Superposition

After our class discussion I thought the concept of superposition was a pretty cool theory. Then, after watching the youtube video on superposition, the way it was described at the end made it clear to me that this theory is nothing more than relativism. Yes, it started out as a scientific theory, but that was just the starting point of the concept. It was taken and used to develop superposition, which is a theory of relativity, in which we choose what exists and where it exists. To me it sounds like they're trying to make mankind sound like God, which makes me think of the New Age movement. I don't know if New Age philosophy had any influence on superposition or not, so I'm not going to assume anything. I just can't agree with the idea that reality as we know it is only our perception, and that everything is based off of our choice of perception. If superposition were true, then how could we trust that we are all experiencing the same thing? I mean, one person could see the marker by the white board, while someone else sees it on a desk. They both perceived, or measured the location of the marker and thus brought it's solidity into perceptual existence, but they didn't experience the same thing. We would all be living in our own little worlds made up of our own perceptions, which brings us to isolating ourselves, and concentrating on just ourselves because no one else exists in our perceived existence. Being brought back to the concentration on self, as in the self is all that matters, brings me back again to the New Age movement. My first thoughts after watching the video were "woa, trippy". To say that everything is how you make it to be is just something I can't agree with as a Christian.

How much distance is needed between the story teller and the story told?

Well, it's really hard to say. Take actors, for example, they may not support moral impurities, yet they take on the roles of characters that celebrate them. Is that a bad thing? I mean, we know the actor doesn't support those morals, and yet by playing the part in the movie, they are advertizing/portraying that lifestyle as if they supported it because the character supports it. However, i would not have a problem with an actor playing the part of such a character if the point of the movie is to show how that lifestyle is not desirable, or a story of redemption. Also, Ethan brought up a good point in the discussion in that movies don't have such content unless it would be watched, meaning it's already a part of the culture, so it's not going to inject those things into an innocent society and ruin it. It's just artistically portraying the culture we live in. Now I don't really like how undesirable values are portrayed in movies as good lifestyles, even if the actor/actress doesn't agree with them. However, I can't really think of any good solutions that would keep these people employed. And besides, even if these people refused to act out such characters, there are other people who don't have a problem with such characters' morals who would play the part, thus such morals are still being promoted in society anyway. So I come to the conclusion that there should be a definite line between the story and the story teller, but there are so many complications in society today that it's really difficult to determine how thick that line should be.

Interaction with Darkness.

In Adolescence 2, written by Billy Collins, the speaker interacts with different forms of darkness. These different forms are night, the three seal men that glitter like pools of ink under moonlight, the ragged holes at the edge of darkness, and the darkness of night that rests like a ball of fur on her tongue. Why does she interact with these forms of darkness? Well, for starters, it is very difficult to decipher the text and determine what is actually happening in this piece. The whole thing seems very figurative, which leaves us with many theories and possible scinarios for the actual happenings, so I'm not going to go into that. However, I think it is significant that she is interacting with the darkness because we all have to interact with the darkness in our lives. Granted, it might not always be as creepy as the dark figures in Adolescence 2, but everyone has to deal with the dark things in life. I think Collins illustrated our interactions with darkness in the extreme sense in order to create a vividly dark picture. (no puns intended). Also, I believe Collins is expressing how we cannot get rid of the vile darkness because of the line that reads, "Can you feel it yet?...Well, maybe next time," which implies that the dark seal men will keep returning. Furthermore, the line that reads, "Night rests like a ball of for on my tongue" really depicts how we cannot completely get rid of darkness. Notice that the night rests on her tongue, meaning it is unmoved and undisturbed from its position on her tongue, which, to me, means that she cannot get it off of her tongue. Here you can see where I get my conclusion from. My question for this piece, besides what is actually happening, would be "is she doomed to interact with this darkness in this manner forever? Or is there some sort of hope or redemption?" I may never get a straight answer for my question.

Adolescence 2 is Pomo?

Adolescence 2 is EXTREMEMLY Postmodern for vairous reasons. First, the structure itself is postmodern. Nothing rhymes, which can be interpreted as the celebration of the disorder of no rhyme scheme in what seems to be some sort of poem with three-line stanzas. Another celebration of disorder found in Adolescence 2 is the unclarity of what exactly is happening in the piece. For instance, the three sleek figures are not identified. They are addressed as "they" or "the one leaning against the door" and such. It is left up to the reader to identify them as they choose. In conclusion, Adolescence 2 is most definitely postmodern.

What is toast?

In an inadequate system of language the breakdown of words and meaning lies in the lack of sufficient knowledge on our part. For instance, Snowman in Margaret Atwood's "Toast" says, "What is flour? We'll skip that part, it's too complicated," ("Toast"). This represents all of humanity's lack of sufficient knowledge to thoroughly explain something. I would also like to point out that the snowman is named Snowman for a reason. I believe that reason is because Snowman has no significant identity, so as to enable the readers to let Snowman represent themselves, mankind, all of humanity. Putting this all together, humanity lacks the sufficient amount of knowledge to fully explain itself. Also, Snowman states, "Toast cannot be explained by any rational means," ("Toast"). This makes it clear that language cannot fully express something as simple as toast. Our brains cannot find words adequate enough to take on such a task. In conclusion, humanity's lack of knowledge results in an inadequate system of language.