Presentations

We started presentations today, and they were pretty interesting.  I was really interested in Lindsey Mango's, with the essential question "Why do Native Americans stay on reservations when the conditions are so bad?"  Part of her answer was that many Native American people know that if they leave the reservations, they will lose their culture.  So they choose to live in squalor.  This shows how incredibly passionate many Native Americans are about their cultures; having a culture must really offer a lot to them if they're willing to forgo clean water and adequate living conditions to have it.  I wonder what it's like to have such a strong cultural identity.

The Week

I'm really excited about Obama possibly visiting our school.  It would be the experience of a lifetime to meet Barack Obama, although he hasn't exactly been revolutionary.  I wish he would be more bossy about the environment.  Someone has to do it.

I think, though I'm not sure, that even if science can give us infinite more brain connections and cells, we won't be able to access it all.  You know how they say we only use 10% of our brains?  Well, we know that some parts of our brain are dormant or underused because we live in civilization--parts of the brain used for walking on rough terrain, for example.  Also, the way we view the world is much different from the way uncivilized cultures viewed the world, and I wonder if this accounts for differences in brain activity.  It will be interesting to see how we can use our new, bigger brains.

So I've been thinking

I've been thinking about Malcolm Godwin's hypothesis in The Lucid Dreamer that the world we see around us is about as substantial as our dreams are.  The idea has been presented before that the way our relatively little brains store so much data is by creating holograms of the universe inside our heads.  This conjecture can be used to explain many mysteries of the brain, and the workings of holograms oddly parallel dreams.

I've started to have dreams when I'm half-asleep and half-awake, drifting in and out of consciousness like when I'm on an airplane.  I know everyone has these kinds of half-awake dreams, but I'm having a lot of them, and they seem to be as vivid as normal dreams.  Like in normal dreams, I believe that what I'm experiencing is real reality, but the difference is that I am often experiencing the real world simultaneously, with the part of me that's awake.

Maybe what Dr. Richard Alpert, a.k.a. Ram Dass, said is true: that we are all existing in multiple realities, only aware of one at a time.  And traveling between the realities in which our consciousnesses exist is like changing the channels on a TV (On Lost, Desmond got caught between multiple channels several times).

The Lucid Dreamer

I've already read a little bit of The Lucid Dreamer, but I'm really excited about reading the whole thing. It's full of really interesting information about how the brain dreams. What I'm most interested in is distinguishing the difference between the dream world(s) and reality. Is this world just as much a construct of our imaginations as our dreams are? What makes us sense dreams, and why are some senses more accute than others? What facets of the brain affect how we view "reality"?

Starting "On Intelligence"

Well, On Intelligence arrived and I've started reading it. It's not as well-written as The Singularity is Near--not as urgently. But I can tell it's going to be interesting. I want to know if there's any hope for technology expanding humans' consciousness and intelligence. Unless it does this, it's only going to weaken our species (the Singularity scenario seems to partly make up for technology's backfalls by taking our bodies out of the equation and making us super-smart). Unless technology is going to benefit humans and not just surround us, it's not worth it. Please tell me what you think: will it be good for technology to expand our minds vastly (if you're like me and you automatically set up tent in the "technology is bad" camp, try to get rid of that prior notion to answer this question), or will it be destructive to us?

Is higher intelligence better?

I'm writing this on Monday instead of on Friday, but anyway:

