gaurav-kaul-blog

[gaurav-kaul-blog]

This essay is Literally Hitler

After looking at the book One More Time, I can't help but continue to think back to the essay "language corrupts thought". Orwell has a main idea that drifts and both these texts; in both the book and the essay, orwell does well on the idea that the way you use words impacts the way that you think, same with the way you hear words. For example, one of Orwell's rules is not to use pretentious diction. Basically this means don't complex word when a simple one will do. The way that 1984 touches on this concept is the way that the language is losing words. In the book one prominent apple is the word good. The word good is essentially used to replace the word bad, this is done by prefix of un- to the beginning of good.

When I thought about this word I thought about the rule of pretentious diction, the reason the rule of pretentious diction makes sense as you wouldn't use a word that is for example pretentious, because it will give your writing a certain tone and connotation. Orwell exemplifies this because the tone and connotation of the word ungood, is polar from the word bad. When I was reading this on good sounds like a glass half full way of saying bad.

When I initially thought about this I wondered what are the negatives of just using different words, such as ungood instead of bad. The first example I thought of was when people use the term "literally Hitler". I've heard this term used in arguments all the time. When people uses extreme form of language, to describe someone's point of view(or anything they dont like), they are undermining at the words power. When you're calling someone literally Hitler, clearly they are not as bad as Hitler. Unless you saw someone, or someting committing Mass genocide - I feel it is safe to say that comparing something to Hitler based on their point of view or atributes is unfair. this word gets so overused that it doesnt seem as extreme as wht it actually means. When people overuse literally Hitler, as a description of something, they are able to effect the power they can give to the way that people think about the idea that they are describing as Hitler(clearly making bad things seem less bad).

But when this option is taken away, such as with the word bad - what do you do when you see something that's actually bad? You don't have a word to describe it, every word you have doesn't have a harsh enough connotation too to describe something that is truly bad. When you use the word literally Hitler to describe someone's political views, what happens when we see someone that is actually as bad as Hitler?

Literally Hitler has been given the same connotation as how the word bad has changed the word ungood. What we're both strong words have been undermined, either by people or government and either actively or inactively, and as a result - the ability to use the word in its strong state is impossible.

[gaurav-kaul-blog]

As I’m going through the book, the one thing that I see again and again is the government forcing oppressive regulations, an idea that Orwell is passionate about.

Something that really interests me is the aspect of written language.  Winston is defying the government he is converting his thought to an unregulated form - which is still regulated by telescrenes to a form.

In addition to writing being illegal, an event that even takes place in the book is book burning. 

It is undoubtedly clear that Orwell is talking about the significance of text. At first I was really confused and wondered what that meant.

After some thinking I have come up with 2 things I believe that make writing so “dangerous”. Firstly, Writing is the one medium that can transcend time, when an opinion is stated in writing it can exist for time far beyond that of the writer,  an example showcased in the book. Also, writing is a very condensed form of communication, when you have a book you essentially have the ability to her someones thoughts for an amount of time they would not necessarily converse with you - then when speaking about a population you have the ability to talk to huge amounts of people for huge amounts of Time without expending much energy.

The longevity and density of this form of communication has historically been attacked, from when Genghis  khan destroyed all the books in Baghdad, to countries actively not promoting literacy to  citizens in order to prevent their ability to be use this dangerous medium.

Overall, I would not read this post to each student in each English class - but my ability to have this written medium allows it, and maybe someday our great great great grandchildren will be reading this post , and maybe one day their government will take down this post…

[gaurav-kaul-blog]

2+2=5

The main thing that I'm noticing in the book which is made it very clear, revolves around the central question - what are the dangerous of an oppressive government. Looking back at this question I instantly thought about shooting an elephant....... That one Orwell essay.

In the essay he uses the analogy of an elephant ravaging a town, and to stop the chaos he has to kill the elephant. I remember the connection that the elephant was representing Britain, and oppressive regime on many nations. It is clear that this is a topic Orwell enjoys writing about - he even grew up during its time of relevance.

One of the interesting examples in the book, is that two plus two equals five.Orwell is using this to showcase how oppressive government operate. When we look at the most oppressive government a common is controlling information. When someone is able to control what others know, they essentially have control over their reality. It is a small example in the book - something that seems so inconsequential, it represents larger more General ideas That are often forced onto members of a society. 

A common example of this that I can think of is religion. During many times in history, religion has been essentially forced upon people... Which was done via violence. But once you are able to consolidate your Society with some idea as simple(and complex) as religion, you essentially control them. You have giving them a method of thinking in which they will make decisions. In Asian Society, it is a common cultural practice to respect elders, and idea perpetuated by many schools of thought(specifically Confucianism). These sets of beliefs were strongly implemented into the education system by governments. The aspect of respecting elders also had an effect on how people interacted government, and it made people easier to control. 

