The Posthuman Era and Hawthorne's Insight

When thinking of the word "human," the first idea that comes to mind is us. We are human. Human is basically defined as a mammal. We are mammals. We are warm blooded, meat eating, mammals. We are the way of life on Earth. But this term "posthuman" just doesn't sit well with me. To me, this means that we, humans, no longer exist and there is some new life or being on Earth. But maybe I'm taking it to a much literal sense of the term. But what could there be after humankind? Technology is the answer! The only problem with that is that we are creating the technology. So to recap, we are slowly wiping ourselves out of existence. But is that really true or does "posthuman" mean something else?

I think maybe there is room for it to be interpreted as a lifestyle that will make us sit by the wayside and become an even lazier being. We could create such advanced technology that we can have whatever we want in a matter of seconds. But this is all theory, so none of this is true. This is not happening, at least not to my knowledge. But someday it could very well happen. We may or may not be here but someone in our family will be here to experience it. It can either help us as a civilization or potentially destroy us.

Now Lyotard has caused a hiccup in some people's logic and outlook on life. These people have come to think that "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."." This is what they call "the Posthuman." And they may be right or they could be fools making outrageous comments on something they really read into.

Now what does Hawthorne have to with any of this you might ask? Well allow me to answer that question now. If you look at Chapter 17 of Hawthorne, when Clifford is on the train and conversing with the older gentleman, he goes off on a tangent about the future. He says that the “admirable invention of the railroad” will “do away with those stale ideas of home and fireside, and substitute something better.” The old man disagrees, and Clifford begins to rant and rave. He then talks about his belief that mankind moves in an “ascending spiral,” where previous ideas are revived and reformed. In this case, the arrival of the railroad will allow mankind to return to the nomadic culture of its primitive era, and will prevent people from becoming “prisoner[s] for life in brick, and stone, and old worm-eaten timber.”

But Clifford doesn't stop there. He goes on to talk about the telegraph as well. He thinks that the unifying nature of the telegraph, which he believes will serve to make the world smaller by allowing lovers to talk over long distances. He deplores, however, the ability of the telegraph to aid in hunting down criminals, because it prevents them from being able to escape their crimes and start over, robs them of their rights, and deprives them of a “city of refuge.” and yet look how far the telegraph has brought us. We now have phones that are portable and can do multiple tasks such as text messaging, internet access, listening to music, etc. And is it weakening us or does it make us stronger? Clifford believes that technology will help us, and that it will weaken us.

Hawthorne has not chosen a side for this matter. He is "playing the field" or "leaning on the fence" waiting for something to happen that will sway him. Or maybe he just is not sure what side is on. Maybe he does not want to chose. But he must chose because that's what it is to be human. Our lives depend on the choices we make. Not all of them necessarily work out in the end though.

Essay 2 Group 1- Prompt 1

Human thought can not be recreated, or can it? Lyotard's essay is a very in depth, and philosophical piece about the process that actually makes up human thought, and if it is possible to recreate it in a nonbiological medium. It is a very interesting premise, however in my opinion Lyotard makes this piece overcomplicated with big words, overwhelming sentences, and irregular grammar patterns.

As stated before, Lyotard asks if it is possible to program human thought, or recreate the human mind in a machine. As I also said before, the whole paper is written in philosophical mumbo-jumbo makes the piece a struggle to understand. It is peppered with oxymorons such as "limitless limits" (9), fancy language, and is overall just a mess to try and read through, let alone understand. A section I had trouble dissecting went like this:

"It is thought itself resolving to be irresolute, deciding to be patient, wanting
not to want, wanting, precisely, not to produce a meaning in place of what
must be signified. This is a tip of the hat to a duty that hasn't yet been
named. Maybe that duty isn't a debt. Maybe it's just the mode
according to which what doesn't yet exist, a word, a phrase, a colour
will emerge. So that the suffering of thinking is a suffering of time, of
what happens" (19).

These five sentences almost made me go cross-eyed the first time I read them. I don't know if it was all the commas, or maybe it was the italicized words that I didn't understand the point of the italics, but I had trouble. I started by breaking this section down sentence by sentence, and by making the pauses that the commas signified. So I read the first sentence back more slowly. First I had to define irresolute (not sure how to act, indecisive). I then tried to translate the sentence into words I could comprehend easily and came up with, "Thought tries to be indecisive, it wants to be patient, and maybe it isn't necessarily a part of human nature to have to try and make sense of what we don't understand."

When I was satisfied that was the intended message of the first sentence, the second sentence came along and I struggled again to figure out what it meant. "This is the tip of the hat to a duty that hasn't yet been named." I tried to have the sentence agree with what I thought the first sentence was saying, and again I translated it into my own words: "Thought is an overwhelmingly complex subject, and nobody can truely answer why human thought is as complicated as it is." Lyotard then goes on to say, "Maybe that duty isn't a debt.", and what I thought he meant by this was that humans seem to put a lot of emphasis on trying to make sense of things we may not be meant to understand. This pressure almost seems like a debt in that we try harder and harder to answer every question, but maybe we shouldn't. Maybe thought was not intended to become what it has in modern times, with science and technology replacing many facets of human life.

"Maybe it's just a mode according to which what doesn't yet exist, a word, a phrase, a colour, will emerge." I still have trouble with this, because to me, this sentence doesn't seem like a complete thought. It almost seems like the sentence is missing a subject. I think it means that thought can't be described because there is nothing that exists to do so. Finally, the section ends in saying, "So that the suffering of thinking is a suffering of time, of what happens." I felt this last sentence summed up the point I said before. That thinking just leads to more questions, which need more answers. It becomes a never ending process that all human kind has fallen victim to. We suffer from the fact that we can't be happy without proof to answer the questions we have.

The entire piece was written in this fashion. I realize that I am not a scholar in philosophy so maybe it should've been a little harder for me to understand, but this was a little overkill in my opinion. Wouldn't a writer want a larger audience to be able to comprehend the message?

I guess because the premise of the paper was incredibly complex, Lyotard needs to sound intelligent to sound credible to the intended audience of philosophers and science geniuses. For me, I couldn't get much out of it and had no motivation to dissect every sentence as I did above.

Negentropy, Complexification and a Nova

Can thought go on without a body? Jean-Francois Lyotard tackles the question, can thought go on without a body, in his text; Can Thought Go On Without a Body? Now, I am not going to focus on the whole text, but merely a passage I found rather difficult to comprehend. On page 22 of the text, Lyotard states,

I’m granting to physics theory that technological-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 the earth began its existence. I’m granting that human beings aren’t and never have been the motor of this complexification, but an effect and carrier of this negentropy, its continuer. I’m granting that the disembodied intelligence that everything here conspires to create will make it possible to meet the challenge to that process of complexification posed by an entropic tidal wave which from that standpoint equates with the solar explosion to come.

If you are like me, you are probably asking, “Say what? What did Lyotard say in that passage?”
Well, lets start breaking it down. First, we have to define some words. Negentropy or negative entropy is the process of putting things in order. Take for example an ice cube. The entropy increases as an ice cube melts into water and then evaporates and the liquid water becomes gaseous water vapor. Negentropy would be the opposite of that; gas to liquid then to ice. Complexification is the act of making something more complex.

Ok, so we have the big, ten-point words out of the way. Now lets look at the sentences. The first sentence, “I’m granting to physics theory that technological-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 the earth began its existence,” describes Lyotard’s thoughts that human beings and their physics theories help bring about our understanding of the universe to order while the universe is still gaining in complexity because the more we know, the more we do not quite grasp yet. The universe is ever more so complex due to new the physics from Einstein, such as his theories of general and special relativity to the present day physicists working out the string theory and the ideas of multiple dimensions.

The second sentence states, “I’m granting that human beings aren’t and never have been the motor of this complexification, but an effect and carrier of this negentropy, its continuer.” Lyotard is saying here that human beings aren’t technically causing the universe to become more complex. It has always been this complex. With our deeper understanding of the universe, we are unlocking even harder ideas to comprehend and figure out.

Finally, to understand the last sentence of this passage, “I’m granting that the disembodied intelligence that everything here conspires to create will make it possible to meet the challenge to that process of complexification posed by an entropic tidal wave which from that standpoint equates with the solar explosion to come,” we need to understand the context of the whole text. The text explains to the philosophers analyzing questions that do not have answers why they should not bother with those answerless questions. In 4.5 billion years, when our sun ends its journey on the main sequence, there will be no reason to answer such questions like “if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound,” because we will all be gone and dead. The sun would have expanded and grew so large that it would have engulfed earth completely thus causing the unanswerable questions to be moot. Now back to the final sentence. Lyotard discusses that humans will have to create an artificial intelligence that will be able to continue our search for answers to answerless questions and survive the catastrophic moment when our star, the sun, novas. It will have to survive being in the most complex environment matter has been in since our sun and the rest of our solar system formed from a previous super nova 4.5 billion years ago.