I was against the Singularity before I found out what it was. I still believe technology has done much more harm for our species than good (I don't think this point is really up for debate. Just ask a biologist whether technology has advanced or hindered our evolution, health, and happiness. For those last two you'd have to turn to an anthropologist, and from what I've read it looks as though we are just starting to catch up, lifespan-wise, to "primitive" peoples. Indian chiefs and warriors in the 1800s and 1900s--famous Native Americans for whom we have birth and death dates--lived into their eighties and nineties while, according to Ray Kurzweil at least, the civilized European-Americans were benefiting form the aid of period technology and dying at 45. The Kwaaymii Indians of the Laguna Mountains, in our own back yard, considered "old" to be in their eighties, and some lived into their hundreds--according to their last living member at least. As for the happiness question, no one can tell us for sure. Surely primitive cultures had a higher infant death rate [which actually would help control the population and contribute to evolution] and they probably had to labor for long hours for survival purposes. But who today can say they don't spend their lives working? More important for me is that universally, aboriginal people had such a deep, incomprehensible connection with the earth, almost like they were part of a giant organism or something. Many Native Americans called it "the Great Mystery.") But now that I know the Singularity's all about becoming extremely intelligent, I can't really argue against that. Intelligence is good, although I disagree with all the other implications of the Singularity, like living in a virtual reality, being at the mercy of nanobots (which might be controlled by a government--too much power if you ask me), and devaluing death. The way we got to our current level of intelligence is that it just happened. Different parts of our brains control different functions, like sight, euphoria, curiosity, etc. How can the scientists and machines creatively invent new functions? I'm also curious how something so positive could spring from several thousand years of civilization and technology--something so negative.

Consciousness

I'm beginning to think that, once again, technology promises us what we already have. I used to be opposed to the Singularity because nature is so much better than better living through chemistry. However, apparently one of the predictions Kurzweil makes is that technology will infinitely expand our minds, bringing us beyond our current level of intelligence, and wake up the "dumb" universe, giving everything intelligence and consciousness.

There's nothing to object to there. More intelligence is not a bad thing; no good can come from staying in the dark intentionally. There are no unsolvable problems, only lower levels of intelligence. Intelligence is great. But I think this all may be already accessible. The Lucid Dreamer goes on an on about how problems and situations that dumbfounded people in their daily lives were easy to solve in the dream world. Astral projectionists and lucid dreamers, as well as people who are skilled at meditating, speak of a "third eye" which actually corresponds to the pineal gland in the brain, and of going beyond their physical bodies to explore the mysteries of the universe and other dimensions, unimaginable in this realm.

Modern-day "shamans" and proponents of the drug DMT say that by using DMT, which also occurs naturally in our metabolic system, you can tap into nature's consciousness. If the universe has a consciousness and we're all a part of it, that's pretty cool. If we can access naturally these greater intelligences, the negative side of the Singularity doesn't seem worth it.

Stories

Why do we need stories? Think of your favorite story--a book, a movie, or just a general unwritten story--and it gives you a certain feeling, right? Every human society ever has told stories and revered them. They lend us the feeling of other worlds. I don't even know what they do, but there's something built into us that says we need stories. Was this a survival technique? The people who told and heard and enjoyed stories survived to pass on their genes? The best stories, especially long stories with lots of character development, make us feel a very special way. So maybe this will help those who tell and love stories survive longer and become stronger. Stories are our creations, or maybe they are how we interpret the world around us.

Number 10

1. "Most Beautiful Work Award" - I am most proud of my tragedy essay. I put a lot of work into organizing it right and making sure my ideas got out in the essay. I've always been afraid that my writing will be confusing in its order and organization (because when I start off I spill all my ideas out), but after this essay I've learned to trust myself to wisely organize an essay or other piece of writing. I also like the ideas I came up with in the essay about how the definition of tragedy changes with the times (the Greeks loved their rulers, so it was tragic when rulers were revealed to be flawed; we hate politicians nowadays [unless they're truly beneficient to the people], so our focus lies on what happens to the everyday commoner).

2. "Lesson Learned" - One particular pointer I've found helpful is to pad quotes with explanation. I've started to notice that it's really helpful when reporters do this in articles, even if they comppletely repeat the point that was made in the quote. I've started doing this in my writing, too. I feel I've also gotten better at analyzing writing for a specific point--like in our inquiry projects. Although it can detract from the simple joy of reading, searching text for answers to a question can also add a lot of depth to the reading experience.