[gaurav-kaul-blog]

"You're a traitor!" yelled the boy. "You're a thought-criminal! You're a Eurasian spy! I'll shoot you, I'll vaporize you, I'll send you to the salt mines!"

Something I realized while continuing into the book, is I don't really appreciate writing style, or specific about how the book is written- punctuation, writing patterns, until I can fully grasp macro concepts. 

I don't know if this is true for the way everyone reads, but for me I have to analyze the context of the situation, understand the importance of the passage, only later to realize that the tone mood and diction we're giving away the same points on its importance.

Besides this I realized that something I'm really enjoying, are the concepts he's creating in order to define the rules of his world. One of my favorite things in this chunk  are junior spies. Orwell is using children to act as figures with power, which is an idea that's pretty foreign to our modern society. By consistently pushing these foreign concepts- for example when the kids were upset because they couldn't view the public hanging- he is able to make an entertaining and interesting world that makes me want to read on.

[gaurav-kaul-blog]

“stream of rubbish”

I've heard a lot about this book, i've been consistently told to read it by many of my relatives, peers, and previous tutors. Fiction is very hard for me to read, because i'm never able to make it feel relevant to my life. But countless times, have I seen references to 1984. In the book I was immediately reminiscing about the previous works of Orwell that I have read, these include essays  such as shooting an elephant and language corrupts thought.

While I'm here, shout out to @alexholtiscool.....

Something I really like about the style of writing so far (that the other books I started reading for this project didn't quite hit) is the quick precise descriptions “flat fruity voice”, “stream of rubbish”. Nothing seems unnecessary yet the writing still seems artful in a way. Forgive my lack of describing the writing, as I have very little to compare to. So far the dystopian Society is set, and the rules are laid down. We have a government and many other organized bodies, we have a location, and the main character.

After reading about descriptions of the thought police, and the ministry of peace I immediately understood all the connections that people would consistently make to our modern government. Although it is Extreme the connections are very interesting.

The aspect of thought crime interest me.the point I am at -  the main character has committed in Act of thought crime. In addition winston has committed another crime of writing, which isn't allowed in this Society. This diary entry, as in writing itself, and what he wrote seems to be the climax of this initial part of the book. My big fear is that these concepts will become so unrealistic at the book long be unreadable. So far I really like these ideas that are outlandish yet still seem within the realm of possibility.

[gaurav-kaul-blog]

Picture of the knowledgeable book-finders and a librarian 

[gaurav-kaul-blog]

So I wasn’t sure at all what book to read, at first I pulled the trigger on a book Called Neuromancer. I immediately went to amazon and read the first few pages as a Preview. I Tried hard to enjoy it, but it was difficult.... Im not the biggest fan of Fiction and i know i wont be able to dive even shallowly into a book i don’t completely love. I Looked further  into some writing styles, because although Neuromancer has a great plot, i couldn't enjoy reading it.

I found a book called Dark Matter, and The Plot sounded really good, but like Neuromancer the writing style was kinda “off”, it just didn’t click with me. 

I finally looked to some peers for help. I was consistently told “1984” by cousins and peers

I started by reading the first few pages.... Not bad, then read on. 

after I got to page 20 I knew I wanted to continue.... this rarely happens for me and fiction. 1984 could be my gateway book....who knows. 

[gaurav-kaul-blog]

Perks of being a Wallflower

Fitting in is the biggest emotional that is showcases the man vs self complex in every character. 

Charlie the main character, was abused by his aunt as a child and that made him believe that he wanted his aunt to die, so when his aunt was killed in a car crash he felt like it was his fault. This is a theme that is shown throughout the movie, because the girl he loves had a similar experience as a child. 

the facet of this backstory is an example of making the exaggerated love story more believable, or at least more understandable to the reader. all of the conflict is caused by mental trauma  caused to 2 of the main characters as children. 

in rebel without a cause, the idea is skimmed over but i believe it was done much better in POBAW. i think this is justified though. unlike POBAW the main conflict in Rebel without a cause is man vs society. but i think that in doing so, and in the title itself, you dont need an immense amount of back story.

because POBAW revolves around the idea of the feeling of love, backstory justifies the exaggerated feeling, making it feel authentic, yet most likely statistically unrelatable to its primary audience. 