That’s a lot of work to dissect three sentences. Why were they so difficult? Well, this is a complex idea. It requires complex themes. These complex themes are often in hard and complex subject matter and they consist of words that are not common in everyday language. I am a natural science major and have taken chemistry and physics and I still had to look up and decipher what entropy means. Also, Lyotard’s audience is not the common man. He is speaking to philosophers -- people who study language and its usage and people who have been in higher education for many years. Or, maybe he is helping us develop our minds so we can create this artificial intelligence. I doubt it, but you will never know.

can experiences be programmed?

In his essay, “Can thought go on without a body,” Lyotard explores the possibilities of thoughts and consciousness without (certain) physical mediums, organic bodies in particular. His essay, while the ideas were very interesting, was presented in an unnecessarily complex and confusing fashion. For example, one of the passages which stuck out to me as needlessly difficult wasn’t necessarily difficult in the meaning, but more so in the wording and syntax of it:

“Is it even consistent to claim to be programming an experience that defies, if not programming, then at least the programme – as does the vision of the painter or writing?” (18)

It took me, for some reason, a while to ascertain the true meaning of this sentence. The more I re-read it, the more sub-clauses and phrases I could tear out to get at the meaning behind it. In its original context, I believe that the author is simply asking whether or not it is actually possible to create a program (an intelligence) that is first of all capable of human-like thought and secondly capable of existing without a ‘body.’ In this particular sentence, Lyotard is asking if the vision that have when they create their art is similar to

Both a painter and a writing (which looks like a type-o to me because one is a profession and the other is a finished product of an unrelated profession… I am still having trouble with this part, but I will assume he means ‘writer’) are trying to convey an experience that cannot accurately be described using their respective media (at least in the way human thought would). The programmer cannot program the experience because it defies (at least) the concept of a program. Programs are used to simulate real or imagined concepts, so how does one go about writing a program, which forms an artificial reconstruction of, a real event? It is not, in fact, the real thing and can never actually describe the event or idea that a human observer would originally have. Lyotard is arguing that, while humans can think in so many directions and ways at once, while keeping on the same thought, machines think only in binary code and deal almost exclusively with “if, then, else” statements. There is no emotion in a program, there is no breadth or depth to a program (beyond the mere coding used to solve the problem), and there is no way of ‘thinking’ other that “if this, then that, else that.” Human thought is unique and nothing can reproduce it. What he may ultimately be asking is perhaps, “Is writing a program to describe experiences similar to painting figures or writing pieces to represent experiences?” The gist of this experience can be obtained, but as far as ‘thought’ is concerned, you cannot reproduce the experience in its entirety, especially in mere programs and/or paintings/writings.

I think this passage is so difficult to grasp the first 30 times you read over it is mostly in its wording. The sentence seems to run on and you lose track of the initial question. There are too many places where the reader must pause (as one does at commas and hyphens) and these pauses can cause the reader to lose track of their initial thoughts (which is interesting, because it is these ‘thoughts’ that we so often lose in his writing that the author is attempting to describe). It is also difficult because by the time the sentence is over, it appears as more of a statement than the question it was intended to be. He starts with “Is it even consistent to claim,” which is fine, but he adds so many clarifications that it begins to take on sentence form and loses all semblance of its intended purpose.

I think that, in breaking down the passage, it needs to be complicated and difficult to get the point across. Lyotard said in one sentence what it took me almost a page to say and all he had to do was to sacrifice a little readability. Sure people may have to re-read it a few times, but it is those passages which we struggle to comprehend and ultimately give us epiphanies that we remember best. Who knows, maybe it was purposely confusing to illustrate the ability of human thought and reason. Maybe he was showing that a human being could work around such phrases and binary programs may not be equipped to reason with such language.

Programming Human Perception

When posed with the question of whether or not thought can transpire without a body, I would be willing to bet that most people would think of the matter in technical terms. What is considered a body? Can we build a machine that “thinks”? Rather than following such a convention, Lyotard instead focuses on the philosophical aspects of the matter. Rather than simply wondering if it's physically possible to build a machine that thinks, Lyotard first seeks to describe what process goes into human thought in order to make it just that. Lyotard claims that without the human elements, any thinking machine would not actually be thinking. When describing human sensory systems and thought processes, Lyotard made human information processing distinct from animal information processing by saying:

“Most of all: it's equipped with a symbolic system that's both arbitrary (in semantics and syntax), letting it be less dependent on an immediate environment, and also 'recursive' (Hofstadter), allowing it to take into account (above and beyond raw data) the way it has of processing such data.” (12)

When I first read this sentence, I was surprised to find that I had absolutely no clue as to what it meant. My shock stems from the fact that terms like “semantics”, “syntax” and “recursive” are all ones I am familiar with using to describe computer programming. When used in relation to human perception and thought, though, I was mostly baffled as to what Lyotard was trying to get at. How do these aspects I would use to describe code differentiate humans from animals?

Rather than gallivanting off to consult Webster's dictionary, I decided to use my programming background to my advantage and draw parallels for the first part of the sentence. When referring to the semantics of a program, I am referring to the meaning behind a block of code. Semantics would describe how different parts of the code relate to one another to form the overall application. So to say that humans have a system that is arbitrary in semantics means that the overall meaning of any perceived item, be it anything from a witnessed event to spoken words, is at the discretion of the individual doing the perceiving. If an individual witnesses a car wreck, what that wreck actually means to that individual could be different from what that wreck means to another person on the same street beholding the same event. The meaning is subjective because humans give meaning to sensory data after considering their own preferences, thoughts, and feelings. Thus, meaning is not necessarily derived from the incoming data alone.

I found syntax to be a little easier to understand. In programming, syntax refers to what is actually being typed at the keyboard. So for example, the fact that a variable might be given a value in this fashion:

variable X = 100

instead of something like

100 = x.var

is all due to syntax. The syntax depends entirely upon how the programming language's creator decided to make it. For perhaps a simpler example, a “syntactical error” when programming would often times be referred to as a “typo” in most other endeavors. This concept relates rather easily back to language. The syntax of English, for example, would be that a sentence must have a noun and a verb. The rules of grammar and spelling that are drilled into elementary school students for years all comprise English's syntax. Just like semantics, however, syntax is also arbitrary in that any meaning assigned to a particular grammatical structure and choice of words depends to some degree on the person perceiving them.

For a simple example of this, consider if someone from Pittsburgh went to Dallas and tried to order “pop.” Chances are that most people in Texas would have no clue what was meant by “pop.” The meaning given to the word is dependent not upon simply the word itself but on the individual perceiving it. The same rule goes even beyond English. The word “dog” in English refers most commonly to the (typically) furry quadruped. The word “perro” in Spanish refers to the same animal. Just as two pieces of code written into two different programming languages with different syntaxes could be used to achieve the same end, different words in different languages can also mean the same thing. The environment does not naturally assign meaning to the word “dog.” Rather, the meaning is given to it by the individual hearing it.

Last, I come to recursion and, just like with programming, I struggled with it. In programming, recursion is one of the most difficult concepts to grasp. It refers to a block of code that actually executes itself repeatedly. Below is a simple recursive example:

addition (int num) {

 num = num + 1;
 if(num < 100)
  addition(num)

 return num;
}

For whatever value is stored by the variable “num”, it is added to 1. Then if that value is less than 100, the entire function calls itself again. This will repeat up until the point where num is equal to 100. Just as developing complex recursive functions for programming classes twisted my brain in knots, so did trying to figure out how the concept of recursion can apply to human thought and perception. Fortunately for me, Lyotard referenced cognitive scientist David Hofstadter.

