Article 1: Entry 1

Not a very exciting title, but it says exactly what this is about. I am currently hunched over a laptop, every muscle in my body aching, my nose running, and I am feeling like death. This seemed like an opportune moment, if any, to start my article as I am bed-ridden, and see where it takes me.

Macs are nice computers. This comes from the girl who grew up on PCs and loves windows. In comparison, both are about equal, and yet mac users are more die-hard than any football fan I have ever met. I am currently using my Dell laptop, which has often been ridiculed as being “the worst brand of computer ever”. I beg to differ. My Dell was meticulously set up with the newest technology, biggest ram, fastest modem, etc, and it has never given me any trouble. Why do people religiously follow macs, despite the fact that they are nearly equal to PCs, they just differ in uses.

Do Macs and users truly experience utopia? Mac users apparently think so. Every once in a while, one can connect with a computer, but once it becomes outdated, that connection ends. True for Macs too? I believe so, unless Steve Jobs can tell the future… Within the Internet, we can establish ourselves as individuals and create multiple identities. This gives us power. Makes us God. Who would want to give that up? I completely agree with Turkle that computers lead to a way of self-identity. Mac users are not fighting for technology that they love, but rather the technology they have forged an identity with. The name “mac user” is something they wear proudly on their sleeves.

In the article, mac users are part of this “implicit religion” (2). The possibility of artificial intelligence is in our near future, and it has made us look at what human nature truly is. Are we nothing more than how we act, or is it something more? What if human nature is just simply the human element? We are all flawed in some way, and that is what possibly makes us human. Artificial intelligence takes away those flaws. What does that make it? Is living forever perfection? Apparently so in this article. The only thing left once this occurs is the “sacred and the profane” (3).

To be continued….

Gotta love Kafka

The idea that ritual is only something we can control is basically my thoughts as well. Life is chaotic, and ritual gives stability to the chaos, as something that can always be expected and counted on. Now, Kafka is wonderful, and his writings are some of my favorites. He often alludes to this idea of ritual, but he interrupts it with chaos,  often called “life”. A perfect example would be “The Metamorphoses”. The main character had a daily ritual of travel, work, and sleep. It was interrupted by his sudden, unaccountable change into a bug. Life has a way of screwing up things, doesn’t it? Nature always finds a way to break free and be its chaotic self, as it is a part of life. Religion is a ritual, in which many partake, and yet it all can be destroyed by a single person or thing which can disrupt that ritual.  Smith’s example of Kafka’s and Plutarch’s stories mirror my example of “The Metamorphoses”. “The world cannot be compelled”, and so it will not be forced by ritual to be as we want it.                                                              

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now, onto Jennings Jr. I had a hard time trying to establish myself in this article. The idea of ritual and knowledge being antithetical was beyond me. I understand ritual being the means to control chaos, but what does that make knowledge? Is knowledge then chaos by reasoning? This just seemed to confuse me, and perhaps my theories on ritual are incorrect due to the situation I have no placed myself in. Ritual is used to pass on the knowledge from one person to another, but how are they at odds with another then? This is all very strange to me, so any help/comments would be appreciated. Thanks.

My first blog

I have never written a blog before, so here goes nothing…

Hmm…I suppose my first one will have to be a reaction to our first reading assignment. Not the most exciting first blog, but it will be fun.

First of all, videogames are not a “child’s medium”. Clearly, games such as Resident Evil and Silent Hill are gauged to more mature audiences. Such things I would never allow my child to play those games until he or she is in their late teens. Videogames do bring people together, as well as having a social purpose. Any time someone walks into a mall across America, once can spot the “young people” gathered around in the arcade, dancing like maniacs. Games like DDR and classics like Marvel vs. Capcom, allow for multiple players and many watchers. They are as much fun to watch as they are to play. This creates a very social environment, in which social skills arw built, as well as eye-hand coordination skills.

Rhetoric has so many definitions, but I think this one applies the best to his idea of visual rhetoric: the art of influencing the thought and conduct of an audience. (dictionary.com) Videogame rhetoric is all about influence and its messages, whether they be visual, or verbal, or by any other medium. By making the dialogue crude and course, one can easily be placed in a harsher world than their own. Combind that with the antagonist being a tough man with chisled body, completes the fanatsy.