the blog plan on doing an entry which either introduces your (some way in which your interests relate to those of the class, for instance) or responds in some way to Modern Times. Ideally, you might do both.

Third, I'll post the prompt for the first assignment by Sunday - those of you in group #1 can look for it then, or possibly earlier.