The concept of recursion relates to Hofstadter's concept of the Strange Loop, which is a model for consciousness. He defines this as “...an interaction between levels in which the top level reaches back down towards the bottom level and influences it, while at the same time being itself determined by the bottom level.” (Hofstadter 709) So if the top of the loop is awareness of the present and the bottom of the loop is recollection of the past, then the present situation affects an individual's memory of the past. At the same time, the same memories of the past simultaneously affect the manner in which an individual perceives the current situation. In this manner, recursion does not tie into human consciousness quite as directly as semantics or syntactics, but rather it serves as “... a metaphor for organizing the world.” (Kilpatrick 3)

Despite my many difficulties in interpreting Lyotard's message, after doing so I have to agree that such aspects certainly do separate human thought from animal thought, at least to the best of any human knowledge. Furthermore, I can also understand why Lyotard felt the need to phrase this segment of his work in such a cryptic manner. In discerning his meaning, the reader is forced to go through the very process that Lyotard is bringing to light. While considering the segment on semantics and syntactics, I was not simply reading what was on the paper. The universe has not assigned some particular meaning to those phrases which, when accompanied by the term “arbitrary” and used in conjunction with the concept of thought, will automatically bestow understanding. Rather, I had to use both the data coming into my system (the information from the paper) along with my own thoughts and experiences to derive a meaning. Discerning the meaning of recursion required the same thing, only it takes the process one step further by forcing me to step back and actually consider the process that I used to figure out the meaning and how those processes, past and present, played off and affected one another. Indeed, the very genius of this segment is that to come to terms with Lyotard's point, the reader must demonstrate the very aspect to which he is referring.

Works Cited

Hofstadter, D. R.: 1979, Godel, escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, Basic Books, New York.

Kilpatrick, Jeremy: Educational Studies in Mathematics, Vol. 16, No. 1 (Feb., 1985), pp. 1-26

Assignment #3 (for Group #1)

There are 3 - yes, 3 options here. Please clearly indicate which one you're doing.


#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? What is the value of difficulty here? Don't answer simplistically -- for instance, by claiming that "difficulty makes us think harder."

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

#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 Hawthorne anticipates or prefigures "the Posthuman." You might want to include a brief discussion of what the terms "human" and "posthuman" mean to you.

Why The Future Doesn't Need Us

Not everyone knows of Bill Joy, but he deserves to be heard of. He graduated from the University of Michigan and attended graduate school at UC Berkeley (7). With such educational merits, and also being a cofounder of three microprocessor architectures and the designer of several implementations thereof, his ideas and opinions are certainly worth taking into consideration (9).
In “Why The Future Doesn’t Need Us,” Joy makes a noteworthy assessment that with new technologies being introduced one after another, we become less and less phased by the outrageous advances of what would have astonished everyone fifty years ago. In fact, we absorb new devices so quickly that we seem to always be awaiting the arrival of something fresh to keep us entertained for a few months. However, Joy seems to be uneasy about what may happen in the future. One of his concerns is that “the gray goo problem,” in which scientifically modified cells in plants and animals may overrule the original unmodified cells and wreak havoc on the plants and animals, will eventually obliterate almost all life forms and there is nothing we can do about it (14).
If we think about how far medical and scientific research has gone in the past few decades, we’d be impressed. From simple technologies like the X-ray tube to marvelous technologies like CT scans and MRI’s, not to mention our wildest dreams come true with cloning and stem cell research. Doctors and scientists have been able to implant modified cells into plants and animals, and naturally these cells will reproduce. This self-replication is what worries Joy, because “stories of … robots like the Borg, replicating or mutating to escape from the ethical constraints imposed on them by their creators, are well established in our science fiction books and movies. It is even possible that self-replication may be more fundamental than we thought, and hence harder - or even impossible - to control” (14).
Will it really be harder, or impossible, to control the outcome of the self-replication of these cells? I don’t think so. Sure, the outcome may not be what was originally expected, but if our doctors and scientists can create cells that will help these plants and animals overcome obstacles, they should be able to create new cells that can overpower the cells gone bad. Research for this, of course, is quite costly and takes several years, but it is not impossible; and at the pace our technologies are advancing, amazing new innovations may take even less time than we think.
There are some ways we can help, whether it be individually or as a culture, to help aid the process of overcoming “the gray goo” problem. We can raise donations to fund research, or we can take time out of our hectic schedules to volunteer for experimental research. Unless something goes horribly wrong, it is not likely that we will be negatively affected by doing our part to help, therefore we should not hesitate to help someone potentially save the life of a plant or an animal. Raising funds for donations is simple enough: just get to know the subject matter and set up a presentation to entice donators. Doing so can be fun, especially if friends are involved, and it’s pretty much inevitable that people would feel better about themselves knowing that they helped such a good cause. Volunteering for experimental research, however, may be a bit scarier and therefore less frequent, but nevertheless it is an excellent way to help out, and for animal lovers- it would reduce the need for animal experimentation!
Bill Joy should have no reason to worry about “the gray goo” problem, because we have the ability to control what might happen. It’s just a matter of whether or not people are motivated enough to do so.

I, Robot... a reality?

Bill Joy’s article details the idea that “robots will eventually succeed us – that humans clearly face extinction” (3). The idea of robots taking over the world is by no means new. Science fiction works, have for quite some time alluded to this fate of the universe. The film I, Robot demonstrates a world where robots and humans coexist. The robots were created with three laws that would prevent them from harming humans and taking over. This; of course, goes a rye and the robots stop following the three rules. In the end the robots are fixed and all is well. This story is all too similar to the ideas that Bill Joy conveys in his article “Why the future doesn’t need us”. Stating quotes from psychopaths as well as professors, Joy makes it seem that it’s an almost inevitable possibility that the human race will decline or become extinct and some sort of robots or technology will take over the world. There of course would not be the happy ending with Will Smith saving the world with all robots going back to their original state following the three laws. Could this somewhat “Armageddon” of sorts be a legitimate possibility and if so is there anything we can do about it?

While determining whether or not Joy’s beliefs could even be a possibility we need to look at the basis of his ideas. He writes his article with his information coming from books written by professors, scientists, and even the “the Unabomber”. While one would automatically dispose of an idea from a psychopath the backing by several scholars makes you think the idea of robots taking over the world could be plausible. Still one can’t help but think the ideas are little farfetched. Simply quoting Murphy’s Law that “Anything that can go wrong, will” (2) doesn’t mean that there is truth to the statement. To make Joy’s prediction seem more educated he notes that “For decades, Moore’s law has correctly predicted the exponential rate of improvement of semiconductor technology…. By 2030, we are likely to be able to build machines, in quantity, a million times as powerful as the personal computers of today” (6-7). One must still realize this is still just a prediction and in no means makes it a reality. Even if you don’t believe that this future of machines is evident, it’s still important to come up to a solution to this problem.

There is in no realm a simple solution to the problem of growing technology to a point of an intelligent machine. Although it seems easy enough to say not to let it happen; that just won’t do. I’ll admit that as an ordinary student I have no control over what technologies and advances are created. This leaves the responsibility to society as a whole. I would like to think that people wouldn’t allow computers to take over our minds and have robots have the capability of becoming the dominant species. If, however, this is a “gradual change that we would get used to” like the articles says (3) it would make it much harder to control. We would get too far and reliant on the technology to simply stop using it. It would be comparable to all of the world’s oil reserves drying up tomorrow. We aren’t prepared to not rely on oil if that were to occur. A major problem would be that the majority of people, in our country at least, would no longer be able to get to work without the vehicles. There are of course countless other problems that would plague us as well. Similarly if society got to a point where machines took over most if not all of humans jobs we wouldn’t be able to simply shut down the machines and live without them. The rules about nuclear weapons came after the first was dropped, thus in a way too late. Now several countries have access to them and there is always a threat of nuclear warfare that would have dire circumstances. This is why there would need to be laws and actions to prevent this change from occurring before it is too late and we can’t go back. There is still time to set a course that will not lead to robots taking over. We need to not completely rely on machines. It’s one thing to use the machines to do a job more efficiently, but the line gets crossed when people aren’t even needed to operate those machines. There should always still be a way to live without those machines (i.e. we should still be able to grow food, get water, reproduce, etc.) if one day we needed to cut all ties with them. Even though Joy’s article demonstrates little if any facts about what our future holds everyone needs to be aware that it is a possibility but not inevitable that robots could take over the world. If we, as the human race, don’t solely rely on the current and upcoming technologies that are meant to make life simpler we have the chance to make this premonition false.

Why the Future Doesn't Need Unregulated Nanotechnology

Throughout his article “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us”, Bill Joy constantly warns us how fragile the systems of the world are; especially man-made systems. Introducing new technologies into society, and ultimately the environment, has the potential to alter these systems in unforeseen ways. Over the past century, we have witnessed “scientific miracles” cause great damage in natural systems.

Joy starts with the example of the creation and current widespread use of antibiotics. While they do treat most cases, antibiotics have given rise to “super bacteria” that is antibiotic-resistant and therefore much more dangerous than anything that has appeared before. This argument carries over to more modern medicine and the different strains of parasites, diseases and other illnesses that have developed a resistance to the drugs we use to treat them. All of these alterations were simply the cause of humans tampering with natural systems.

