People SUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK

Now that title isn't very yogic of me!

To remedy my absence from Blogger of late, I sat down for "Nosedive" with my iPhone Notes in hand, determined to take note of the important themes of the utopia and submit them for discussion.

But here is a sample of my notes:

----------

"ppl suck
Lacie is like 'no I have to get there it's my best friends wedding' instead of just being a nice person
'I am so sorry about that' flight lady too

Cat in the hat did cheesy pastel world better

Imagine that being high strung all the time

People running back into their cars when she needs help (me doing flyers stuff)"

----------

And so on.

This weekend I went door to door in my neighborhood passing out informational flyers for New Market's upcoming farmer's market, and though I had a couple nice interactions with people, the ones that stuck out were a frowning guy waving me away from his door as I approached, smiling, and another man with wary, staring family gathered about him aggressively saying "y'know, there's a sign down there that says no so-lic-it-ting," and the like.... This episode just compounded with that and made me think "God, people SUCK!"

That's the essence of my reflection, everybody. I don't really believe that people suck, or maybe I just like to say that. Maybe that's the point of this episode? To make viewers recoil at our world? To be reactive rather than proactive? "Nosedive" doesn't give much encouragement to actively work to remedy its uncomfortable echoes in our world...

Now for a fun gif of the incomparable Mike Myers' Cat in the Hat expressing how this episode made me feel towards people:

The Currency of Social Media

With the episode of Black Mirror, I think it’s interesting that this is a current hot topic for The New York Times.

Anna Sorokin came to the United States from Germany under the pseudonym Anna Delvey and was recently found guilty for swindling New York’s elite socialites convincing them she was a European heiress. Friends paid for vacations, rent, and food (on one vacation she stuck a Vanity Fairwriter with a $62,000 check). This was all supported on credibility through her heavily curated Instagram alone, where Delvey started with little to no resources and resorted to falsifying checks and over drafting bank accounts before she was almost charged with second-degree grand larceny for trying to obtain a 22-million-dollar loan in an attempt to open a SoHo art gallery/night club. Even more strange, in my course of reading the story, I found that Sorokin is still supported by anonymous benefactors who lend her high fashion runway looks for her court dates and send a personal stylist to her cell in Rikers Island before her court appearances. These looks have evolved into an even more interesting Instagram account (@annadelveycourtlooks) where her fashions have been documented. The case has even started a brand of t-shirts emblazoned with phrases like, “Free Anna” and “My other shirt will wire you $30,000”; these nearly sold out on their first run throughs. Sorokin was found guilty for lifting $200k from many businesses, but has somehow concocted enough traction in her status to become a finessing icon. Yeah, I said it.

With something so current happening in the news I think it’s hard to forget that credibility on social media will take you very far in life if you play your cards right, just like the circumstances of “Nosedive”.

PS Shout out to the Uber rating system, where I won’t get in a driver’s car unless they’re over a 4.25 rating if they have more than 500 rides. Stay safe!

(Sorokin in Morocco as "Anna Delvey", from the article written by the Vanity Fair writer she swindled)

(from: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/04/my-misadventure-with-the-magician-of-manhattan))

(from @annadelveycourtlooks)

Here is the NYT article if you're interested: (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/25/nyregion/anna-delvey-sorokin-verdict.html)

Ghost in the Machine

The big reveal of our second set of episodes, that the Sybil system determines Crime Coefficients by analyzing a scanned person's brain and comparing it to a vast catalogue of "deviant" brains collected over the years and which comprise the intelligence of Sybil itself, continues a running theme I've noticed in recent years. I think I could make an argument for having dystopia as a recognizable sub-genre.

The theme is this; a Dystopia either is the polar a bad utopia (in the sense that the writer intends for reader to not want to live there) or has a lie or a series of  lies which support the supposed Utopian society. We've seen a few examples of the latter this semester, namely Psycho Pass and Minority Report, but many others support this definition, including classics like Make Room (aka Soylent Green).

One Law, victim or villain.

One of the most striking moments in the first five episodes of Psycho Pass comes at the end of the first episode, when we learn that the psychological instability caused by trauma or high-stress situations is not differentiated from actual criminal behavior. The reason for this becomes evident later, but it is an apt parallel to the real world stigmatization of trauma victims. Japan has this issue as much as we in the US do, but for different reasons. The extreme societal pressure to excel at your work, to do it stoically and without complaint, regardless of suffering or negative physical and mental health consequences, created a similar sense that someone who suffers a breakdown due to stress or other factors is to blame for it.

