My Top 3 - University of Michigan (Ann Arbor), University of Southern California, New York University.
GPA Goal - 3.75 or higher...ladies.
AP English Exam Goal - 4 or 5. Nothing less.
I'm actually taking applications from people who would like to help me with my application.
"Aim high in case you miss..."
...these were William Tell's son's last words before the arrow split his skull.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Friday, September 28, 2007
Asimov Reading Response
For the past year or so, I've entertained the thought of purchasing a few Asimov classics, but alas I never did get around to it. Then, upon hearing that "Robot Dreams" was to be one of our readings, I squealed like a girl. On the inside of course, as I have a reputation to uphold. Anyway, while this is indeed a short story, it poses many, many questions about our future and the possibility that we may be inhabiting it with beings as lifelike and intelligent as we. How do we get along with them? Do we let them roam freely? Do we give them all the functions of a human? Should we oppress and control them in every conceivable way? Is that option even ethical? These are the considerations that come to mind after the last words of this story have been read.
What similarities does this piece have with 1984? Differences? What might George Orwell say to Isaac Asimov if there were to have dinner together? On what issues would they agree? Disagree? Why?
Having not known these questions ahead of time, I find it quite funny that I was comparing "Robot Dreams" with 1984 as I read it. I didn't say it was going to be "ha ha funny." Almost instantly, I connected Elvex to Winston and Susan Calvin to O'Brien with a dose of Big Brother. Elvex, the robot who discovers his innate ability to dream as humans do, just as quickly realizes that he need not adhere to the Three Laws of Robotics and poses a severe risk to Calvin and any others. In its dream, this freethinking robot does not necessarily recognize itself as a robot anymore, going so far as to see itself as a man in its dreams. As this man, Elvex, as Winston believes he was trying to do, liberates his beleaguered "people" from those who are oppressing them. He does so quite simply by ignoring all but one part of the Three Laws, as he explains it to Doctor Calvin calmly, "In my dream, however, it seemed to me there was neither First nor Second Law, but only the Third, and the Third Law was 'a robot must protect its own existence.' That was the whole of the Law." (pg.8 para. 10) Essentially, Elvex has broken free of the constraints that are placed on all robots, he is unlike any other of his kind, he is questioning what he is told, albeit only in his dreams, but nonetheless. Dr. Calvin, playing the role of O'Brien, serves to question Elvex as to these "dreams". She confronts the flaws that she believes cannot be. That Elvex is, for one, dreaming, and two, dreaming of revolt and robotic liberation. In the end, like O'Brien, Dr. Calvin comes to the conclusion that this being, as interesting it is to question and talk to, cannot go into society the way it is. The result is a dead Elvex (Winston), courtesy of a gunshot to the head. Oh, and Winston and Elvex can both be considered dreamers. But they're not the only ones.
The comparisons, while quite apparent, are also met with stark differences. Beginning with the fact that the oppressed people in Asimov's work are robots, compared to the flesh and bone people of Orwell's 1984. The robots have been created to be subjugated, so they have known nothing but toil and obedience toward their masters. Orwell's people were once free, no more than 50 years before the story takes place, leading some to remember what freedom once felt like. The regime that controls Oceania and all who dwell within it is one based on hate and pure lust for power. On the flip side, Asimov's world is full of understanding people working to create partners in there lives that can help them with tasks and cater to their every whim. Furthermore, Winston and Elvex have different takes on their revolutions. Winston's is based upon secrecy and subtle sabotage, while Elvex is prepared for upheaval and a Castro-esque uprising. As he states in his dream, "Let my people go!" (pg. 10, para. 13) These two worlds are, appropiately, worlds apart.
To clear up this novel discussion is an excerpt from a conversation between George Orwell and Isaac Asimov.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Scene, an Italian restaurant in Manhattan at approximately 10:30 p.m. Two men are sitting across from each other, waiting for their appetizers. They are George Orwell and Isaac Asimov, and one of them doesn't want to be there.]
Asimov - How did you rope me into having dinner with you, George?
Orwell - Well, after four previous outings together, I didn't find the fifth time quite as difficult to persuade you.
Asimov - Touché.
Orwell - So, I read that little story you gave me, Isaac. "Robot Dreams." I must admit, I was flattered.
Asimov - Really? Flattered how?
Orwell - Well, the similarities to 1984, of course. Did I mention that Time is already considering 1984 a classic?
Asimov - You did, actually. And these similarities are just coincidental. To be honest, I didn't realize them until after I wrote it and the amphetamines wore off.
Orwell - Oh, here's the bread.
