Writing and Technology: Both Sides of the Fence

Today we identify creativity and personality with our writing. Our media projects are prime examples of how writing can morph into many forms. Well we are in the 21st century, and in general, we accept how much technology has enhanced our experiences with education including writing. But, I have to wonder, what traditionalists would think of this. Is arguable that media forms don’t enhance writing, but distract from it? Personally, I think arguments could line both sides of the field on this one. On one side, words are words and writing is writing, and the people that should get recognized in the field and accepted are the ones that put words together in unique, captivating ways. On the other side, writing can be argued as more than just words juxtaposed together. Writing is an art form that allows people with knowledge and experience to get heard and become integrated into society. Writing incorporated with media allows people to become communicators and engage others with their ideas and thoughts.

I am interested to see what everyone has to say about the media being so integrated into our writing. Cleary, media is an integrated part of our writing culture as college students, but what do you all think that the writers of the 20th and 19th century would think of how many shapes and avenues writers take today with their work.

demeantors

After watching the movie clip with the man being so molded and in tune with his surrounds I started to wonder what really defines a person. When I describe my life to people, I talk about my surroundings, my school work, my job and my friends. I don't talk about who I am on the inside during casual conversations. All the characteristics I use to describe me are external to myself. I talk bard on stumlus from the outside world comparable to how the pain character did in the movie. While I differ from him in the way that I am not a cumpulsive liar, I feel his actions can be compared to how people interact with one another on a daily basis. For example, having been a dancer for my whole life, when I see a person with a dance shirt on I begin talking about it. If I am however talking to someone else dance is usually not the first thing I bring up. So the way this all relates back to Clark, is that ge belives information and knowledge is stored externally to the brain. My argument is that not only is information stored externally. But so is a persons identity. You describe someone based on their surroundings and tid bits of information. You identify someone based on their external actions.

Wait where are my head phones?

After the interesting conversation about the way ipods each one of us individually and how they affect how public places in general, I proceeded to loose my headphones that afternoon. After being in my room, freaking out that I had to walk to my classes without my ipod, I decided it might be a fun experiment to walk to see what classes were like without my ipod. As excepted, I was a bit more aware of my surroundings, but also I legitimately had more interactions with people coming to and from class.

Without my personal music selection blasting in my ears, I had more time to myself to think and observe. As the ipod culture pointed out, while wearing my ipod I truly did never "willingly interact with others while listening".

So, sure walking to class changes when you can't listen to music , but my question is, does our ipod culture really inhibit the way cities interact and develop? I made a little more small talk with some acquaintances , and a wasn't able to drown out my worries with High School Musical or Shakira, but is this enough of an argument to say that our hustling bustling ipod culture has a significant impact on the dynamics of a city?

I am sitting on the fence with this one, my ipod keeps me focused, in my zone, and destination oriented, while lacking my ipod I find myself more gregarious and even a more leisurely walker.

I feel there are arguments for both sides! I am interested to see what everyone thinks.

Paradigm by Perception

As a continuation of Wednesday conversation about paradigms, paradigm shifts, and Thomas Kuhn, I wanted to add that I feel a paradigm shift is in the eye of the beholder. We would probably all agree that the Copernican Revolution was a major paradigm shift in relation to how the world is conceptualized in relation to the universe. However, I feel that depending on a person’s varied traits, beliefs and interests, something that could mean nothing to one person in the way they view the world, could be a paradigm shift according to another.

Additionally, I would argue that paradigm shifts can be very personal and provoke a lot of emotion. While some people back in the day may have gotten emotional about eliminating the geocentric ring view of the earth, today we are faced with many more paradigm shifts with the rapidly advancing field of science. When looking up common paradigms the issues of faith in god vs. faith in science was brought up up. Also creation to revolution is considered a major paradigm shift.

I am interested in not only the different kids of paradigm shifts that are out there ( some grand, some smaller scale) but I am interested to hear how paradigms shifts have affected or affect your life today.