Unwinding the Threads of the Individual

What I find fascinating about Unwind is its suitability as an allegory for our questions on whether a utopia should, or commonly does, focus on the community's happiness compared to the individual. Minority Report allowed us to reflect on how, if a system cannot protect the rights or freedom of the individual, then it can hardly hold up to defending and protecting a communal entity. This society distributes the essence and/or the body parts of the 'few' to support and aid the many and satisfy a standstill of war (and for health or whatever else one needs new parts for). Teenagers, willingly or unwillingly, are literally pieced into empty slots, sewn into muscle in ways that ensure and reveal their importance - for whatever purpose, this is a world that needs the sacrifice of the few, the young and troublesome and abandoned, in order to function with its set rules and expectations. I am heavily reminded of Omelas, where the one poor child's suffering is merely a shackled necessity, known and winced at, but still ongoing. There are plenty of characters who seem against unwinding but are unable to dent the norm of the practice, at least not in the beginning (Lev's brother, Connor, even the boeuf boy who leans away at the reveal of Risa's situation).

This is a world in which an individual is made a commodity regardless of the 'noble' intentions unwinding serves, or however religious it is made out to be. Children who are not as perfect as others like Risa, or troublesome and below expectations like Connor, or conditioned to be a lucky chosen one like Lev, are all cogs in a wheel of reassignment and an avoidance of mortality - or at least the idea of it. I wonder if this text showcases the ongoing question we have about the goals of a utopia and whether community or individuality is more valued (look at Lev's 'bad thoughts' on page 32 as an example). I'm also curious about how much unwinding has to do with the good of others when the main message purported to the utopians is that the individual selected achieves a place of simultaneous remarkability and infinity whilst being subsumed and assimilated.

My Minority Report Report

While watching this movie, I found the individual versus community question to be in my head a lot. What's interesting is that the Precrime justice system is being advertised as a protective tool for both the community as a whole (the kids at the ending of the advertisement), as well as for the individual (all of the people saying where they would have been stabbed or whatever). However, the consequences of Precrime directly affect the individual; when a pre-criminal is caught and haloed, they are put into an eternal sleep-like state that seems far from what would be in a utopic setting. This punishment also calls into question the morality of this system and where it falls on the spectrum of being autonomous versus having more laws and governance. Of course, both of these versus are from the “Plotting Utopia” chart—I find myself going back to this with Minority Report as I find it hard to place in the quadrants. While the government is very adamant about preventing/catching murder, they don’t seem to care much about other crimes being committed. So, there could be a fair amount of autonomy in the society, considering other laws aren’t focused on in the movie, but it could just be that the government is just overlooking crimes that don’t involve homicide… And then, again, with the happiness of the individual versus of the community—where does Minority Report’s D.C. society fall of this scale? I want to say somewhere in the middle since the community is being protected at the cost of some individuals (but there’s still debate in my head over that as well). Basically, this movie poses some strong moral questions and has some serious punishment laws... Where would you place it in the plot?

Minority Report

I think that what made this movie interesting was the concept of a minority report which is a vision that shows an alternative fate. I think that what made this movie so bad was the lack of focus on this concept. The minority report was used as a convenient way for the not-so-bad-guy to get killed and for Tom Cruise's character to solve a murder that he didn't know he was solving. Having the director take advantage of the minority report being redacted to get away with murder is a very genius and convoluted idea. I think that discovering that there are alternative fates in Minority Report's utopia setting would be extremely disastrous to society and their beliefs. But is that explored, kind of but not really.

Identity

We’ve looked at a couple characters in utopian societies who take on a new identity. Anderton takes on the identity of Ernest Temple. Vincent becomes Jerome. Lauren disguises herself as a man. Each character does this to conceal something about him or herself and/or conform to societal expectations. Gattaca and Brave New World also look at DNA as a means of classification. Perhaps, then, there is an element of utopia within our identities. Despite the surrounding society, there are characters who go with the majority and those who stand out as unfitting in some manner. Maybe utopia could be unique to each individual, that everyone has to find an idea of utopia within themselves no matter what is going on in the outside world. That utopia could be conforming with a rigid government, branching out to start a new society, or something in between. Whatever satisfies the individual is his or her unique utopia rather than the outside forces attempting to create it and fit everyone into the same mold.

"Important things buried in the yard"

Parable of the Sower is very similar to Frank Hubert's Dune in that the story being told is from the past and the blurb before each chapter is from something in the present setting. The ending will probably be the beginning of a catastrophic event that eventually causes Lauren to grow up, mature, and preach her 'religion' that she is creating in the confines of this cul-de-sac she's in. Keith is a little shit, not going to lie, because he can't see the forest for the trees, or in this case, the borders of the cul-de-sac for the Earth. This story is a unique utopian story because it focuses on two things that weren't focused on before, like how, as Prof MB said best, utopian ideas come from individual people, and the other thing focused on is religion. The shift in perspective in general is a breath of fresh air.