If, at some point in the near future, nanotechnology becomes commercially viable and widely used, who can say what the consequences might be on the systems of the world. In a quoted passage, by Drexler briefly outlines some of the dangers made possible by the unchecked use of nanotechnology. Not only do the plants that we rely on for everyday life die off, but the organisms that depend on those plants would as well, creating a wave in any system affected by the plants. Joy also points out that with nanotechnology comes “…the risk that we might destroy the biosphere on which all life depends.” This is the ultimate and most extreme consequence of nanotechnology gone wrong.

Not only do we have to worry about the consequences of nanotechnology distributed for potentially beneficial reasons, we also have to worry about individuals having the capabilities to produce their own variations. The recent and forthcoming advances will put this technology “…within the reach of individuals or small groups.” Coupled with advancements in genetics, a single person would have the ability to tamper with or attack a “…certain geographical area or a group of people who are genetically different.” Not only could nanotechnology bring about unforeseen problems much the way antibiotics has, it could also give rise to a new, more dangerous form of terror.

With the abilities laid out before us, we cannot sit back and watch the rise of nanotechnology bring about our destruction. Unlike with the development of nuclear arms, we need to form a world wide Organization to oversee the production and use of nanotechnology before it becomes widely available. The Organization would uphold strict laws in order to safe-guard the world population and the environment.

The Organization would regulate the sale of equipment required to produce nanotechnology much the way guns are today. Before companies or individuals create their own strain of nanobots, they must be licensed by the Organization. Along with regulating the creation, the Organization would oversee the disposal of the nanotechnology. I would imagine this happening much the same way nuclear or biological waste is handled - with upmost care and caution so that the waste cannot escape and cause unnecessary problems.

While this may sound utterly impossible, I think that it is sincerely worth the effort. With so many possible disasters looming behind the advancement of nanotechnology, we clearly need strict regulations in order to avoid changes to natural systems that could potentially lead to the destruction of the Earth.

Why the Future, According to Joy, Doesn’t Need Us

By Sam Luffy – sgl5

Many problems are presented by Joy in this explanation of our difficulties with future technology. One problem that stands out is our lack of knowledge of the enormous power that technology we are creating has. “The experiences of the atomic scientists clearly show the need to take personal responsibility, the danger that things will move too fast, and the way in which a process can take on a life of its own. We can, as they did, create insurmountable problems in almost no time flat (20).” Unfortunately, Joy only responds to this problem with one sentence. He does the same thing throughout the essay. It is a good thing that Joy is making others aware of these problems, but the world has enough people who just talk and complain. We need more individuals to solve the problems that others are bringing to the surface.

Joy touches on the belief that in order to understand the future we must understand the past. I believe this is a great beginning in solving the problems Joy talks about with technology. No, we do not know how powerful and controlling technology will be in fifty years, but we said the same thing fifty years ago. If we remember our curiosity and problems of fifty years ago and now know how everything turned out, we can compare those problems with our concerns of today. “We should have learned a lesson from the making of the first atomic bomb and the resulting arms race. We didn’t do well then, and the parallels to our current situation are troubling (13).

One thing that Joy does not take into account in his fear of the future is remembering that we did create this technology. It was not forced upon us, we obviously have some understanding of it to be able to invent and create such powerful things as the atomic bomb and the hand-held computers. We must have faith in ourselves that if something bad did happen, we would have the strength and courage to correct our mistakes. If our ability to think for ourselves is lost, which Joy talks about, human kind may fall with it. But, it does not make much sense to say that we will be creating dominant technology and not making it work for us. After all, what is technology? I like to believe that it helps us in our day-to-day lives. It makes life easier. Why would we let, what we created, take over what we love progressing in. Yes, Joy is right. We must be aware of our progress and be concerned about the unknown power we have. But we also must be strong and bold enough to move on with this technological advancement, knowing that we have the power over it, even if we do not understand it.

Consequence of Knowledge

When reading this article I was struck by this paragraph and I think it best sums up the argument of this article. J. Robert Oppenheimer said. “It is not possible to be a scientist unless you believe that the knowledge of the world, and the power which this gives, is a thing which is of intrinsic value to humanity, and that you are using it to help in the spread of knowledge and are willing to take the consequences” (13).

The most profound consequence, if you could call it that, is that of a potential takeover of the world by the “superior robots” or an accidental or intentional release of some toxic substance whether it would be a nanotechnology device or some type of biological weapon that obliterates all life of Earth.

The analogy he makes to describe the robot takeover is profound “In a completely free marketplace, superior robots would surely affect humans as North American placentals affected South American marsupials” (3). This statement by itself doesn’t seem too bad without knowing the background of it. However, the placentals from North America had a superior competitive advantage over the marsupials and eventually caused them to become extinct after driving them further and further away. It gets more complex than that; Joy goes on to argue that it’s our continuing development that may lead us to the robot that is more superior to us therefore causing the human race to be the marsupials and robots to be the placentals.

I feel less cause for concern for the robot takeover because robots are not as advanced as biological weapons but maybe in the near future this may become a greater threat. Alternatively I think he has a very valid and urgent cause for concern when it comes to the biological and genetics part of his argument especially when it comes to the point of Drexler’s “gray goo” (10).

I feel he is credible because he is a co-founder of Sun Microsystems and the computer as we know it would be vastly different if it weren’t for him. He is responsible for some of the internet programs we use today like Java. Even so, a lot of the things he writes about are not in his own field of work but when he talks of fields of study other than his own he uses the work of other reputable scientists. He seems to just have compiled ideas from them and interpreted and summarized them.

I think the response to Joy should be for the scientific community recognize where to stop their research if their work could become dangerous and uncontrollable, but the hard part to that is knowing exactly when their work may become too dangerous and as a scientist one may become blinded as to the danger of their own work. Also, who is to say what is dangerous and what is not, the government? It also brings to bear the question of intellectual property rights. And who is going to stop a rogue scientist who continues their dangerous work in a private, maybe secret setting. In relating to Oppenheimer’s quote -- when do the consequences become too great to continue the spread of knowledge?

Knowledge is Power

““Plants” with “leaves” no more efficient than today’s solar cells could out-compete real plants, crowding the biosphere with an inedible foliage. Tough omnivorous “bacteria” could out-compete real bacteria: They could spread like blowing pollen, replicate swiftly, and reduce the biosphere to dust in a matter of days. Dangerous replicators could easily be too tough, small, and rapidly spreading to stop – at least if we make no preparation. We have trouble enough controlling viruses and fruit flies” (10). I chose this passage because Joy is stating that we are not capable of having technology that we can not control known as gray goo. I feel that this problem could be fixed by becoming more powerful and knowledgeable before we make the replicators or never make them in the first place.

First off, I feel that Bill Joy is a credible enough person to write this article. He was credited with co designing three computer processing systems (7). I feel that computers now would not be the same without these systems—like Java. He feels that learning is an exciting thing, especially mathematics (6). This for some reason makes me feel that is credible because he is one of the few that want to learn, not has to learn. For this purpose I feel that his problem he has arisen with is credible.

As the first passage states, we can not even control viruses and fruit flies. If we as humans could become more knowledgeable of robots and even science in general, then maybe we could become more capable of technology. For example, in 1945 when we dropped the atomic bomb, more scientists were hesitant but still went forth. “I have felt it myself. The glitter of nuclear weapons. It is irresistible if you come to them as a scientist. To feel it’s there in your hands, to release this energy that fuels the stars, to let it do your bidding. . . gives people an illusion of illimitable power. . .” (13). If scientists could instead use their knowledge and not the power of making a robot then maybe if could be done. I feel like if the power was put behind us and the use of knowledge was the purpose then they would be made for the right purpose. We need to know more about the world before we do something like that.

Another action we could propose was to not make some of these robots that could destroy the earth. There are certain technologies that I admit are essential for our existence. The gray goo threat in the first passage makes one perfectly clear: We cannot afford certain kinds of accidents with replicating assemblers (11). I can not even imagine the earth becoming nothing because of an accident. That is not worth it, to take a whole species with history of billions of years and with millions of organisms on it and it be gone because someone put the wrong gray goo in a vile. What is the point of greater technology that is irrelevant? I feel like robots are kind of pointless. Maybe technology that can help the environment is more important. Most technologies these days make us lazier. Even Joy states that GNR technologies warnings have not been publicized because there is no profit of it (11). If there are warnings it should not be worth it yet. The Dalai Lama says that we must understand what it is that makes people really happy and it is neither material nor the pursuit of power (18). If happiness, the key to what most people want in this life, is what we want then why do we need to dig into the technology that could ultimately end our civilization?