[A waiter places a basket of dinner rolls on the tables. George Orwell takes more than his share. Asimov rolls his eyes and only takes one.]
Orwell - [buttering his roll] You know, your story made me think about what I wrote all those years ago. I was sitting there in my recliner, half-awake, when it came to me. I am Winston, Isaac. And you yourself are Elvex, your little tinkerbot.
Asimov - Robot.
Orwell - Right. We're them. We are the characters we made.
Asimov - Elaborate.
Orwell - We write about characters who live in a world that is built to oppress, to demoralize, and yet these characters question the system in which they are a part. First internally, but eventually they speak the thoughts that wind up getting them killed. In the end, these thoughts, as inspirational and provoking as they may be, prove to be fruitless.
Asimov - What you're saying is that you and I too speak these dangerous thoughts through our writings, but even with our warnings about authoritarian governments and life with robots, it will all come to nought?
Orwell - Precisely.
Asimov - [thinking deeply] Very profound, George. I have to agree with you there. I do suppose those two characters could be construed as semi-autobiographical. Although, I hope our heeding words can and do make an impact after we've gone. Can you imagine Britain being so heavily covered with closed-circuit cameras? Or America becoming utterly dependent on technology? Ha! [takes a deep breath] Ah...so, what are you ordering?
Orwell - Oh, who knows? Probably just fettuccine again.
Asimov - You really should try something new.
Orwell - [sternly] I'm fine with my choice, Isaac.
Asimov - I think I'll have the Tuscan chicken this time.
[The two look at their menus and eventually give their orders to the waiter once he returns. Their food comes after a wait and the two are gregariously stuffing themselves, still maintaining an intellectual conversation.]
Orwell - [mouth stuffed with noodles and sauce] I'll bet twenty pounds when my book becomes a movie, that Lawrence Olivier will play O'Brien.
Asimov - Olivier wouldn't touch that screenplay with a stick.
Orwell - Oh yeah? Well your movie's main character will be played by a negro.
Asimov - Preposterous. Eat your food, George.
[They finish their meals and loosen their belts, considering dessert and the future.]
Asimov - Can you imagine, one day we'll have technology that could unite the world? Machines that will make wars pointless and unnecessary. Tools that will build peace for our generation and those after it. I hope I live to see the day where my robots can walk alongside me.
Orwell - Isaac Asimov, ever the optimist. Of course the wars of the future will be pointless and unnecessary, but they'll still be fought. Whether for money, control, or for simply no reason at all. There will be wars. The machines will fight in those wars. The tools will build those machines. And the technology will destroy us all in the end.
Asimov - Why do you have to ruin our perfect night?
Orwell - I'm sorry, I just try to keep your mind in check. You tend to drift off, as if you were living in one of your stories.
Asimov - As do you.
Orwell - [Looking off into the distance] We shouldn't fight about the future, Isaac. We should fight for it.
Asimov - What a novel idea.
[Orwell and Asimov smile at each other, each thinking "Wow, we're so smart," and "someone should be writing this down." George Orwell looks at the bill and ruins the moment.]
Orwell - Are you paying?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because Orwell was such a darn pessimist when it came to the future of the world, Asimov frequently dined with him to keep himself thinking straight. This inevitibility that there were going to be problems in the world gave Asimov the ability to write about future man and his attempts to control the increasingly human-like robots that he created. He incorporated this into his stories more prominently after this meeting took place, but he would never acknowledge it in any of his notes or letters or ever credit Orwell for his help. This was because in private, Asimov was a [bleep].
What similarities does this piece have with 1984? Differences? What might George Orwell say to Isaac Asimov if there were to have dinner together? On what issues would they agree? Disagree? Why?
Having not known these questions ahead of time, I find it quite funny that I was comparing "Robot Dreams" with 1984 as I read it. I didn't say it was going to be "ha ha funny." Almost instantly, I connected Elvex to Winston and Susan Calvin to O'Brien with a dose of Big Brother. Elvex, the robot who discovers his innate ability to dream as humans do, just as quickly realizes that he need not adhere to the Three Laws of Robotics and poses a severe risk to Calvin and any others. In its dream, this freethinking robot does not necessarily recognize itself as a robot anymore, going so far as to see itself as a man in its dreams. As this man, Elvex, as Winston believes he was trying to do, liberates his beleaguered "people" from those who are oppressing them. He does so quite simply by ignoring all but one part of the Three Laws, as he explains it to Doctor Calvin calmly, "In my dream, however, it seemed to me there was neither First nor Second Law, but only the Third, and the Third Law was 'a robot must protect its own existence.' That was the whole of the Law." (pg.8 para. 10) Essentially, Elvex has broken free of the constraints that are placed on all robots, he is unlike any other of his kind, he is questioning what he is told, albeit only in his dreams, but nonetheless. Dr. Calvin, playing the role of O'Brien, serves to question Elvex as to these "dreams". She confronts the flaws that she believes cannot be. That Elvex is, for one, dreaming, and two, dreaming of revolt and robotic liberation. In the end, like O'Brien, Dr. Calvin comes to the conclusion that this being, as interesting it is to question and talk to, cannot go into society the way it is. The result is a dead Elvex (Winston), courtesy of a gunshot to the head. Oh, and Winston and Elvex can both be considered dreamers. But they're not the only ones.