Pettiness in Brave New World

Everyone is very judgmental in Brave New World even though its supposed to be a culture where everyone is everyone's which is why sexual promiscuity isn't taboo but they still find minor infractions to be petty about. The perfect example of this is when John won't participate in the party everyone instantly turns on Bernard and everyone Bernard was trying to impress gets fed up with his attitude and now have a reason to stop sucking up to him (172). Even Mustapha Mond, someone who has access to books that no one else is allowed to read and who is supposed to be very wise and respected, is insulted by Bernard's attitude in his reports (159). In both cases it is a sense of pride that causes them to dislike Bernard who is acting self important but this is strange because they are acting self important too by thinking that they are better than Bernard and therefore being insulted by his new found confidence. Earlier in the book I got the impression that everything in this society ran as if it was a machine or an ant hill but now I see that that is just a facade and that everyone still has emotion that dictates action but with some conflict between different kinds of conditioning sprinkled into the story to make it interesting.

"I feel" and "I think" in ~300 words

When I first reflected upon the Diggers readings, I thought something like: "how fascinating it is that all these readings so far can be read as critiques of capitalism, all but ensuring we have countless similar discussions about the merits and demerits of private property, etc....."

But then I reflected upon my reflection (reflectception) and thought that those conversations are, in a way, gratuitous. Sure, the Diggers/Levellers alluded to the dichotomy between "poor" and "rich", but their critiques most often formed themselves around "oppressed" and "oppressor".

Some quotes from True Levelers Standard Advanced stood out to me:

"In the beginning of Time...not one word was spoken...That one branch of mankind should rule over another."
"and the same Spirit that made the Globe, dwels in man to govern the Globe."
"not one Lording over the another, but all looking upon each other, as equals in the Creation."
"There is no intent of Tumult or Fighting, but only to get Bread to eat, with the sweat of our brows; working together in righteousness, and eating the blessings of the Earth in peace."

I think we suffer from a postmodern error when we apply socialism/capitalism/communism discourse to readings like this. Because we exist in a world of economy and commodity, we impose those notions onto these readings. But they are unwarranted: though they touch on economic subjects, I feel they're thinking more philosophically than anything else.

Me being a yoga-dude full of namastes, this sounds an awful lot like some of the philosophy I learned about in YTT,—the concept that you are better than no one and no one is better than you; we just are. And that sounds great to me.
You'll find zero mention of economy, just a way of life.

I believe Obi Wan said it best when he said, in other words....

jk tho bc I'm a political science major

The Utopian Warfare Mindset and Today

I think that today we share some aspects with the Utopians in our own modern interpretation of war, military structure (not typically drafts), and escalation of conflict (war as a last resort). I'm not a warfare expert nor a history expert, but I feel as though war today benefits more from the Utopian mindset of war than it would benefit the societies of the 16th century. By that, I mean that war is a much bigger risk today with the likes of nuclear weapons and has the potential to affect the entire world. We exist in a globalized society. That's not to say that we are as benevolent as the Utopians and their ideas of an unbreakable truce are; the US specifically has stacked up plenty of war crimes. However, I can see a connection in the notion that the Utopians would regard war with "utter loathing" (98). It speaks to their wisdom and experiences when dealing with war, if not aided by their inherently peaceful nature. With supranational organizations like the United Nations watching over potential warmongering, we have now established  Utopian-like preventative measures against war. We have policies in place like sanctions in attempt to keep peace. An all-out war today could result in the complete obliteration of all human life, and it's sad it's taken us until that point to be so hesitant to engage in war. Also, ahead of their time in regards to human rights, "If victory rests with the Utopians, they do not revenge themselves with blood" (103). I'd like to believe that we have become less brutal of a society; we no longer behead people over ideological differences like Henry VIII did to Thomas More. The Utopians were recognize the value of humanity. With the recent suspension of the INF (nuclear) Treaty between the US and Russia and the beginning a new arms race, the world's leaders could look to the Utopians as a reminder of the physical and emotional costs of war.