Joy states the problem that replicators could end our world. I feel as though if we can stray away from that would be a good idea because then we would not be even dipping our hands into that kind of technology. Maybe the power of countries and the willingness to do anything to control power of the world makes people want to but I think that we should just wait or not do anything about it yet until we know more. Knowledge before power is more crucial to the problem than anything.

Change as Seen in Hawthorne’s The House of the Seven Gable’s

Nathaniel Hawthorne’s work has been largely consumed by an impression of American life that is beset by dreary commitment and family disgrace. Quite often, the author has subjected his characters to experiences driven by old ghosts and static, unfaltering lives. Such is the case for Hepzibah Pyncheon, protagonist of 1851’s The House of the Seven Gables, who endures a life of loneliness, emotional hardship and bitterness. Steeped in a place and a set of memories—both personal and inherited—which tie her to the sins and intrigue of her family’s past, Hepzibah would seem an unlikely subject for any form of change. But with the unexpected arrival of her sprightly young cousin Phoebe, Hepzibah becomes a vessel for emotional rebirth that may have seemed impossible prior.
For the character in question, the notion of change should be identified as a transformation from an aged woman saddled with the miring burden of her solitary reflection of the family’s fortunes and considerably more extensive misfortunes. And in the second chapter, the narrator offers a picture of the woman which induces understanding both of her stagnant life and of the immediate inflection point which will arrive with the young relation. The narrator tells “this is to be a day of more than ordinary trial to Miss Hepzibah, who, for above a quarter of a century gone by, has dwelt in strict seclusion, taking no part in the business of life, and just as little in its intercourse and pleasures. Not with such fervor prays the torpid recluse, looking forward to the cold, sunless, stagnant calm of a day that is to be like innumerable yesterdays” (Hawthorne, 12) . There is a clear negativity which encompasses the routine and patterned experiences which have been Hepzibah’s and thus, there is an early indication that some point of divergence would have to be seen as a positive force for change.
It is without question that Hepzibah is at first skeptical that Phoebe should even appropriately make a presence at the house. Its dark pale and its depressing secrets clearly weighed heavily on the woman whose sad charge it had been to keep the house and with whom the rightful ownership of the Pyncheon name would likely die. She expresses the sentiment not only that she was incapable of experiencing change but further, that the house would only serve to change Phoebe for the worst. As they volleyed perceptions on how the visitor’s stay could be perceived, Hepzibah would argue, “but, Phoebe, this house of mine is but a melancholy place for a young person to be in. It lets in the wind and rain, and the snow, too, in the garret and upper chambers, in winter-time, but it never lets in the sunshine. And as for myself, you see what I am,—a dismal and lonesome old woman” (Hawthorne, 48)
For Hepzibah, it would not have occurred that a bright presence could bring her any sort of brightness. But the ensuing events upon Phoebe’s arrival would actually bring about an incredible new vibrancy to the house, altering the old maid’s shadowy existence by imbuing it with promise and merriment. The budding love affair between Phoebe and Holgrave brings a special glow to the house which helps to positively impose upon the previously empty place. The ultimate resolution, not apparent until closer to the story’s end, will also be uncovered as a peripheral effect to her presence concerning the ultimate innocence of the long disgraced and borderline lost Clifford. In these occurrences, Hepzibah finds both changes in her static life and peace in a history of restless souls.
This is aptly phrased in the narrator’s first chapter description of the house itself. In a description of the edifice to the titular house of her residence, the narrator notes that “the aspect of the venerable mansion has always affected me like a human countenance, bearing the traces not merely of outward storm and sunshine, but expressive also, of the long lapse of mortal life, and accompanying vicissitudes that have passed within.” (Hawthorne, 5) This sums up well the implied significance of the house itself as it concerns the history of the family and the future for a woman who might have otherwise seen herself as having none.

Intro and My First Essay

Hey guys, my name is Chris Tully. I'm a sophomore here and I'm planning on going pre-med. Anyway, I just transferred to this class last week. I started out in reading poetry and found pretty quickly that I am terrible at reading poetry so I dropped it and came on over to Narrative and Technology because it fit my schedule, covers the W requirement, and seemed at least a little more interesting to me then reading poetry does.


Essay 1:

I think an underlying theme of the book up to the 7th chapter (which is where I think everybody stopped for assignment 1) is antiquity, and people becoming obsolete. To me, it stuck out more than once in this first chunk of the book. I had seen it referenced a few times throughout and one example that I took was the fact that the Judge would look down on Hepzibah for opening the penny shop simply because she carried the Pyncheon name. While he made out pretty well with his life, she was left in the House of the Seven Gables barely able to feed herself. She was stuck in the old traditions of women not providing for themselves and for years kept cooped up in the house. When she finally made the decision that she needed to support herself she was nervous of what the Judge and even her neighbors would think of her opening up a cheap little shop.

Another example of this theme is the house itself. When it was first built it was marveled by the whole town and important government positions from England. While it is still a large house, Hawthorne refers to it in less of an awe-inspiring tone in the chapters following the first. He also describes flaws such as the half-door that was, and is now being used for the penny shop. There was a sentence farther along in the section that I thought summed up what my opinion of Hawthorne's message was. He wrote, "It was evident that the race had been degenerated, like many a noble race besides, in consequence of too strict a watchfulness to keep it pure" (61). Basically I think it means, out with the old in with the new. As the time goes on, even the most prominent business, empires, and families die out, and I think that is pretty evident in many cases throughout history.

How this relates to technology is a stretch for me. My thought is that technology, like the Pyncheon family slowly gets outdated and new, better technology comes along. People nowadays need to advance as technology advances or they get left behind. The best case example of that for me is my grandpa and how horrible it is to try and watch him use a computer. What is now like second nature for most of us, is pretty much a foreign language to those who weren't able to keep with the rapid changes in technology. I believe that this is one correlation of this book to our class.

Assignment #2 (for Group 2)

Choose one of these two topics.

Option #1)

One thing you'll note from reading Joy's article is that it is long on problems and short on solutions. Focusing on one problem raised by Joy, present a detailed argument about what our response to Joy should be. By "response" I don't mean emotion - I mean action. What, specifically, should we (as individuals or as a culture) do.

Note that this doesn't mean that you need to agree with Joy. You should take him seriously (one important thing to do in this article is to pay attention to the ways in which he establishes his credibility), but you might just as well attack him as defend him.

If you defend him on some point, you should both discuss why you find him credible and what the appropriate response to the situation is. If you attack him, you should explain why you don't find him credible and what we should do in response.

In any case, you should focus on specific passages, citing page numbers and making use of quotes.

Option #2

Make an argument addressing this question: is true change possible in The House of the Seven Gables? The question is simple; here's the complicated part. You must display detailed knowledge of the text, both citing numerous passages in defense of your position (using whatever citation method you are comfortable with -- just using parentheses and page numbers if fine) and, just as importantly, imagining and responding to at least one counterargument to your position.

Your concept of "change" should be clearly defined and focused: for instance, you might focus on cultural or political change, or you might mean something even more precise.

Finally - and here's the catch - you should give some indication as to why, as readers of The House of the Seven Gables we should care about the answer you give - how does it effect our understanding of the book (so far) as a whole?

Various Reminders

As a reminder, for now and the future, until we collectively decide otherwise.

1) Formal blog posts are due on Tuesday, by 8 a.m.
2) Responses to blog posts are due by Thursday, by 8 a.m.
3) Revisions, if you choose to make them, are due by Saturday at 6 pm.
4) My goal (not a promise) is to have everything commented and read before class every Tuesday.

Syllabus

Here's the syllabus, both for the new people and for future reference. The formatting is slightly different than in the print version, but the content is the same.

Here it is.

intro

My name is Aladino DiNardo but i perfer to be called Dino. I am in my second semester as a junior here at Pitt after transferring from Allegheny College in Meadville, Pa. I am taking this class because it fulfills a writing requirement that i need but also because it sounds interesting to me.

Intro

My name is Max Black, I'm a junior here at Pitt and a Bio major. I'm taking this class to get rid of my lit and writing gen ed requirement. I did my freshman year at Clemson and to say the least my freshman comp class was a joke. We only only wrote two 4-6 page papers and everyone in the class got an A. My final paper was about which show was better to be a contestant on, Survivor or Big Brother where I used my self as expert source (because I am). We found out my teacher wasn't "re-hired" because of the fact that her class was joke, but I thought she was great because I hate writing. I'm hoping the class won't be so bad since I find technology in general to be pretty interesting.

