I've concluded to many different thesis' for my essay topic on the graphic novel "Maus". The sole behind my conclusions is based off of last Tuesdays class discussion on the article "Postmodernism Provocation: History and "Graphic" Literature" by Linda Hutcheon. I found every topic we discussed very interesting. For instance, I was lured in on this discussion when we relatively jumped into the second question. The paragraph revealed the idea that events should not be categorized into a specific criteria. One should not specify and maybe even go as far as discriminate a certain event... Especially one that we refer to as history. The past events are so specific that categorizing them as art or words or anything that tries to make simple what was not is completely undermining the meaning of what the event is implied to provoke. We all know that a traumatic experience to us could never be understood by anyone even if that means eluding to language or music, no one will ever comprehend how severe the experience really was and if anyone is even gonna attempt to do that through the use of words or pictures or art it is still rather insulting to even try explaining the event. This topic leads to as differ et idea.... The idea that the past and present may co exist. This analysis concludes that as long as history exists the lack of people maintain distance. Although every historical and past event fits under the category of "history" it will still be subjective. There are too many events that co exist with eachother to ever say that certain histories are the same. "History literally becomes who does what to whom not only in the past, but in the present..." becUse history offers many different perspectives it inhibits the ablility for every single "listening, drawing son" to question it's severity, affectiveness and complexity. But to continue on, this idea leads to the topic me and my group received, the idea that history and literature combine to form the question if what should be categorized. We can even simplify our thought to the graphic novel of our essay itself... What should this novel be considered, literature or history? Should the implications of every ones personal histories make it into the historical regiment or is it's readable and analytical ability to personal to receive any history credit. Ultimately, because of every ones personal interpretation, experiences and perceptions of history itself, events at the traumatic level of the holocaust can not be subjected to the criteria of literature or history. Everyone has their own mediated version of what is represented and what we've learned is the holocaust. So is my scope of analytical consumption for a thesis topic wide... Yes. But I will somehow find a way to fit every idea into one thesis. Well, hopefully. :)

Wow this is a very interesting topic. At first I thought it was a little ridiculous but as I continued to read the article I began to agree with it. The idea of our mind’s being perfected and trained so that our competence becomes more important than our notion is realistically true and all of our actions speak to agree with this idea. Our decisions and beliefs support this theory because of the standard that we place technology in today’s society. For instance, when we think of labor, in our minds it becomes the worst thing possible. An easy escape is what we look for and if we get the opportunity to perfect it then it becomes a habit. For instance, the article states, “What we are all looking for, however, is the ready-made, competent man; the man whom some one else has trained. It is only when we fully realize that our duty, as well as our opportunity, lies in systematically cooperating to train and to make this competent man, instead of in hunting for a man whom some one else has trained, that we shall be on the road to national efficiency.” He explains in this claim that we are always trying to discover something that can benefit us in anyway possible because we continue to diminish the mind with lower ideas and standards every day. We want someone to do for us what we can and we’d rather have our problems neat and tidied up and most of all being dealt with by someone else than doing it ourselves. So thus, this idea that google and the internet is controlling our minds by simply renewing rather than creating is something I do agree with because we can not plead that our motifs differ from it when our actions exemplify the complete opposing side.

Well to start off, the video we saw in class on Friday was very interesting. Although the video was just based on facts it was still an eye opener to the reality of this "post post-modernism" view. The article by Alan Kirby is a further detail of this perception that human knowledge may exceed to the extremity if uncontrollable measures. For instance after watching the video, I got idea of this evil view that we Americans bring upon ourselves. We know far more than even twenty years ago could only dream of knowing. Our world is industrializing itself to the point where things of concrete manner will exceed to know more than we could ever learn or discover. Because humans have the ability to discover the many wonders among our people we our taking advantage of our own ability, knowledge and the way we think will soon become what we once thought. The scary thing about this idea that the video provides o's that the video is merely facts, all it is telling us is things that are actually happening in this world and how it compares to the way the world once work and the way we reacted to what we knew. The article however provides a view of a "psuedo modernism" view. In kirby's article, he states, "the Internet and it's use define and dominate psuedo modernism, the new era has also seen the revamping of older forms along it's lines." this is explaining that we are making better what we already know. For example, this view is explaining the phenomenon that we make better what we see as important. Our knowledge can be perceived as evil because we our not using it for beneficial circumstances but to outsmart the way we think today which will ultimately weaken our society when this new world once begins to exist. I think this view is very interesting and the idea of this post postmodernism or as Alan Kirby says pseudo modernism is ultimately an explanation to why we make our exceeding knowledge to discover unecessary and concrete ideas exceptional.   

Okay, so beginning the read on Cat’s cradle is actually a little bit enjoyable. I am pretty interested in what is going to happen and it is actually an easy read. My opinion on the book thus far is that Jonah being a bokononist, already prevails as a mere example of Newton Hoenikker’s father. The theory of bokononism preludes to postmodernism very well. The idea that there are actually people who are in your life for no apparent reason, that convey absolutely no significance, is a little absurd. For instance, in the parable of chapter 3 Bokonon writes, “I once knew an Episcopalian lady in Newport… The lady claimed to understand God and his ways of working perfectly. She could not understand why anyone should be puzzled about what had been or about what was going to be. And yet when I showed her a blueprint of the doghouse I proposed to build she said to me, ‘I’m sorry but I never could read one of those things.’… She was a fool and so am I and so is anyone who thinks he sees what God is doing.” This is relative to postmodernism by the idea of religion. For example on page 28 of postmodernism text it states, “Reject religious authority!... Let reason unlock the laws of nature and usher in the optimistic age!” The bokononist view, just like the postmodern view, is stating to not follow religious influence because the truths we follow are all shameless lies. There is no point in intending to discover the works of nature through God because there is no proven truth in what anyone believes in. In this view how can anything be proven to be truth, or the works of god for arguments sake, without any lies to compare it to? This book is very interesting and I look forward to discovering the relation to more postmodern text through this novel and also to discover the conclusion of Jonah’s novel.

I believe the theory of conformity in The Brave New World society is completely absurd and unethical. The thought of having the same thoughts as everyone else when the mind is a very complex and irrational object makes this environment to be ridiculous. A thesis that i feel would be a good topic to compose an essay off of is the idea that if there is no religion and beliefs in a conformed society such as that of the brave new world then does this become there religion? Not a religion where we worship a godly heaven and sacrifice our own will to obey God's word, but the religion to worship absolutely nothing perhaps Ford that is and to base the religion off of the ideas that believing in what our religious society believes to be outrageously incorrect and to believe in the idea of diminishing the individual; that you are nothing more to society but merely a working hand. In the bible we americans worship in verses Romans 12:1-2 it says this, "I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect." Is this verse considerable in the absence or ford religion bases of the Brave New World? Because they live in what they believe is a greater world... does this mean that there is no heaven? That they have no greater world to bestow upon? The idea of religion completely undermines the sole of true worship and insults the religion of others living today because ultimately we as humans worship a God that will provide all holy righteousness in his heaven once we perish but in the Brave New World, if they worship a god or Ford for arguments sake, then is it really considered worship when they get nothing out of it in the end... when they are not promised a heavenly sanctuary or any future bargains or promises to undergo? Ultimately, is religion existent in the Brave new world?