Confusion to Clarity (or a semblance thereof)
Re-Read On Theater of the Mind, p. 235 in Habits
Respond to the following in writing:
- What is the conversation that you want to join? What idea will you pursue?
- Go online and find at least three different perspectives (if not more) on the idea you are pursuing. All these perspectives should be different from yours. Write down the opposing ideas, jotting down the support for each one briefly (see p. 236). Make sure to include a link to each of your sources (and MLA information if you think you might use it in your project or essay)
- Grab a fellow student and walk through with them your differing views (Not the view you are pursuing but the ones that differ from your view), giving each one as much believability as possible. Try to imagine for a moment that you really believe whichever view you are currently espousing. Ask the other person to participate with you in trying to prove each view. Jot down the thoughts raised in this discussion in the discussion section of our class canvas site.
- What was your thought process? How did talking with someone else shape, change, reflect your own process?
- What would it take to convince you that your view is wrong? Be specific.
- Which one of the views will you select to pursue for your essay? Why?
- State this view as the thesis you think you will pursue
- How do you think you can encourage your readers to think differently (more creatively? With more curiosity, more broadly) on this topic? List at least three specific techniques you will use for your essay.
- Look through the internet to find an essay you think you might use for support and that you really like its style and structure. Note the thesis of the essay and the specific rhetorical strategies that you like.
- Go to the class discussion site and comment on at least three different discussion posts with questions and/or comments that might help the student think differently or add to their essay.
For example:
Conversation I want to join: I am interested in thinking about how technology makes us think about or even be in love differently than before technology.
Possible ideas:
- Technology is redefining what love means because it opens the door to seeing love as something that is not necessarily between humans.
- Support: Research shows that people can fall in love with their computer (Smith)
- Support: Virtual reality is a realistic replacement for a human lover (Guardian)
- Technology redefines love because it gives us endless options and choices so we can never settle on anything
- Unlimited choice theory states the more choices the harder it is for us to stick with or make one (Slate)
- Romantic relationships come through an endless stream of possibilities whereas before we met people in very limited venues (Suttie)
- Technology has absolutely nothing to do with love because it must be human to human.
- support
- Technology is literally changing our DNA. Given that love is a chemical response, it also must be changing what it means to love.
- Support Huffington post posits its changing our DNA
- Technology is enriching love because it adds additional methods of communication and participation
- We can interact with one another without regards to time and space
- We can be more honest
- We can share more details
- Love is being destroyed by technology because it encourages us to develop stronger relationships with our technology than with other people.
- Support: Huffington post essay argues that we spend 11 hours a day with technology
Discuss
I discussed about DNA. The other person thought that love could also change DNA, so we were talking about that. Is changing DNA a bad thing? Then we started talking about whether it could really change our DNA. Isn’t that evolution? Need to look that up. That led us to talking about how love has changed over time as well. And maybe we might be developing new ideas about what love is because of technology. We explored this: can we be in love but never meet one another? Is touching necessary? Is there even a definition of love? Then I was thinking. . . maybe I can’t do this topic because I’m not sure how to define love. Person I was talking to said I just need to pick a definition and make sure that I define it clearly: attachment to someone. But we could be attached negatively. Feeling really good when you are with someone. But we feel good with friends. Deep attachment. Deep positive attachment. Love is the deep, intense, lasting positive attachment to another person. So, now I have to figure out if you can get this feeling through technology?
Thought Process
At first, the idea seemed a bit ridiculous, but as I dug more into it, it seemed like there was a lot of support for our flexibility in how we define love. And, if that’s the case, why couldn’t we fall in love with a computer, but not if love means an attachment to a person (would I need to redefine love?)? But then I started to think about does that change what love is or it just adds to who we can love? Is love meaningful if we can love inanimate objects? Is it love to spend more time with technology then with another person even if we say that we love the person and not the object? Talking with someone else helped me to see that we do have different definitions of love already. And, love has different meanings even in how we love a person or a thing. If we can love things. Maybe love isn’t the right word. Maybe it just changes how we have deep relationships because it makes everything shallow. This might be a more productive way to go.
To be wrong:
Hmm. If I argue that technology makes our relationships more shallow, than to be wrong, I would have to see that technology could actually make us have deeper relationships. How would someone prove that? I guess there could be research on what relationships are like on technology. Are they more shallow? If someone could show me that people deepen their relationships on the internet, then I could be wrong.
Selecting:
I think I want to look at how technology is changing how we view love but that is not necessarily bad because I think that humans have the capacity to make connections even if they are not face to face. And, technology might be giving us some really cool ways to connect that we were unable to do before.
Thesis: Technology provides an opportunity for us to develop deeper connections with other people than face to face interactions.
Encouraging others to think differently: I think if I use lots of examples of how people experience love differently that will help others to see the breadth of possibility. Also, I want to make sure that I share some of the pitfalls of this “new” love but also how we might either avoid or alter them so they aren’t immediately turned off by my argument. Maybe even some pictures would help. Also, I can take them through my process of coming to this conclusion. I would want to show how technology isn’t a distancing medium but a bringing together, in a meaningful way, medium.
Some sources I found that were intriguing
No comments:
Post a Comment