3. "Lessons I'd Like to Learn" - To feel ready for college, I'd like to go deeper into analyzing writing. It would be interesting to discuss quotes from the "great minds" of the past couple thousand years, sort of like what we did with Socrates.
I don't know if this is part of the senior curriculum, but I would love to do some creative writing. I think we all have ideas that are waiting to turn into an awesome story.

High Tech High is named High Tech High for a reason. The founding fathers wanted us to employ technology in our learning adventures. In our everyday lives, is technology employing us?

Michael Pollan, in his book The Botany of Desire, poses the question: We have developed crops like corn and potatoes well beyond their original potential. Now that corn has grown out of its grubby, near-death shrub-like form it started out as, and potatoes have undergone a similar journey, we must ask ourselves: who has used whom?

It almost seems like technology is evolving, very quickly, through us. Heck, if at the beginning of our evolution, if we had wanted to evolve more quickly, we couldn't have done better than to have someone else use us.

Poetry on Technology

My group's essential question is:

How will advancing technology affect who we are as humans?

So far, our poems seem to be answering that it will make humans an inferior being, lowering our status in the world. Technology will be greater than we are. However, in some cases, if we are wise, we will still have overall control over technology because we created it. It's only our own ingenuity trying to subjugate us.

What do you think? Did Terminator have it right? It's tempting to hand complete decision-making control over to technology sometimes--will this result in our demise or does technology promise us a brighter future? And please don't say "a mix of both"--be specific if you answer the question.

Thank you!

Tragedy

I enjoyed writing my tragedy essay. My ultimate conclusion was that tragedy depends on the society. The Greeks loved their kings, but we could care less about kings and we don't adore leaders just for being leaders. So we turn to the people. I agree with Arthur Miller: we weep at the tragedy of the common man. Tragedies should also end well, not in disaster. Still sad, of course, but very meaningful. What thinkest thou?

Yes, it's my essay

Tragedy and the People

A tragedy has to consist of a character in a high class of society who, following an error that anyone could make, loses his grip on power and falls to the bottom rungs of society. Or so said Aristotle in his praise of Oedipus (Lytle). But do all tragedies share this template? Can we call a story a tragedy if it diverts from this standard? What, today, gives us that tragic feeling? I believe a tragedy in the modern day revolves around the common man and his familiar struggle against an unfair world. Many writers throughout history have disagreed, however.

Some hold that tragedies have to involve a great and very public fall. In their 1998 article, "On Wall Street, Pride Signals a Fall,” Victor Niederhoffer and Laurel Kenner contend that today’s corrupt CEOs evoke in us the sense of tragedy that the tragic Greek heroes did. According to Niederhoffer and Kenner, these modern events parallel powerful Greek tragedies. The main character holds a high and respected position, acts overconfident and, through his or her hubris, loses the respected position. Public embarrassment is a necessity.

Contrarily, playwright Henrik Ibsen believes the action of the tragedy takes place in emotions rather than on a political or economic stage. While Aristotle believes that tragedies should center around a very public fall (Lytle), Ibsen contends that public embarrassment does not have to be involved. He writes that the situation of a woman, with her feminine morals and beliefs, losing to a world of men and their masculine morals, is a tragedy. Mental conflict is the key here. The woman loses her sense of sureness and ends up morally compromised and mentally lost.

Washington Post writer Lloyd Rose agrees that the main action of a tragedy should take place in the mind. Rose points out a vast difference between Greek tragedies and the more recent Shakespearean tragedies. The summary of a Greek tragedy, says Rose, is action-packed and interesting: “Man unknowingly kills father and marries mother, discovers the truth and blinds himself.” A Shakespearean tragedy sounds much less exciting: "A man makes a bad decision and is mistreated by his children." Clearly, Greek tragedies were based on the movement of characters through different situations and different societal positions. But in Shakespeare, the action is all in the mind.