In addition to to the autenthicity of love, the story development focuses on fitting in. this is the original notion that drives the plot. And this notion is also a continuity in movie history, it was in rebel without a cause, all the way to superbad. The intresting thing about PORAW is it had interesting role shifts that disagree with Denby in one aspect. For example, no blonde and the main “jock” was a homosexual that dealt with forming his self identity throughout the movie, due to problems with his homophobic father and society. the perspective of the move focused on all the conflicts in high school and revolved around phases of internal and external conflict. 

while that aspect was different from denbys claim, the fact that emotions were heightened was still true.  The only difference between tis and RWAC is that this contextualized the situations more, making actions more “justified”

[gaurav-kaul-blog]

Rebellion without Causation

that movie was pretty interesting...James dean in rebel without a cause arose more questions for me then answers. 

first, what was the perspective of disconnect? I wondered this because the disconnect between Jim and his parents seemed to stem from  his expectations on them, which stem from societies imposed beliefs on him. The movie definitely  showed more “rebellious kids”. the fact that Jim is angry at his father for not portraying a fatherly role and standing up to for his son(himself) causes the disconnect. Denby would probably think this is an example of movies exaggerating  feelings 

another interesting thing that happen was the fact that all of the main plot took place over the period on a day. I think this was an interesting move by the producers, because it leaves the perfect amount of room for knowing the characters enough to understand the plot, and not knowing them enough to make judgments. in this facet the movie producers did well. I think in terms of characterization, it allowed them to showcase the Impulsivity of teenagers. Specifically it allowed them to show the bold decisions teens would make, and how emotions swayed them easily; an inherent need to fit in was always shown. this seems to be a common theme in teen movies. it is another example of an emotion that is dramatized for the screen.

all the examples of plot showcase the need to fit in, the chickie run showcases Jims need to “defend hid honor”, which stems form needing to prove himself to a group which he doesn't even align with. then plato, who meets jim for the first time feels the need to risk his life, taking a gun to protect his new friend.

overall, this was a an interesting portrayal of a teen movie that dramatized feelings. The movie capitalized of relatable feelings, like fitting in. This emotion is the plot basis for most modern teen movies, for example, perks of being a wall flower... which led me to my other teen movie chis that follows denby’s thesis.

[gaurav-kaul-blog]

UP UP AND AWAY FROM THE GENERE

Up Was the first example of a film that transcend the genre in the animated film industry, in the way that it was originally a sub genre in the film group of animated children's movies but it transcends that by going into deeper more emotional themes. Up also went beyond the generate by introducing a very important theme that would be in future Disney films family relationships and death. Films that transcend their genere open the genere up and allow more wiggle room for future movies. Up was a way for producers to test the water with a film targeted at a niche. Films that transcend their genere such as up are monetarily valuable because they can bride by their targeted audience, by having deeper themes parents can also watch the film and get takeaways like the children.

[gaurav-kaul-blog]

The most original artist

nature is the most original artist...... i don’t know if you consider nature an artist, but i do - so Im gonna write about it. Nature is the force that causes organization from complexity. if we look at natures creation we see LUCA, which was mentioned in the documentary- pretty cool of them to make the connection . LUCA was said to be possibly created by lightning striking the ocean while all the chemicals were in the right place, in biology this is called “the primordial soup”. if you want to argue that LUCA is a remix of these chemicals, you're wrong, because these chemicals are a result of nature- and so is the lightning. But i’m really trying to claim that their are no original artists- and shoutout to Mitchell, about the influence point. 

but to talk about influence on originality, any artist who ever existed was shaped by anything they viewed, their brains were physically changed as a result of viewing or experiencing any outside stimulus- and this happens to you whenever you experience anything . We want to say that there is a true notion of “originality”, which is a really romanticized concept, but i believe that true originality cannot exist. the statement we are a product or our environment is profoundly accurate, and to make a funny analogy i think it is true to say we are a remix of all the aspects of our environment. Human behavior doesnt allow true originality to exist, anyone who wants to discuss is free to hmu 

[gaurav-kaul-blog]

this avondale sickness is really lowering my utility 

[gaurav-kaul-blog]

Im not being hypocritical because i didn't take a stance in this post...  but your thoughts are valued ryan, you are of the first perspective i mentioned in this post- the example of societal improvement. and again just because something is a certain way does not mean it ought to be that way 

secondary source 6

https://news.vice.com/article/humans-are-destroying-the-environment-at-a-rate-unprecedented-in-over-10000-years

Humans clearly have a huge impact on the Earth, greater than any species. Is the impact beneficial or detrimental? From our perspective you can say the happiness we receive based on the societal improvement would support that it is strictly beneficial. But what about the sadness that some people receive from the destruction of the environment, extinction of species driven by our species, and even the fear of the future based on our effects on the environment. This really makes me wonder whether humans OUGHT to be doing what they are because that IS the way that the environment made them, like Harari conceptualized in his book sapiens- we have been domesticated by Nature similarly to the ways that we have domesticated nature.

[gaurav-kaul-blog]

yea i think its kind of crazy, its like an invention that killed its inventor- us being the invention, nature being the inventor. there was a time where we had the same amount of impact on the ecosystem as any other species of fly. but now we drive the world and have the biggest impact on nature- for example deforestation. like you mentioned our creations, im gonna say that societies are our biggest creation, and in order for our societies to sustain our needs we had to shape nature to our benefit. but now we do much more than sustain, we now are able to create things to thrive and bring added happiness to ourselves that involves manipulating nature- for example genetically modifying fruits to taste better, or animals to be more “furry” or “cute”. over all i think that humans have had a huge effect on their environment from obtaining our needs to achieving our wants, and is this a good thing or bad thing, will this cause our nature to “implode”....  only time will tell.   