Intro

Hey, I just posted but forgot to introduce myself. I'm Munir. I'm a Junior going for a degree in Biology and Psychology. (Pre-med)

My Class Change

”With that transaction, it was official. Hepzibah was now part of the working class." I believe that one of the motifs in The House of the Seven Gables was basically how inevitable and yet fickle change is. Class change is probably one of the best examples that exemply the impact and aftermath change can have in a person's lifestyle but also his/her understanding of the world. I saw Kevin wrote a great example showing how profound class change is so I'm just going to quote him.(Hope you don't mind)

"This change is not like the change we all underwent Sunday, August 24-going to bed with your mind in what I like to call it “summer mode” and waking up the next day and having to force your mind to switch to “school mode.”

In summary, we saw how Hepzibah went from being rich to normal. We see how the simple act of forcing a payment led to her worldview basically being flipped upside down and lit on fire.

I specifically chose this quote because it has affected I chose this quote specifically because not only does class change demonstrates the main idea but it has also affected me .

To begin, before I moved to the States, I was pretty much as upper-class you can get. My parents basically didn’t have to do anything. We had servants do all our stuff. Cleaning, cooking, answering the door, getting us a glass of water, driving, etc. At the time, I felt something was off. I chose to sneak out from time to time to give food to the nearby homeless until I was caught. I felt both joy and guilt but overall confusion. Why would my parents for feeding the homeless? I mean, we had plenty of food and no one in my family was going hungry. At the time I just took it that I was young and didn’t know how the world worked. Then in May ’95, my world was flipped over and lit on fire. My mom told me my dad was taking us to America and how great the place is. It would be like Heaven. All I knew about it then was that they had awesome toys. We got there and I was in complete shock. (At the time) My dad put the luggage in the car and drove the car. I had no idea what I was in for. An already long story short, it turned out my “Heaven” happened to a 2 bedroom apartment in Brooklyn. Straight ghetto. For the first time in my 7 years I got my own glass of water, saw cockroaches, fist fought, smoked, ran for my life etc. One day I came home with a black eye(I still won). I was pissed off at everything and asked why we were here and why we had to live like this. It didn’t go too well and eventually realized what had happened to my life. I was poor. After that it was Wilmington, Brooklyn with a different flavor. Finally made it to the suburbs. The middle class. No more gun shots, no more fights. But a lot more ignorance.

I would go into more details but I already wrote a lot more than I intended and what you guys want to read so I just shortened everything else into two sentences. My experience has made me a lot more aware of my surroundings and be respectful of what I have and not have compared to others, both more and less fortunate.

Hello

Hi my name is Matt DiGiacomo. I'm a fifth year senior majoring in Communications. I transferred into Pitt from Bethany College and lost a semester's worth of credits just in case you were curious. I'm a football coach for the Central Catholic freshman team and I'm going into my second year. I like all sports and if you want to know anything else please just ask me.

The Narrative AS Technology

Nathaniel Hawthorne is by no means an author that would spring to mind when initially considering a course entitled "Narrative and Technology". To be sure, Hawthorne is no Asimov or Heinlein, and all the more for it I applaud the choice of our first reading assignment. There is a distinction to be made between how narrative and technology influence each other, and simply narrative that is about technology. Hawthorne's work almost inevitably deals with the clash of antiquated ideologies against our modern sensibilities, and as such he concerns himself with intellectual and cultural progress rather than progress in the field of artifice (that is to say, technology). Yet he is as relevant to our study as any other novelist or storyteller because the narrative itself is an artifice, a technology employed to relate the story to the reader. Hawthorne himself even seems to have taken pains to make this apparent as he continuously breaks the diegesis of the story to address the reader and violate the writer's sacred law of self-effacement.

"And now - in a very humble way, as will be seen - we proceed to open our narrative." (18) This quote, which concludes the first chapter, serves no other purpose than to draw attention to Hawthorne as the creator, us as the passive observers, and the narrative itself as a creation. By pointing out the artifice of the novel, Hawthorne hoped to make us more aware of how he used it, because he did regularly exploit the peculiar advantages available to the novelist and in particular the fiction novelist. “Our story must therefore await Miss Hepzibah at the threshold of her chamber; only presuming, meanwhile, to note some of the heavy sighs that labored from her bosom, with little restraint as to their lugubrious depth and volume of sound, inasmuch as they could be audible to nobody save a disembodied listener like ourself.” (19) Only fiction affords the reader the privileged view of that which no one is present to view, and only fiction is able to circumvent the observer effect, the concept that the act of viewing an event will alter its outcome. In creating the narrative, Hawthorne took advantage of these privileges and wanted us, as well, to be aware of them.

Hawthorne lived and wrote during a time in which the novel was the premier technology available for storytelling. And while it was not a new technology by any means, he did not shy away from exploring and exploiting the different ways in which the privileges and mechanics of the technology could impact how he shaped and represented the narrative. This is an extremely important concept to apply to today’s narrative expression especially as the term “new media” gets tossed about, referring not only to the most recent additions of household computers and the internet, but also to the interactions of these additions with existing media such as video and photography. We have not even begun to feel the impact of the way these media will change storytelling; and considering the fact that even television, media dinosaur that it is, has not yet exhausted its potential for narrative innovation, the change over the next few decades in how narratives are conceptualized, created, and received will be nothing short of staggering. If the internet and other new technologies are affecting the way in which we experience the world around us (which they most certainly are), then narrative, the way we represent or recount those experiences, is sure to be altered on a very profound level.


---------------------------------------------


I suppose I'll just tack my introduction on the end here and get it all done in one post.

My name is Matt Carrick. I'm a senior film studies major and I am taking this course because I am interested both in storytelling of all varieties and postmodern theory and above all when the two meet. When not at class I work for the University with Media Services and I do freelance videography and motion graphics work. In my spare time I enjoy not going on and on about myself, and as such I will see you all in class.

Class Change

Ok, so we all know that Hepzibah was part of the Aristotelian class. She lived all her life with her family money and now in her old age has to open the cent shop that was created by her ancestor. This change is not like the change we all underwent Sunday, August 24-going to bed with your mind in what I like to call it “summer mode” and waking up the next day and having to force your mind to switch to “school mode.” No, this was not a minor change like that. She went to bed as an Aristocrat and arose a woman in the working class.

Hawthorne states the change best on page 34 as he describes the scene when the little schoolboy pays her for the gingerbread cookie in the window, “The little schoolboy… had wrought an irreparable ruin. The structure of ancient aristocracy had been demolished by him, even as if his childish grip had torn down the seven gabled mansion (34).” With that transaction, it was official. Hepzibah was now part of the working class. Hawthorne describes the event as the demolishing of the structure of ancient aristocracy. No one is supposed to change classes. You are what you are born into. But here, with the help of the little schoolboy the division no longer stands. The little schoolboy demolished what status Hepzibah had even with the house. Hawthorne symbolizes her status with the house but then he says that the little schoolboy demolishes it.

As I embark on my final year here at the University of Pittsburgh, I often feel the squeeze of that which is the real world. I always worked growing, from mowing my grandparents’ lawns to screen-printing t-shirts as a high school job. Money was never really an issue. But now, my life has changed. I work 30 hours a week at the Carnegie Science Center and go to school full time. Needless to say, I do not have that much free time on my hands. Well, I am trying to make ends meet while not tapping into my student loans. It is this that worries me most, leaving school, owing thousands of dollars and knowing that every month hundreds of my hard-earned dollars will go towards paying them off. This is a big change for me. I have never been in debt until two months ago when I got my first credit card and I am petrified.

My lifestyle as I know it is about to change. I furthered my education not just to become a more learned individual, but also to have a better lifestyle when I graduate. Now, what if I can’t find a job in my respective field? I could be forced to go back to the blue-collar lifestyle I lived in high school. I did not come to college, create a humongous debt for myself, just to go back to work in a blue-collar job. Though not anywhere near the magnitude of what “our beloved heroin” Hepzibah did, it is still a downward movement. A movement against the “American Dream” and a move I do not want to make. We do have a class system today, I believe similar to that of Hepzibah’s. It is a class system where it is easy to go down, but extremely hard to work your way up. It is a system where you have to know people or have money to make it anywhere.

