Forests: The Shadow of Civilization brings up an interesting point- and from the perspective of humans, an important one. Rober Pogue Harrison claims that mankind comes from the forest. Whether this is true or not, it revolves around at least one central point: forests play a large role in humanity. The way I think it, is that forests are viewed from humans in a certain way. To us, forests represent wilderness and the uncontrollable. Forests can seem ominous- where one is surrounded by tall trees, wild animals, and nature in its most primitive form. Being in the forest can seem oppressive and different. At night, one has only the company of animal sounds and darkness. One thing is for certain- when you are in the forest, it is just the forest and you. In daylight or nighttime, all that one can see is forest. Humans seem to be out of their element. For man likes to be in control- and in a forest, it seems the other way around.
If we take this into account, perhaps it makes sense that humankind, as Harrison claims, continues to destroy the forest in their climb to the sky and knowledge. Rome gained its grandeur only after destroying its forest. It seems that "the mythic forests of antiquity stand opposed to the city in some fundamental way", and humankind is bent on commanding the forests. Because forests are uncontrollable by man, humans must show their dominion by either changing it or ultimately destroying it completely. In We, the One State does this by living in a glass dome.
Vico also states that humanity cannot stand nature- for it is a "submission to something external", and man, with its enormous ego, must be the one in control. This, I think, is what guides mankind through the path that we have taken. Everything we do is to make ourselves more powerful and more knowledgeable- more like God. God, a perfect being, is who man strives to be. All the technology we have made has gone to benefit us humans. And to do this, humanity had to be at the top of the tower. Forests enclosed mankind, with its leaves on top and the earth below. So, man got rid of the trees, showing their dominion over the lands. And, to conquer the sky, as Harrison mentions later, "space travel remains its [the giants] ultimate ambition".
But all things are connected. We rely on the forest for food and shelter (our homes and furniture are even made out of wood), and it is our true home. The sky is the unknown- our religion, our intelligence. We seem to need the forest for our physical needs, and the sky supplies us with our minds. Perhaps we need not fear either of these elements, instead embracing it wholly. But then again, should we? For that would mean leaving our technology, our comforts, our wants. Our curiosity and crave for knowledge takes us on a never-ending journey. Mankind can survive solely on the forest and sky- but our wants and desires takes us further into the land of logic and technology. We fear each of these three things- the forest, the sky, and technology. Stories are told of forests where people never come back out, where wild beasts lie. The sky holds an entire universe of the unknown and unconquered, and God, almighty and all powerful, waits to judge humanity. Technology, the one that we most control, could grow to become the most destructive of all. It is strange that the three things that we hold on most dear to we also fear the most.
What's interesting is that if we consider that man was born from the forest, the forest is like its home and mother. We often refer to the world as "Mother Earth" and the sky the father. Zeus, Jupiter, and Jove are all men. Perhaps mankind is going through some kind of "teenage year" where they insist on rebelling against their "mother" by running away from their sylvan home and exerting their control over the forest. For mankind does follow this cycle that starts and ends in the forest. Vico declares that "Men first feel necessity, then look for utility, next attend to comfort, still later amuse themselves with pleasure, thence grow dissolute in luxury, and finally go mad and waste their substance". The free giants, after hearing thunder, build homes and societies, and then gain knowledge and science, which helps make their lives comfier, and then they believe themselves to be happy, and then, because mankind has never-ending wants, decide to go back to when they were "free". This cycle is also touched upon in We when Zamyatin brings up the idea of infinite rebellions. And this does seem true. The French Revolution began and ended with a monarchical government. People rebelled because they were starving and living out on the streets. In the Grand Inquisitor, perhaps what the Grand Inquisitor says applies as well. "Give people bread, and then ask them of their virtue". And this is what the One State does. It gives people bread, and thus the people no longer worry when they have this security. Freedom of Democracy addresses this as well. Individuals conform to society and to each other, thus minimizing the differences and living as one. Whatever the case, the idea seems to be a one that we humans think of often and deeply.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Testing 1. 2.. 3...
Hello
My name is Adrienne.
This whole blogging thing is a new concept for me. It is kind of like a diary, I guess. Or a journal for a class. Although I have neverever blogged before,
A little off topic,
My name is Adrienne.
This whole blogging thing is a new concept for me. It is kind of like a diary, I guess. Or a journal for a class. Although I have never
I think I like blogs.For one thing, it saves paper. Lots of it. I am all about saving the world. Paper by paper, blog by blog.