The comparisons, while quite apparent, are also met with stark differences. Beginning with the fact that the oppressed people in Asimov's work are robots, compared to the flesh and bone people of Orwell's 1984. The robots have been created to be subjugated, so they have known nothing but toil and obedience toward their masters. Orwell's people were once free, no more than 50 years before the story takes place, leading some to remember what freedom once felt like. The regime that controls Oceania and all who dwell within it is one based on hate and pure lust for power. On the flip side, Asimov's world is full of understanding people working to create partners in there lives that can help them with tasks and cater to their every whim. Furthermore, Winston and Elvex have different takes on their revolutions. Winston's is based upon secrecy and subtle sabotage, while Elvex is prepared for upheaval and a Castro-esque uprising. As he states in his dream, "Let my people go!" (pg. 10, para. 13) These two worlds are, appropiately, worlds apart.
To clear up this novel discussion is an excerpt from a conversation between George Orwell and Isaac Asimov.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Scene, an Italian restaurant in Manhattan at approximately 10:30 p.m. Two men are sitting across from each other, waiting for their appetizers. They are George Orwell and Isaac Asimov, and one of them doesn't want to be there.]
Asimov - How did you rope me into having dinner with you, George?
Orwell - Well, after four previous outings together, I didn't find the fifth time quite as difficult to persuade you.
Asimov - Touché.
Orwell - So, I read that little story you gave me, Isaac. "Robot Dreams." I must admit, I was flattered.
Asimov - Really? Flattered how?
Orwell - Well, the similarities to 1984, of course. Did I mention that Time is already considering 1984 a classic?
Asimov - You did, actually. And these similarities are just coincidental. To be honest, I didn't realize them until after I wrote it and the amphetamines wore off.
Orwell - Oh, here's the bread.
[A waiter places a basket of dinner rolls on the tables. George Orwell takes more than his share. Asimov rolls his eyes and only takes one.]
Orwell - [buttering his roll] You know, your story made me think about what I wrote all those years ago. I was sitting there in my recliner, half-awake, when it came to me. I am Winston, Isaac. And you yourself are Elvex, your little tinkerbot.
Asimov - Robot.
Orwell - Right. We're them. We are the characters we made.
Asimov - Elaborate.
Orwell - We write about characters who live in a world that is built to oppress, to demoralize, and yet these characters question the system in which they are a part. First internally, but eventually they speak the thoughts that wind up getting them killed. In the end, these thoughts, as inspirational and provoking as they may be, prove to be fruitless.
Asimov - What you're saying is that you and I too speak these dangerous thoughts through our writings, but even with our warnings about authoritarian governments and life with robots, it will all come to nought?
Orwell - Precisely.
Asimov - [thinking deeply] Very profound, George. I have to agree with you there. I do suppose those two characters could be construed as semi-autobiographical. Although, I hope our heeding words can and do make an impact after we've gone. Can you imagine Britain being so heavily covered with closed-circuit cameras? Or America becoming utterly dependent on technology? Ha! [takes a deep breath] Ah...so, what are you ordering?
Orwell - Oh, who knows? Probably just fettuccine again.
Asimov - You really should try something new.
Orwell - [sternly] I'm fine with my choice, Isaac.
Asimov - I think I'll have the Tuscan chicken this time.
[The two look at their menus and eventually give their orders to the waiter once he returns. Their food comes after a wait and the two are gregariously stuffing themselves, still maintaining an intellectual conversation.]
Orwell - [mouth stuffed with noodles and sauce] I'll bet twenty pounds when my book becomes a movie, that Lawrence Olivier will play O'Brien.
Asimov - Olivier wouldn't touch that screenplay with a stick.
Orwell - Oh yeah? Well your movie's main character will be played by a negro.
Asimov - Preposterous. Eat your food, George.
[They finish their meals and loosen their belts, considering dessert and the future.]
Asimov - Can you imagine, one day we'll have technology that could unite the world? Machines that will make wars pointless and unnecessary. Tools that will build peace for our generation and those after it. I hope I live to see the day where my robots can walk alongside me.