A viewpoint completely contrary to Aristotle’s is that the common, everyday man is every bit as qualified to be a tragic hero as a Greek king. Arthur Miller, the famous author of Death of a Salesman, says, “the tragic feeling is evoked in us when we are in the presence of a character who is ready to lay down his life, if need be, to secure one thing--his sense of personal dignity. From Orestes to Hamlet, Medea to Macbeth, the underlying struggle is that of the individual attempting to gain his ‘rightful’ position in his society.” Miller might agree that the emotional mind is the stage for a tragedy rather than a political stage. According to Miller, we feel tragedy when we see immense passion, care, and hard work result in nothing.

A complete view of modern tragedy should consider all of these points. The definition of tragedy depends on the society. The Greeks revered their kings; for them, as for many European societies, the common man was nothing. Kings had a special place in the hearts of the populace. The Greeks wept when a leader fell. In the modern age, however, we no longer weep when a leader falls. Rather than respect political and economic leaders for their status, we care about them because of what they can do for us. South Africans do bemoan the retirement of Nelson Mandela because he was a great man, but also because of what he did for the country. He fought to raise up the common man of South Africa, and for this the citizens love him. In the Western world there are few leaders whom we consider “great men.” In fact, in the modern world the position of the common man has risen far above what it was in ancient Greece. The kings are dead. We are in the age of the common man.

The characters we care about, therefore, are our fellow people. As Arthur Miller points out, their struggles are the uphill struggles against a society that aims to keep them down. It is the story of the salmon swimming upstream, whom we watch, pity, and empathize with as he pushes against all external forces to achieve his goal. The tragic feeling comes to us when he fails, through no fault of his own, but because society refuses to let him raise his position. Of course there are hardly any real-world examples of this to which we can look because real-life tragic heroes do not become noted or famous. Victor Niederhoffer and Laurel Kenner would argue that the bosses of Enron and other such defrauders qualify as tragic heroes according to Aristotle’s definition. However, they do not take any noble actions (as Aristotle and Joseph Krutch require) and do not fall from power on a simple mistake--their whole persona is a lie. The citizens did not mourn their fall, either. As opposed to the story of a noble king who loses his position because of a simple error, the entire journey of Enron was an error. There was no nobility. Tragedies, therefore, cannot be made up simply of hubris.

Since we get the tragic feeling from stories that follow Arthur Miller’s definition--Tragedy and the Common Man--a tragedy does not need hubris at all. I believe that in the modern world we are all a bit fed up with hubris. Greedy men who lust for power and ultimately fail have plagued the pages of history too long for us to sympathize with them anymore. We don’t care about the falls of greedy people any more than we care about the falls of average leaders. A character has to capture our hearts with his passion and unending devotion to his cause.

To recap, a tragedy must center around a common man who tries harder than anything to improve his situation. He goes to all lengths and devotes all his energy to his cause. But ultimately, society or outside circumstances do not allow him to rise above his situation. He fails not from lack of effort but from the influence of an unfair world.
However, the ending should not leave the audience hopeless. On the contrary, it should expand the audience’s thinking on life and leave the audience hopeful that the world is ultimately good. His Dark Materials, for example, a trilogy by Philip Pullman, ends with the two protagonists and lovers realizing that because of unfair outside events, they can never be together. They discuss options for staying together that would require otherwise unthinkable sacrifices, but ultimately conclude they have to separate and never see each other again in this life. They have both defeated impossible chances to do good, but they receive no reward. However, the story ends on a hopeful note. Although the lovers are separate, they each realize they can make the world a better place with the spiritual inspiration of the other. This is the best kind of tragedy.
What, then, do tragedies teach us? They teach us that regardless of situations, our attitude controls our happiness. We can always do something, even if the world tells us we can do nothing. The world can at times prevent us from achieving our highest goals, but it is important to try. Even if we don’t succeed in our lifetime, the effort and the passion that we devote to our cause will inspire the readers of our story to change the world.

Whew. Thanks for hacking through that.