Every little bit counts.Plus, it keeps all of your journals neatly in order. And it helps when you types out your thoughts quickly. You can access this thing anywhere!
A little off topic,
I actually have no idea what these blockquotes do- which is why I am using them everywhere.I hope it's nothing drastic. Anyways, this is enough of testing the blog thing out- not only learning what all the buttons do, but also the thinking that goes behind a blog- so...
Yeah!
Questions of Conquest, Freedom and Democracy
I found both of these writings quite ingenious in their ideas and fascinating to read. They both relate to each other and We. The first one, Questions of Conquest, talks about Indian cultures versus Spain's, and how they mixed together. The most interesting part of this article is when Llosa begins to talk about the "modernization" of the Indians by the Spaniards. According to the author, it was the Indians' culture that ultimately led to their defeat. The empire of Tawantinsuyu is a fascinating one. The Incan society was a whole- one body. All were fed, all were housed- and all were one. Llosa says the Incan individuals "lacked the ability to make own decisions either with the sanction of authority or indeed against it and were incapable of taking individual initiative". The authority (in reality the emperor/god/master) represented his empire of twenty million. Without their god, the Incans could not think nor protect themselves, and thus were they slaughtered by the spaniards.
This relates quite well with We (by Zamyatin) as the culture of the One State is all about crushing individual and living "happy" as one. As all beings are given numbers, and individuality and creativity are discouraged. Heavily. So much so that I-330, when she raised her hand alone against the Benefactor, she was about to be arrested. This is the same as in the Tawantinsuyu community. In Questions of Conquest Llosa states that the empire "was... Able to evolve slowly and with care in the field of knowledge, inventing only that which could support it and deterring all that which in some way or another could undermine it's foundation". Workers of the one state could only write propaganda-ish stuff, or spend time dutifully doing what one was told (except for one free hour) or else be taken, interrogated and, eventually, given a removal of one's imagination. Other factors of Incan society are similar to those of the One State. Llosa refers to the community as "machinery", as D-503 often does. One significant connection is the relation of religion to the people.. Llosa says this: "The individual had no importance and virtually no existence in that pyramidal and theocratic society whose achievements had always gene collective and anonymous... A state religion that took away the individual's free will and crowned the authority's decision with the aura of a divine mandate turned the Tawantinsuyu into a beehive- laborious, efficient, stoic". Llosa could have just as well been talking about We. The Benefactor, like the Incan emperor, was the Godlike figure to his society. D-503 could only bare to look at the Benefactor's feet, overwhelmed by the seeming power and religion the Benefactor held. Much like Tawantinsuyu, the One State was a colony of efficiency, perfection, and one-ness. The numbers worked hard at their duty, whatever it was and however long, and the conditions they lived in (glass houses with no playtime) gave them a stoic life. The numbers of the One State and the Incans are perhaps not too different.
Freedom and Democracy also contains several connections to Zamyatin's novel, if more theoretical than real. There are several points that the author makes which are key ideas in We. The author of Freedom and Democracy also manages to relate it to not only a fiction story, but to now in the 21st century. Here, the author points out reasons why an individual fails to, well, individualize himself and instead conform to society. What is most important is the loss of identity. In this article, it is said that "because we freed ourselves of the older overt forms of authority, we do not see that we have become prey of a new kind of authority". This relates to the first story we read about people with only perceived freedom- but in reality it being only an illusion to gain people's compliance. In this article, it also says "the loss of the self has increased the necessity to conform". The author means that all of us question who we are- and in lack of an answer to the disturbing question, we push it aside and out of our minds, and instead merge into society- "I am 'as you desire me.'" the author later tells us that "By conforming with the expectations of others, by not being different, these doubts about one's own identity are silenced and a certain security is gained". This is what the One State has done. As the numbers refer to themselves as "we", they loose their individuality and imagination, but gain security- no loss of self, no hunger, no boredom, no questions. Life just is. It's a fact.
Both of these articles led me down a train of thought and invoked a lot of imagination on my part. The questions that were asked I asked myself- "who am I"? I found myself agreeing with some parts and disagreeing with others. For instance, I do not believe that individuals are solely only individuals or part of a bigger community. We are both. I am what my parents made me, of all that has happened outside of myself, but my thoughts are my own. I do not always agree with something that anyone says, and often I find something quite different to say. I am unique, as are we all.
Jorina's Comment
Hey, I agree with the connections you made between the
articles and We, well done on that part. The points you made
about the society in the One State in connection with the society
described as the Inca Empire are very well developed and I
completely agree with you. But is creativity in the One State
really discouraged? Think about the fact that there are poets,
writing poems, D-503 creating a new building, the Integral...