Time Changes People

When Hepzibah breaks down and cries, Holgrave comforts her by telling her that she is now a heroic part of the great working public, and then he asks for some biscuits, which she gives him without allowing him to pay. And this is where we see Hawthorne do the unthinkable. He takes a upper class gal, born into money and deep rooted heritage, and turns her into your typical working class female.

"The structure of ancient aristocracy had been demolished by him, even as if his childish grip had torn down the seven gabled mansion (34).” Ned Higgins, a boy, comes to get a cookie from the shop and Hepzibah does not make him pay. The boy returns later for another cookie and thinks that he will it for free again. But this time she demands that he pays for it. And in that moment history had been made. Hepzibah broke out of her "richie-rich lifestyle" and became a working, middle class, everyday person. She gets an intriguing feeling—almost a feeling of joy, after making this change. But her day is mixed with pessimistic and curious customers that come in the shop and do not buy anything, or else they came in just to observe her actions. When a rich woman passes, Hepzibah is tempted to curse her, but then she repents and scowls instead.

Hepzibah finally understands what a big transition she has made. She did something that no one in her family would have thought would a) have needed to be done, and b) could possibly be done. Her home life was filled with luxury and riches and over time the family fortune depleted and that's why she is in this position. But she does end up making the most of her opportunity and makes the biggest transition of her life, in my opinion, with a little reinforcement from Holgrave.

Spending five years in college has made me realize that I'm here for a few reasons. The first reason is to further my education. The second reason I'm here is because I finally realize what I want to do with my life. Within the past year I have held three jobs and by the time I was released or quit, I wasn't happy anymore. I coach now and that makes me happy. I'm taking the city fireman's test in December and I'm so excited I can't hardly wait. I'm getting a feeling that my life is finally moving forward to the point where I actually want to graduate college and begin the next phase/task/challenge of my life.

I was born into a middle class, working family. My dad works three jobs all year long. My mom works for the University. We still live paycheck to paycheck because the bills just keep adding up. But we make it work and we did what we had to do to survive. We never had extremely nice things that would cost a "arm and a leg." We didn't need it though either. Hepzibah had it her whole life and she did not realize what she had to do to survive. And that's what Holgrave made Hepzibah do. He gave her some motivation and she ran with it. She got the ball rolling and succeeded.

Hello all, as you can see when you look at the bottom of this blog, I am Kevin Hengelbrok. I am finishing up my final year of undergrad here at Pitt. I am a Natural Sciences major (focusing on geology, chemistry, and physics) and I want to teach Earth and Space science when I grow up. I am pretty much a science geek-I have a rock collection, and I only watch the Discovery Channel-except when the Pens are playing. I am a huge Pens fan.

Well, I like to write in a more informal voice, sort of like I am talking to you. Take it as you will, but I find it more entertaining to write and read prose where the author is talking to the reader.

Well, best of luck.

Kevin

Change is Inevitable

It becomes very obvious why The House of the Seven Gables by Nathaniel Hawthorne was selected as a piece of reading of this class. Through the first seven chapters, one can see several instances related to such things as narrative, technology, history and most of all change. Beings that this story is based during a time of tremendous change in the American world, one is able to observe many parallels between America at the time, and the changing of events throughout the story. Although the novel is filled with different aspects of change, what actually caught my attention first was the resistance to change by most of the characters, specifically Colonel Pyncheon.

"Endowed with common sense, as massive and hard as blocks of granite, fastened together by stern rigidity of purpose, as with iron clamps, he followed out his original design, probably without so much as imagining an objection to it, On the score of delicacy, or any scrupulousness which a finer sensibility might have taught him, the Colonel, like most of his breed and generation, was impenetrable."

These words describing the Colonel help us understand the first chapter of the book. We learn that his family has become forever cursed after his false accusations of witchcraft upon Matthew Maule. By building his house on the stolen land, the Colonel has eternally doomed his family. This idea of stubbornness to change is not only symbolic within the book but also helps the reader understand the time period that these characters are living in. Change came so rapidly at this time in history that it took most people by surprise, and many were hesitant to adjust. Hawthorne's depictions of this anxiety to change are much more intense than one would encounter today, or at least I would hope so. Hawthorne's use of eerie language definitely lets the reader know that the Colonel's wrong doings will definitely not go unpunished, and that his family too will suffer for a very long time.

In the real world today, people might experience a similar stubbornness or anxiety to change. Every person has their different reasons, some are probably more in depth than others but just like everything else in the world, it's all relative. Personally, I haven't experienced any life threatening curses like that of the Pyncheon family; however I did encounter a fairly important life change at a very young age.

As my final years of elementary school concluded, my life was great. Good friends, amazing family life, and not a worry in the world. That was until one day it all came crashing down. I had always looked up to my parents, thought they were the greatest people in the world, and that nothing could come between them. Wow, was I wrong. It was a few weeks after hearing them fight every night, that they told me the life changing news. They were getting divorced. I don't think words can describe the emotions that went through my mind for the next few days, so I won't even begin to try. More importantly, everything I ever knew was about to change. Did I want this to happen? Absolutely not. Did I have a choice. No. I fought and I fought to keep my lifestyle the same, clinging to the life I used to have. After months of depressed thoughts and sleepless nights, I finally realized that things would have to change forever.

I think it is a fair statement to say that most people like to be comfortable. Change usually fluctuates people's comforts zones. However, some changes are inevitable and have to be debt with accordingly. In the case of Colonel Pyncheon his refusal to change leads, to what most of us would agree on, a very harsh consequence for not only himself, but his entire family. Most changes in the real world today don't have those types of consequences, but none the less change is and will always be just around the corner.

Social Darwinism in History

It has been my observation in Nathaniel Hawthorne’s work that the author has an unfailing tendency to belittle those in power, members of the aristocracy, and the Puritan race in general. I have no objection to these acts. Nay, it is clear that he makes it an obvious point in his work, no exception being The House of Seven Gables. Straight from the beginning, as we tear into the background of the Pyncheon House, we find a rather questionable dispute between a land-owner (Maule) and a prospective buyer (Colonel Pyncheon). Not surprisingly, in this flashback of events long-past, it is a setting in which the paranoia of witchcraft seizes the heart and Maule soon finds himself accused of it. And since no man can ever claim innocence, once suspected, he was put to death, speaking a curse shortly beforehand. Story-wise, this is a curse against the Pyncheon family, whose newly-constructed house began with the death of its host, the Colonel. In truth, it is Hawthorne’s cry of foul against greedy men in power.

Moving forward, the Pyncheon family – in every attempt to make good use of the seven-gabled house – has fallen to misfortune, their every attempt to maintain their high place in society a dismal failure. Men and women, made to be as aristocrats, falling in line against a world which will not put up with their ways. Thus, we reach the point of Hepzibah Pyncheon, who is so reduced by the curse of high-breeding, that we daresay it is curse of social impotence. She is forced to open a shop (Gasp!) and earn her keep like normal everyday people (For shame!). Yes, the parentheses are necessary, because this is an unthinkable act for those in a high social order. The Pyncheons were a nobility of sorts, and that is the source of their downfall.

“These names of gentleman and lady had a meaning, in the past history of the world, and conferred privileges, desirable or otherwise, on those entitled to bear them. In the present – and still more in the future condition of society – they imply not privilege, but restriction!” (30)

Mr. Holgrave, originator of this wisdom, speaks in an unerring truth. Historically, one can trace back through time the days when nobility and rich high-class afforded you everything from the highest friendships in authority to the ability to get away with even murder (namely in duels), so long as it was considered acceptable in the high social class. Times change and things begin to slip in that department. The people of lower classes – or any classes – are changing their ways in order to adapt to a new world. Hawthorne attacks Puritans in particular because they represent not only the inability to compromise with the world. So saying, Hepzibah comes from a long line of woeful aristocrats whom nobody can stand because they do not change or move along with history. They pine for the good old days, cling to the lord and ladyships, even for being poverty-stricken, taking in boarders, and having to run a tiny shop. It is, for the purposes of understanding the requirement of adaptation in history, that Hawthorne made Hepzibah. Not only is she ineffective at completing the tasks of the common folk, but she cannot even look people kindly in the eye, known forever as the scowling woman.

Born to fail, I noticed that Hawthorne seemed to play a very whimsical narrator of her status, ringing the truth of her inability to cope in what may be called Social Darwinism. He makes the statement of her restrictions, as stated by Holgrave, to point out how history will always leave behind those who cannot move with it. Nobody may know if Maule’s curse were real or not, but so long as this family line treats the world as through the eyes of a so-called lady or gentleman, they cannot warm the hearts of others, attract the attentions of those they need, and certainly not make use of this old house.