Orwell - Isaac Asimov, ever the optimist. Of course the wars of the future will be pointless and unnecessary, but they'll still be fought. Whether for money, control, or for simply no reason at all. There will be wars. The machines will fight in those wars. The tools will build those machines. And the technology will destroy us all in the end.
Asimov - Why do you have to ruin our perfect night?
Orwell - I'm sorry, I just try to keep your mind in check. You tend to drift off, as if you were living in one of your stories.
Asimov - As do you.
Orwell - [Looking off into the distance] We shouldn't fight about the future, Isaac. We should fight for it.
Asimov - What a novel idea.
[Orwell and Asimov smile at each other, each thinking "Wow, we're so smart," and "someone should be writing this down." George Orwell looks at the bill and ruins the moment.]
Orwell - Are you paying?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because Orwell was such a darn pessimist when it came to the future of the world, Asimov frequently dined with him to keep himself thinking straight. This inevitibility that there were going to be problems in the world gave Asimov the ability to write about future man and his attempts to control the increasingly human-like robots that he created. He incorporated this into his stories more prominently after this meeting took place, but he would never acknowledge it in any of his notes or letters or ever credit Orwell for his help. This was because in private, Asimov was a [bleep].
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Watts Reading Response
Put on your helmet, because this guy's going to blow your mind. I love this kind of reading, the most outside the box thinking there is, that nothing is for sure, that God can be in all of us, and everything in between.
Watts has the question as to what exactly is taboo in our world, now that sex is apparently commonplace and sometimes part of people's daily discussion. He concludes that we, me, you, us, and your Grandpa Hank are the taboos of the modern world. Watts goes so far to call us the taboo of taboos, because of the seemingly insane ideas that the human psyche can cook up and dish out to the general populace. The thoughts that lurk within us are, in fact, the most dangerous things can be imagined. (pg. 17, 1st par.)
Watts has issues with religion because of what he perceives as the confinement of the mind once one unquestionably accepts the biblical texts and stories presented to them. Faith, you could say, is what he's got beef with. Watts references Tertullian of Christianity as a testament (no pun) to how faith blocks out reason and logic, " I believe, because it is absurd," (pg. 16, lines 1-2). This blind faith surely makes Watts shake his head and cry in the shower.
Continuing, Watts sees that a problem exists in the "conquering of nature," in that we look at this "outside world" as harsh, unforgiving, and against mankind, therefore it must be conquered. Watts believes this misconception could be the undoing of mankind itself. That our destruction of nature to extend our own power on the land will cause our own destruction, because nature is what we depend on, it's what we came into, and soon it will be leveled, as will we. (pg. 8-9, 3rd par.)
There is a "new experience" for which Watts believes man needs. This "experience" should result in man being able to come to terms with what he is, or, what it means to be "I". To be able to accept things about himself that may drive him insane. That he is a bit part in the Broadway show that is the universe. What is his role, how should he play it, should he make a move on that other bit player who keeps glancing over at him, the one with the auburn hair? All these questions are meant to test the man and through it, have him gain the experience of what he is. (pg.11, 2nd par.)
Watts sees that the purpose of myth, while also serving as a fairy tale, is also a way to make sense of a very complex world and the our lives in that world. To make simple comparisons to help describe how mind-numbingly complicated things work. Such as how a bullet fired into a honeydew helps explain why I keep finding dinosaur bones in my backyard. Still, one must be careful not to take these myths for what they are, and to remember that they are colorful and messiah-filled tales of actual facts. (pg. 12-13, 2nd par.)
To find his/her identity, Watts suggests
The novel 1984 and Mr. Watts share a bit of a connection in that they both delve into the loop of infuriating logic dealing with what is known and what is said. Watts describes that many follow religion based on faith, the blind belief in the impossibilities and absurdities presented to them in the little mass-produced Holy Bibles. That they cannot separate the myths from the facts and eventually they become intertwined. Jesus was crucified and walked on water are just as believeable to some Christians, when the more logical can separate the two, but maybe won't interupt the sermon to announce it. 1984 has the Ministry of Truth, which makes lies into facts with ease, no questions asked and eyebrows raised. The facts produced by Big Brother might as well be scripture, because the citizens of Oceania follow them devoutly and put a smile on their face while doing so. The citizens are all religious followers to a beaurucracy, with a dash of monotheism in the form of Big Brother.
