Technopoly Blog

Zachary Nevills

P.6

Technopoly Blog

            As Neil Postman writes the Technopoly he discusses many interesting thoughts and ultimately describes the differences between what he calls a technocracy and the ever imminent TECHNOPOLY.  While reading the chapter, Postman’s so-called technopoly is described as a “totalitarian technocracy.” So what exactly is a technocracy? It can be defined as, “a society only loosely controlled by social custom and religious tradition and driven by impulse to invent- an ‘unseen hand’ will eliminate the incompetent and reward those who produce cheaply and well the goods that people want.”  By using these ideals as lenses to examine Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, many comparisons can be made to further understand the book.  

            Although the book may have not exactly tell us how the technopoly came about in that society, conclusions can be drawn.  We can read from the novel and easily state that a world such as the one we currently live in is a “thought world”, and that major changes in Brave New World occurred for it to become so technologically advanced.  In order for that to happen certain ideas had to have taken place.  This would be called the transition into Postman’s technopoly.  To see such a thing a technopoly taking over a world would be inconceivable and therefore blind people to an obvious change.  You see a technopoly is not a clear cut step from a technocracy and that is the precise reason why Aldous Huxley’s world in his novel is so confused.  The technopoly they live in did not just take over, it was a gradual process and if Postman correctly describes it then stopping it was impossible.  The people in Brave New World are living the product of a world that witnessed a sort of ghostly invasion of ideas.  A technopoly does make thoughts “illegal”, “immoral”, or even “unpopular”, but what it does do is make them “invisible and therefore irrelevant.”  This is how comparisons are drawn between what Postman predicts and what Huxley has already written.  The Brave New World is as immersed in a technopoly as can be and makes no effort to appear anything different.  

A Brave New Singularity Blog

After reading the article discussing the ideas of singularity, I still remain somewhat skeptical of the predictions cast down on the world by people that have come to be known as the highly intelligent philosophers.  Sure their ideas are revolutionary, and no one says it better than Lev Grossman when he explains Kurzweil’s theory as, “approaching a moment when computers will become intelligent, and not just intelligent but more intelligent than humans. When that happens, humanity — our bodies, our minds, our civilization — will be completely and irreversibly transformed”, however swallowing that belief, and try to grasp all that it encompasses is an almost ludicrous task. 

            As I read Brave New World, there are some similar thoughts by Bernard when regarding this topic.  When he exclaims, “…what would it be like if I could, if I were free-not enslaved by my conditioning.”  I believe that by that by drawing a connection to this story, it is possible to not see the how singularity takes place, or even how it begins, but to see the short-term consequences of it.  Also, the question that seems to remain unanswered is the one that may be the most important.  Is Singularity a “good” or “bad” thing?  For most people to answer this question religion becomes a popular catalyst.  For example, in Brave New World, no one has religion therefore their acceptance of Singularity is absolute unless certain happenings occur.  Bernard is an example of this, in that he is treated differently and consequently has begun to question the methods being used.  Bernard sees Singularity as a negative thing and therefore tries to refrain from being brain washed by his conditioning.  His “Romantic” views may be heretical in that society, but show an interesting perspective of this entire debate and raise an interesting dilemma.  Are humans willing to give up humanistic tendencies, and will humans lose themselves (their being) during the so-called imminent Singularity transition between mind and computer?

Rhetorical Analysis Blog

           While dwelling upon Sujay Kulshrestha’s essay about, The Relationship Between Gods and Humans in Aias and the Poetry of Sapphos, she makes obvious the point that the gods have very humanistic tendencies.  However her argument is much more defined than that and goes on to state that gods represent “authoritative figures” resembling what we would consider the maternal figure in most normal families. Kulshrestha attempts to convince us of this very idea through her use of examples from Greek plays and poetry.

            The way in which this essay was constructed highly reflects the thought process of very logos and ethos appeals.  Sujay has no intention of winning over an audience by way of emotional subject matter and consequentially creates a piece of writing that is extremely text based and relies heavily upon the strong influences of the well-known Greeks Sophocles and Sappho.  Time and time again she uses those two names in her essay to add to her credibility which comes into question throughout the spotty introduction.  All of this is due to the fact that what Sujay Kulshrestha is trying to get across to her audience would be considered very controversial by many.  Her reasoning and strongly supported stance regarding how gods are portrayed is somewhat revolutionary and not a very common idea.  For example, many readers only hear about Greek gods as selfish rulers with a sick sense of humor.  Kulshrestha’s opinion differs greatly from how most see Greek gods even though she may have a well-constructed thesis and examples to back it up.

            Sujay’s selection of content is also very specific and surely is made to attract a very specific type of audience.  While reading her essay the jumps she makes between the examples used from plays, and the ones used from poetry are unpleasantly confusing and tend to leave the reader in a constant state of back tracking and clarification of what is really trying to be said.  That is not to say that the evidence in which she provides is in appropriate, yet the sub-par placement of many sentences and ideas has absolutely no rhythm and tends to decrease the persuasiveness of her arguments as a whole.  An audience that would be attracted to such a loose style of writing would have to be very intelligent and certainly able to make connections which just don’t seem to be completely coherent. 

            On the other hand though, Sujay Kulshrestha does not use a very complicated diction in her writing and in turn the sentences are not all that complex.  This is somewhat of a redeeming factor considering some of the things she has incorporated already and most would say that this very thing contributes well to the writer’s purpose.  Another somewhat redeeming factor would be Sujay’s use of tropes all the way through the essay.  The tropes are a sort of safety net and guide the audience from beginning to end.

            Sujay Kulshrestha establishes a formidable point of view, backed up by the works of incredibly powerful people of the time period she is discussing.  Although she may not have written the most clear essay, her credibility can hardly be challenged due to that fact alone.  However, her style of writing is not one I would try to mimic because of how it jumps from thought to thought from introduction until conclusion.  My expectations for such a topic were somewhat higher and in that aspect I am definitely surprised.  She does not use a healthy balance of rhetoric by only incorporating two appeals and it clearly shows as a key component is unmistakably missing.

Essay found at:  click here