Designs of Truth and Nonsense in More's Utopia

As soon as I began reading More's Utopia, I found myself tracking the structure of the text. By establishing a familiar scene (a meeting/feast), readers are encouraged to relax into the dialogue between More and Raphael. The influence of Plato's Republic is apparent, and as such, the discussion of Utopia is broached in contrast to a problem that needs to be solved: England and its noble court. I enjoyed keeping track of the many false or imagined places or terms that appear throughout book one, such as: Polylerites, oligopoly, utopia, Achorians, and ultraequinoctials. The Polylerites are "people of much nonsense," and are used in juxtaposition to the stubborn nobles (More, 41). Their society mirrors that of Socrates' gold, silver, copper, and iron run society. Because of this, I wonder how much of the described England and the briefly mentioned Utopias are meant to seduce the reader with Raphael's arguments - to make us believe that whatever he believes is sensible and correct, as he has 'seen' the impossible world of a utopia. Yet, the dialogue does not serve to bulldoze objections, as More's amused curiosity and warnings highlight the fact that this text is working to encourage questioning of what is right, proper, and desirable in a society. Raphael expressly states that the Utopia's superiority lies within the fact that "their commonwealth is more wisely governed and more prosperous than ours" (More 57). All of this reminds me of our class's circular discussions on what a utopia is and how it can truly be one in the face of human diversity.

In short, I feel that, despite the places and people in book one existing in reality, the constant references to utopia and its laws reveal that this scenario is still imbued with a message and commentary that uses traces of truth to incite conversation and inquiry about peoples' subjectivity concerning 'utopias' and 'Englands' alike.

https://i1.wp.com/teacherdavidoh.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/subjectivity.gif

Blessed Rules

The rules laid out by St. Benedict for the behavior of the Abbot or Abbess make somewhat more sense to me than the broad (indeed overly optimistic) ideals expressed in Plato's Republic about the "gold soled Guardians". People tend to look toward a central figure of authority more readily than to group consensus, so it should be the duty of this leader to put the good of others in their charge before themselves. The rules also give more room for true meritocracy, not advancing people of noble birth ahead of those born at the bottom of society simply because of their birth. Other reasons, specific to individual ability, must apply. In fact, the only problems I have with any of the rules come from my own general distaste for organized religion, but I still recognize the merits of faith as an organizing force within a community.

The Power of Art: Part 2

If the Republic is all about everyone’s happiness, why not art?

Art tends to make people happy. When we can consume the creative media that we enjoy, it often aids in putting us in a better mood. Reading, listening to music, watching movies, etc. are usually considered hobbies that we engage in when we have free time and/or to relax when we’re stressed. And Socrates wants to sensor art in his ideal city. As mentioned in part 1, the artists and art consumers in the Republic wouldn’t be satisfied with the strict regulations. The art of the Republic wouldn’t bring happiness, but frustration because it lacks truth. Socrates doesn’t want his citizens to relax anyway. He wants them to be happy by working. So what is an artist, whose work is art, to do in such a world? Nothing. The artist would be restricted in expression and unhappy. But everyone has to be happy in the Republic. Apparently, artists aren’t part of “everyone” in this city. The only art allowed is that which will support the education of the guardians. Being forced to consume creative media with the sole intention of an education with a limited perspective is unlikely to bring happiness. Yet, it’s necessary in the Republic, because art is “harmless—except, of course, that when lawlessness has established itself there, it flows over little by little into characters and ways of life” (100). Again, Socrates’ fear of being exposed arises. He knows the power of art and doesn’t want the people to find out the truth of their not-so-ideal ideal world.

434b & 434c

I was wondering if these two passages apply to Trump and his presidency and even to Reagan too because he, like Trump, was an entertainer in media before he became President (though I don't know if the same things were said about him as they are about Trump). Plato's Socrates says "that these exchanges and this sort of meddling bring the city to ruin" (434b) and what made me relate this to Trump was when Socrates was describing the kind of person who would do this meddling as  "someone... who... is puffed up by wealth" (434c). So, would this apply to Trump's presidency because he thinks he can do/say anything he wants because he's rich or, because our society values being able to change the individuals status (American Dream and all that jazz), does it not apply?

The Power of Art

What struck me the most during the Plato reading was the emphasis on censorship towards the arts. I haven’t quite been able to get my thoughts together, but I’ll try.

I think art tells the truth about life. Artists of all types are the ones who ask the “what if” questions about life. Since we’re all so different, there are different methods of creativity to express our answers to those “what if” questions. When consuming content, we all have different “levels” that we can tolerate. When art is uncensored, everyone has the freedom to establish his or her own tolerance “level” and choose what kinds of art to consume. By limiting art in the way Socrates describes, he wants to limit not only the people’s expression, but the people’s consumption of art. Then, people who want to consume more content than what he’s offering are stymied and probably frustrated. Artists and consumers of art will want to know more and why they’re not allowed to know more. Ultimately, it’s about control. He doesn’t want people to ask “what if” about their world. Instead, he wants to tell them only want he wants them to hear. But to the artists and consumers of art, this will not be enough. Even under oppression, art speaks the truth. In the proposed Republic, eventually some type of art would come forth and tell the truth about their world. This is why he fears art and wants to control it.