Also I wouldn't say that the Benefactor is the number's religion.
Of course there are significant relations to God and the way they
admire him, but it's not like they believe in the Benefactor, but
maybe I'm wrong?
I also feel that you could have developed more the
connection between the two articles. There are some interesting
connections like the fact that in 'Questions of Conquest' the author
thinks that the way we are as an individual all came from the
ancient empires and that we 'grew' into it as a society; The other
article says that our individuality developed the way it developed
because of our parents, the school we went to and the people that
'shaped' us. I believe that's an interesting point you could have
mentioned.
Otherwise I think that your reaction is thoughtful and
interesting. You mentioned some things that I didn't even see
before, good job Adrienne !
Jorina
This relates quite well with We (by Zamyatin) as the culture of the One State is all about crushing individual and living "happy" as one. As all beings are given numbers, and individuality and creativity are discouraged. Heavily. So much so that I-330, when she raised her hand alone against the Benefactor, she was about to be arrested. This is the same as in the Tawantinsuyu community. In Questions of Conquest Llosa states that the empire "was... Able to evolve slowly and with care in the field of knowledge, inventing only that which could support it and deterring all that which in some way or another could undermine it's foundation". Workers of the one state could only write propaganda-ish stuff, or spend time dutifully doing what one was told (except for one free hour) or else be taken, interrogated and, eventually, given a removal of one's imagination. Other factors of Incan society are similar to those of the One State. Llosa refers to the community as "machinery", as D-503 often does. One significant connection is the relation of religion to the people.. Llosa says this: "The individual had no importance and virtually no existence in that pyramidal and theocratic society whose achievements had always gene collective and anonymous... A state religion that took away the individual's free will and crowned the authority's decision with the aura of a divine mandate turned the Tawantinsuyu into a beehive- laborious, efficient, stoic". Llosa could have just as well been talking about We. The Benefactor, like the Incan emperor, was the Godlike figure to his society. D-503 could only bare to look at the Benefactor's feet, overwhelmed by the seeming power and religion the Benefactor held. Much like Tawantinsuyu, the One State was a colony of efficiency, perfection, and one-ness. The numbers worked hard at their duty, whatever it was and however long, and the conditions they lived in (glass houses with no playtime) gave them a stoic life. The numbers of the One State and the Incans are perhaps not too different.
Freedom and Democracy also contains several connections to Zamyatin's novel, if more theoretical than real. There are several points that the author makes which are key ideas in We. The author of Freedom and Democracy also manages to relate it to not only a fiction story, but to now in the 21st century. Here, the author points out reasons why an individual fails to, well, individualize himself and instead conform to society. What is most important is the loss of identity. In this article, it is said that "because we freed ourselves of the older overt forms of authority, we do not see that we have become prey of a new kind of authority". This relates to the first story we read about people with only perceived freedom- but in reality it being only an illusion to gain people's compliance. In this article, it also says "the loss of the self has increased the necessity to conform". The author means that all of us question who we are- and in lack of an answer to the disturbing question, we push it aside and out of our minds, and instead merge into society- "I am 'as you desire me.'" the author later tells us that "By conforming with the expectations of others, by not being different, these doubts about one's own identity are silenced and a certain security is gained". This is what the One State has done. As the numbers refer to themselves as "we", they loose their individuality and imagination, but gain security- no loss of self, no hunger, no boredom, no questions. Life just is. It's a fact.
Both of these articles led me down a train of thought and invoked a lot of imagination on my part. The questions that were asked I asked myself- "who am I"? I found myself agreeing with some parts and disagreeing with others. For instance, I do not believe that individuals are solely only individuals or part of a bigger community. We are both. I am what my parents made me, of all that has happened outside of myself, but my thoughts are my own. I do not always agree with something that anyone says, and often I find something quite different to say. I am unique, as are we all.
Jorina's Comment
Hey, I agree with the connections you made between the
articles and We, well done on that part. The points you made
about the society in the One State in connection with the society
described as the Inca Empire are very well developed and I
completely agree with you. But is creativity in the One State
really discouraged? Think about the fact that there are poets,
writing poems, D-503 creating a new building, the Integral...
Also I wouldn't say that the Benefactor is the number's religion.
Of course there are significant relations to God and the way they
admire him, but it's not like they believe in the Benefactor, but
maybe I'm wrong?