Essay

Here is a section of my essay. Do you agree or disagree? Should tragedies teach us something? What should they teach us?

However, the ending should not leave the audience hopeless. On the contrary, it should expand the audience’s thinking on life and leave the audience hopeful that the world is ultimately good. His Dark Materials, for example, a trilogy by Philip Pullman, ends with the two protagonists and lovers realizing that because of unfair outside events, they can never be together. They discuss options for staying together that would require otherwise unthinkable sacrifices, but ultimately conclude they have to separate and never see each other again in this life. They have both defeated impossible chances to do good, but they receive no reward. However, the story ends on a hopeful note. Although the lovers are separate, they each realize they can make the world a better place with the spiritual inspiration of the other. This is the best kind of tragedy.

My thesis

This is what I think a tragedy is now:

In Greek tragedies, the action was in the movement of characters through various classes in society. But in modern tragedies, the action is more in the thoughts and emotions of the characters. It's much more mentally based. Like the writer of the fifth tragedy reading said, summaries of Greek tragedies sound a lot more exciting than summaries of Shakespeare's tragedies. But Shakespeare's work is powerful because you see the struggles not between nations or power holders, but between a man and himself, or between a man and society at large.

As Arthur Miller said, the tragedy of the common man is much more powerful today than the tragedy of people in high places. Besides, the "flawed" heroes of Greek-style tragedies are either noble, flawless people who are victims of ridiculous situations (Oedipus) or just dirt bags to begin with who seemed like cool people because they were lying (Enron and friends). Bill Clinton, it's true, seemed to fit the description of a great man who made a mistake, but his story doesn't qualify as a tragedy because, well, look at him. It didn't exactly end in tragedy. He remained president and he's now a big political guy who Democrats love.

So what gives us that tragic feeling nowadays? When the action is in the characters' emotions, their personal crises, their brains. It's more inwardly focused. No longer do we weep when a great leader falls. The kings are dead. We are coming into the age of the people.

What makes it a tragedy?

I thought Oedipus was tragic because of the scope of the whole thing. The audience witnesses this incredible downfall, and it has repercussions for everybody. It shakes the citizens' faith in the infallibility of their king, and makes everyone feel a little weirded out. However, i get more worked up about newer tragedies, in which it's tragic because of the people, not just the significant events. If a character you love dies, or you know that two characters love each other so much but can't be together, it strikes a much deeper chord. Character development is the key to any modern tragedy, and it's so powerful because we identify with the character.

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?

Apparently they do. Philip K. Dick's "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" explores the confusion surrounding androids, which are organic robots indistinguishable from humans except for a lack of empathy and different bone marrow.

There are androids who simply serve their masters on Mars. But the ones who have escaped to Earth obviously want to be free; this suggest they are not just drones. They dream of something better. While they don't care about what happens to other androids, some of them felt despair at learning they were in fact androids.

My question is: How can this kind of being come about in the real world? I suppose scientists could clone humans and take out some empathy gene, but the lack of empathy seems to be a mere side effect. It seems like they built android brains, which were circuit boxes, and surrounded them with real skin and hair. If this does eventually happen, I wonder if androids would develop dreams and wants. Their electric brains could conceivably become complex enough to function as a human brain (if that whole Singularity nonsense is true), so the world Dick created might be more accurate than we think. If so, we are going to face moral issues more unclear than any we have faced before.

Socrates' Philosophies

"The unexamined life is not worth living."

I really don't know if this is true or not. My immediate reaction is "no." But I don't completely understand what Socrates means. Maybe he means life is meaningless without constant analysis of how you are living and consideration of the best way to do things. That one should always ask him or herself: Is what I'm doing the best way to lead my life? Now, of course any person in Socrates' setting should have followed this. With our screwed-up Western values, it's important to think about the best thing to do if we're surrounded by ridiculous ideals. If you're living in a society which has strong values that are healthy for the functioning of the group and the area, knowing what's right may be more of an instinct than a carefully thought-out premise.