Watts has the question as to what exactly is taboo in our world, now that sex is apparently commonplace and sometimes part of people's daily discussion. He concludes that we, me, you, us, and your Grandpa Hank are the taboos of the modern world. Watts goes so far to call us the taboo of taboos, because of the seemingly insane ideas that the human psyche can cook up and dish out to the general populace. The thoughts that lurk within us are, in fact, the most dangerous things can be imagined. (pg. 17, 1st par.)
Watts has issues with religion because of what he perceives as the confinement of the mind once one unquestionably accepts the biblical texts and stories presented to them. Faith, you could say, is what he's got beef with. Watts references Tertullian of Christianity as a testament (no pun) to how faith blocks out reason and logic, " I believe, because it is absurd," (pg. 16, lines 1-2). This blind faith surely makes Watts shake his head and cry in the shower.
Continuing, Watts sees that a problem exists in the "conquering of nature," in that we look at this "outside world" as harsh, unforgiving, and against mankind, therefore it must be conquered. Watts believes this misconception could be the undoing of mankind itself. That our destruction of nature to extend our own power on the land will cause our own destruction, because nature is what we depend on, it's what we came into, and soon it will be leveled, as will we. (pg. 8-9, 3rd par.)
There is a "new experience" for which Watts believes man needs. This "experience" should result in man being able to come to terms with what he is, or, what it means to be "I". To be able to accept things about himself that may drive him insane. That he is a bit part in the Broadway show that is the universe. What is his role, how should he play it, should he make a move on that other bit player who keeps glancing over at him, the one with the auburn hair? All these questions are meant to test the man and through it, have him gain the experience of what he is. (pg.11, 2nd par.)
Watts sees that the purpose of myth, while also serving as a fairy tale, is also a way to make sense of a very complex world and the our lives in that world. To make simple comparisons to help describe how mind-numbingly complicated things work. Such as how a bullet fired into a honeydew helps explain why I keep finding dinosaur bones in my backyard. Still, one must be careful not to take these myths for what they are, and to remember that they are colorful and messiah-filled tales of actual facts. (pg. 12-13, 2nd par.)
To find his/her identity, Watts suggests
The novel 1984 and Mr. Watts share a bit of a connection in that they both delve into the loop of infuriating logic dealing with what is known and what is said. Watts describes that many follow religion based on faith, the blind belief in the impossibilities and absurdities presented to them in the little mass-produced Holy Bibles. That they cannot separate the myths from the facts and eventually they become intertwined. Jesus was crucified and walked on water are just as believeable to some Christians, when the more logical can separate the two, but maybe won't interupt the sermon to announce it. 1984 has the Ministry of Truth, which makes lies into facts with ease, no questions asked and eyebrows raised. The facts produced by Big Brother might as well be scripture, because the citizens of Oceania follow them devoutly and put a smile on their face while doing so. The citizens are all religious followers to a beaurucracy, with a dash of monotheism in the form of Big Brother.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Unofficial First Blog
Alright, so this is the school-friendly-politically-correct-adhere-to-the-FCC-and-not-hurt-anyone's-feelings version of Derek's blog. I hope everyone loves it.
This is a completely seperate entity from my other alias, Rhymenoceros. Let me tell you about who I am when I'm the Hiphopopotamus.
"I'm the Hiphopopotamus
my lyrics are bottomless...
They call me the Hiphopopotamus
Got flows that glow like phosphorus
Poppin' off the top of this esophagus
Rockin' this metropolis
I'm not a large water dwelling mammal from Africa
Where'd you get that preposterous hypothesis?
Did Steve tell you that?
What's he got to do with it?
What kind of rapping name is Steve anyway?
(shakes fist) Steve..."
Now that that's settled. I can post my normal AP English-related blah blah blah and you can all read about what I think about that specific blah blah blah. I plan on having some very engaging blah blah blah about the blah blah we read. You know? Alright, I got real homework to do and people to talk to on MySpace so...I'll blog you later?
This is a completely seperate entity from my other alias, Rhymenoceros. Let me tell you about who I am when I'm the Hiphopopotamus.
"I'm the Hiphopopotamus
my lyrics are bottomless...
They call me the Hiphopopotamus
Got flows that glow like phosphorus
Poppin' off the top of this esophagus
Rockin' this metropolis
I'm not a large water dwelling mammal from Africa
Where'd you get that preposterous hypothesis?
Did Steve tell you that?
What's he got to do with it?
What kind of rapping name is Steve anyway?
(shakes fist) Steve..."
Now that that's settled. I can post my normal AP English-related blah blah blah and you can all read about what I think about that specific blah blah blah. I plan on having some very engaging blah blah blah about the blah blah we read. You know? Alright, I got real homework to do and people to talk to on MySpace so...I'll blog you later?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