I also feel that you could have developed more the
connection between the two articles. There are some interesting
connections like the fact that in 'Questions of Conquest' the author
thinks that the way we are as an individual all came from the
ancient empires and that we 'grew' into it as a society; The other
article says that our individuality developed the way it developed
because of our parents, the school we went to and the people that
'shaped' us. I believe that's an interesting point you could have
mentioned.
Otherwise I think that your reaction is thoughtful and
interesting. You mentioned some things that I didn't even see
before, good job Adrienne !
Jorina
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Zamyatin's "We" and "On Language"
Considering that Zamyatin wrote both "We" and "On Language", of course their are similarities between the two. What Zamyatin has said in "On Language" greatly applies to his novel "We.
In "On Language", Zamyatin states that, in good literature, there is no difference between poetry and literary prose. He instead separates literary works into two different categories- lyrical and epic. Describing the writer as an actor, the epic writer must "reincarnate himself wholly into the characters, the milieu he is portraying". Zamyatin believes that the writer must think like his characters, and write what they would write. A writer should not be afraid to make up his own words or anecdotes- if that is what the character would do. He then focuses on a more specific aspect of writing- spoken language. Spoken language refers to everything- the descriptions, the dialogue, and the characters. In an epic work, the character must be present in everything.
This is how Zamyatin wrote in "We". The whole book is written from D-503's point of view- every sentence, every description, and word is from D-503. So not only do we learn about the events that occur, but D-503 himself, and how he thinks. We can tell his emotions from what he writes- whether he is confused and submerged in chaos- "I clutched at him. 'Quick-let's go to your office... I must... immediately-about everything!'" (Zamyatin, 227). D-503 is not thinking straight. At other times the author uses many periods and dashes to portray this confusion and lack of concentration. However, D-503 is sometimes clear in what he knows, with a mathematical, reassuring knowledge of all. For instance, on page 231- "The facts are as follows: that evening, my neighbor who had discovered the finiteness of the universe, I, and all who were with us were seized because we had no certificates to show we had been operated upon and were taken to the nearest auditorium..." D-503's thoughts are straight, using a normal procedure of time- "the facts are as follows... because". There are no questions, confusions, or periods. Thus, we know that something has happened to cause him to be calm.
In "On Language", Zamyatin also says to let the reader use his imagination to fill in the blanks (which is ironic, since "We" is about taking away imagination), and in his novel, Zamyatin does this. For instance, on page 219, D-503 says "... I must-you hear? At once, I cannot...". The reader must fill in what is not said- I must find I-330, and so on. Throughout the book Zamyatin uses this technique, which can help the reader feel confused, calm, or whatever emotion should be felt.
In "On Language", Zamyatin states that, in good literature, there is no difference between poetry and literary prose. He instead separates literary works into two different categories- lyrical and epic. Describing the writer as an actor, the epic writer must "reincarnate himself wholly into the characters, the milieu he is portraying". Zamyatin believes that the writer must think like his characters, and write what they would write. A writer should not be afraid to make up his own words or anecdotes- if that is what the character would do. He then focuses on a more specific aspect of writing- spoken language. Spoken language refers to everything- the descriptions, the dialogue, and the characters. In an epic work, the character must be present in everything.
This is how Zamyatin wrote in "We". The whole book is written from D-503's point of view- every sentence, every description, and word is from D-503. So not only do we learn about the events that occur, but D-503 himself, and how he thinks. We can tell his emotions from what he writes- whether he is confused and submerged in chaos- "I clutched at him. 'Quick-let's go to your office... I must... immediately-about everything!'" (Zamyatin, 227). D-503 is not thinking straight. At other times the author uses many periods and dashes to portray this confusion and lack of concentration. However, D-503 is sometimes clear in what he knows, with a mathematical, reassuring knowledge of all. For instance, on page 231- "The facts are as follows: that evening, my neighbor who had discovered the finiteness of the universe, I, and all who were with us were seized because we had no certificates to show we had been operated upon and were taken to the nearest auditorium..." D-503's thoughts are straight, using a normal procedure of time- "the facts are as follows... because". There are no questions, confusions, or periods. Thus, we know that something has happened to cause him to be calm.
In "On Language", Zamyatin also says to let the reader use his imagination to fill in the blanks (which is ironic, since "We" is about taking away imagination), and in his novel, Zamyatin does this. For instance, on page 219, D-503 says "... I must-you hear? At once, I cannot...". The reader must fill in what is not said- I must find I-330, and so on. Throughout the book Zamyatin uses this technique, which can help the reader feel confused, calm, or whatever emotion should be felt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)