Introduction

Hi my name is Ryan Lynch. I am a Junior here at Pitt, majoring in communications and economics. Technology has always been of interest to me, so when I needed to take a writing intensive course this was the obvious choice. I hope that the class is as interesting and fun as it seems, and I am looking forward to getting to know all of you.

My name is Sam Luffy. I am a sophomore Civil Engineer. One thing that goes with being an engineer is bad grammar skills. So I will apologize for grammar and spelling mistakes ahead of time.
I went to Pittsburgh Central Catholic High School. I only say that because there are two other kids in the class who went there as well.
Other info about me: I live in south Oakland, play on Pitt's soccer team and all that good stuff.

Change in Societal Class Structure

The House of Seven Gables is set during a period of great change in American history. Following closely in line with this concept, Hawthorne makes change a critical part of the novel. Many changes occur in its early portions. However, one in particular seems to have a very deep-rooted impact. I believe this conception of change is particularly well characterized by the following quote, spoken by Hepzibah to Mr. Holgrave:

“You are a man, a young man, and brought up, I suppose, as almost everybody is nowadays, with a view to seeking your fortune. But I was born a lady, and have always lived one; no matter what narrowness of means, always a lady!” (30)

Hepzibah’s words speak volumes for the experiences of “gentlemen” and “ladies” of the time period; they were individuals used to living based mainly upon who they happened to be, what their name was, and what ancestors before them had done. Times were changing, however, and a point was being reached where a name was no longer enough to live comfortably. Furthermore, Hepzibah’s quote shows that she is hardly clueless as to her degenerate state. Despite the illusions of grandeur she may try to maintain with her dress, manners, and even her actions, such as giving away items from her shop when she feels she simply cannot bear to charge someone for so trivial an item, she realizes that she is hardly living the pristine lifestyle experienced by members of the Pyncheon family several generations prior.

This quote exemplifies a landmark representation of a theme of importance for Hawthorne since even in the reading for the first week’s assignment it asserted itself numerous times. For example, when Phoebe proves herself to be a highly skilled worker in numerous regards, Hepzibah to some degree laments the fact that Phoebe must take after her mother rather than her Pyncheon father in order to have such capabilities. Thus, Hepzibah asserts that for an individual to be skilled in some manner of labor they must fall into a category of being below that of herself with no heed paid to standard of living. Such a category emphasizes the importance of personal ability and success rather than tradition and rhetoric. The social class structure Hepzibah so adores, likely due in no small part to the fact that it would benefit her highly, has come to an end.

In my own experience, this change persist to a degree even today. It is certainly true that the concept of “class” is still thrown around, especially given our country’s current political environment and with a Presidential election looming on the horizon. However, the impact of class has been lessened since the time of Hawthorne and the concept of working for the betterment and success of one’s self persists to a strong degree.

Granted, even I have to admit that this argument exists mainly in the realm of what is theoretically possible; it deals with what could happen but not necessarily what does happen. For example, the concept of public education should provide children of all classes with an equal opportunity to learn. Factors such as whether or not schools in different locations are truly equivalent play a large role, though. Likewise, local factors such as money and family issues might prevent youth from a lower class from attending college while a similar youth from a higher class might not suffer from such detriments.

Regardless, the perfection or lack thereof in the system is largely irrelevant to this argument, which is simply leveraging the fact that the same type of change persists to a great degree to this day. The success or failure of it is a matter left to sociologists, of which I most certainly do not profess myself to be one. What I can recognize is that the basis of much of professional America is structured around the concept of the “great American dream”, where an individual, provided that adequate effort is given to the endeavor, can be successful and attain what he or she desires. Ideally, all of this is accomplished without thought to who anyone’s great-great-great-great grandfather was named.

This is not to say that name is a totally meaningless concept to modern American society. Certainly the progeny of a rather prolific, hotel-owning family has attained celebrity status due in large part to name, along with acts of relatively gross stupidity. However, I mean to say that name is not an insurmountable barrier as it once was. It has been my experience that no one tends to believe that they are fated to a particular livelihood due simply to who their parents are. Thus, Hawthorne keys in on a topic of critical importance during his own time which persists to this very day and still provides a driving force for American society.

First Assignment

I was going to wait to post the assignment until more of you had introduced yourselves - but it's time to post it, regardless. Here it is:

This assignment has two components.

1) Identify and quote a specific short passage -- no more than a sentence or two -- which, in your mind, represents or summarizes one of these themes in The House of the Seven Gables: narrative, technology, change, history, or democracy (you might also tackle a couple of these ideas together, with the right passage). Do your best to demonstrate why we should take this passage as representing the role played by these ideas in general in the book so far.

2) Respond to Hawthorne's conceptualization of narrative/technology/change/history/democracy using some contemporary issue, or something in your experience. Is this idea of history/change/democracy well-founded?

For example, you might identify some passage which addresses the nature of change (perhaps the nature of change in a democracy), then explore whether or not we experience change in this way, in our era of (at least supposedly) rapid technological development.

This assignment does not necessarily need to be structured like a standard essay, with an argument at the beginning, but the second part, at least, should include a clear argument.

p.s. I'll be mostly unavailable for questions this weekend, although I'll try to answer questions which are focused on the assignment itself. Here's what I'm doing (for the third time), if you care:

http://www.3daynovel.com/

I will do my best to get to your other questions on Tuesday.

p.p.s. We will discuss group #2's peer responses to group #1's blog entries on Tuesday.

Prologue...

The trouble with posting on a new blog (which for me, you can read as 'any blog at all') is the problem of getting use to the new format and system. For instance, even as I write, the damn thing is already beginning to piss me off. It literally ate my first draft and there is no way to restore it. I shall stab it with a fondue fork later, but for now...let's get done to what it's all about. Namely...ME.

My name is Jacob Mulcahy, but you can call me Jake. Now then, what am I doing here? I don't necessarily need the class to fill in a requirement, so I guess that makes me...crazy? Well, no. That doesn't question the old sanity. Even taking an interest in it with no other motivation than just that is to be considered normal. What IS a fact is that I am sort of an oddball at times. You will find out how exactly this is if you haven't already.

To put things at sort of a point, I'm a senior that requires a mere 9 credits to graduate, and none of those credits involve anything particular. The mandatories are out of the way, leaving me with whatever holds my fancy. The reason I'm in this is because I am a writer, though not published, and I figured that the more I understand the territory, the better I will be. "Ah, but Jake. How can you call yourself a writer if you haven't sold anything yet? Three reasons...

1. There is no certificate that states, specifically, the profession of being an author, as opposed to say the licences to practice medicine. Different fields can mean looser rules.
2. I have both the love and the tenacity of writing to pursue the goal of publishing something of mine to its conclusion. You can call it an obsession, but I'll stick with 'conviction'.
3. What the hell did I go to college for, then? Plenty of relavent classes under the belt...

This class, I can almost guarantee, will be a strange one. And I am in it because I want to be in it, which in turn makes me a strange person. Now, someone hand me the fondue fork. It's time to smite this blog.

(No blogs were harmed in the making of this post, though a wide variety of threatening gestures and consored remarks were made.)

Introduction

I guess I'll be the brave soul to make the first introductory post. My name is John Fabry. If you're curious, my last name is pronounced "fay-bree", something that telemarketers had difficulty understanding for years before the Do Not Call list was developed. If you would like a picture to figure out who I am in the class, here is a link to my Facebook profile. It's fairly sparse, though, since I just made it in June. I guess I'm behind the curve.

For some background information, I'm a Senior majoring in Information Science. This semester I only have class on Tuesdays and Thursdays, though I spend Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays working. Given my major, it should come as no surprise that computers take up a large portion of my free time. Along with computers, I also enjoy reading and writing. Apparently I'm one of the virtuous people Dr. Johns spoke of on Tuesday night since both my writing and lit requirements have already been satisfied. My eventual goal is to have the most expansive personal library possible. I'm also a coffee addict and I'm thoroughly convinced that Starbucks is possibly one of the greatest places there is to be.

Welcome to Narrative and Technology

Welcome, Fall 2008 students. Since you've managed to find this blog, you're already doing well. Remember, your first task, if you haven't done it yet, is to send me an email containing three things:

1) Your name
2) the fact that you're in Narrative and Technology
3) a request to be added to the class blog

Try to send this email by Wednesday afternoon.

Wednesday evening I'll send out the invitations, which will include straightforward instructions for joining the class blog. If you *don't* receive the instructions by Thursday morning, or they don't work, please feel free to email me for help.