Nature, book; The World Without us by Alan Weisman

BIG PICTURE REALIZATION HERE PEOPLE! The authors whole purpose for writing this was to explain what would happen to the planet if humans completely disappeared tomorrow. It just hit me that he never explains why they would be gone, but clearly states that this is a possible reality. In the section of the book I’m in right now he’s explaining just how dangerous, and likely to case a mass tragedy, big oil processing plants in Texas are. This got me thinking, are our creations likely to be our downfall, almost like karma, like payback for destroying so much? I don’t have this viewpoint, but the author seems to be exploring in, subtly. He’s slowly gave me a couple of the little pieces to this concept in explaining how dangerous many human creations are, not just the plants in Texas, and just how much humans have, and are destroying. This viewpoint seems really dark, but could make sense, if humans go too far in trying to create their own way of the world, their own ‘nature’ it may eventually implode, as humans aren’t perfect. 

[gaurav-kaul-blog]

Ryan I disagree we not the only sentient beings, almost every animal is sentient to a certain extent,(example:) although humans can feel pain from not accomplishing a goal, and be aware of the goal, and be conscious that the goal is important to their wants and needs-  an ant can feel a biological hit of being killed and not being able to pass on its genes(we are sentient to different extents). And also many other animals create technology, and explore and understand their “universe”. and on the question of is that bad... yes that is bad for almost everything, other than humans (and i would argue that soon this will be bad for some humans as well). the awful things humans do in the food industry goes against all worldly utilitarian models, and humans tend to cause a lot of bad to themselves- in the book Yashi is talking about- Harari claims that the agriculture revolution was a really big trap that we fell for- which destroyed a lot of utility for humans... so in this situation we made life worse for ourselves.   

Sapiens-1

From the very beginning of human history, humans, or rather Homo Sapiens, have had a clearly negative impact on the world around us.  This can be clearly seen in the other species of humans.  100,000 years ago, there was 6 different human species across the globe.  Today, there is only us.  Homo Sapiens drove, not only animals, but also other human species into extinction.  Many people today assert the human beings are not a destructive species, however, there are  piles of evidence suggesting otherwise.

[gaurav-kaul-blog]

nature

harari makes one of the greatest points in any book I've ever read, the point relates to hierarchies and how leaders in a group create stories that lead to hierarchies discrimination and other horrible things, but all of this is necessary for our society's to function. A great example that he made was with Hammurabi's code of law, in Hammurabi's code of law there are laws such as if a slave kills a co commoner so and so will pay x amount, or if a commoner kills a superiors cattle blah blah blah will happen. Hammurabi's code of law one of the most important stories to early Society, so how hierarchies are institutionalized for example there's a clear distinction between slaves commoners and Superiors. Another example of the story that affect Americans the most is the Constitution, and all of the documents that the Americas founded. There are clear hierarchy that are noted in our amendments, for example before the Civil War and slave states players were worth 3/5 of a person, and their amendments that show the women and foreigners were persecuted or not given suffrage, these important stories that hold our governments together also separate ourselves. Ferrari mentions that objectively we are all the same in a biological sense, if I cut open an African American and Finnish man I will see exactly the same thing, what how come in the 1960s and prior African Americans and Finnish people would have been viewed as very differently the United States, harari suggests that this is another story We Tell, which includes human rights civil rights and hierarchies. He even makes the point that the thing that connects Obama to Osama Bin Laden is the American dollar, both people would be fine with the American dollar the difference is Osama Bin Laden hated America or as Obama loved America but they still connected to the American dollar.

[gaurav-kaul-blog]

NATURE

Where is nature taking us, and we reconcile technology with nature or are they separate entities, harari created a few interesting Concepts but I applied to a world history project. The concept is a utilitarian Society, but unlike the concept today it is a society truly based on utility. In a talk and in his book harare mentions the idea of how technology shapes us while we shape technology, and another interesting example is how domesticating animals or plants also domesticate us. And in the case of wheat Harari suggests that wheat domesticated us more than we domesticated wheat. But back to the technology idea, what is humans we're all equipped with biosensors, which would essentially measure happiness or a scientist put it - utility. According to harari This would be a good idea because we would be able to actively make decisions that are moral and actively choose things to do as a society that make us happy. It's a decision that seemed immoral causes more happiness than sadness. According to a utilitarian model we should make that decision. And similar to hararis  questioning of the benefits of the Agricultural Revolution, we would be able to objectively measure which decisions made society happier and which decisions made society less happy. This idea is best explained by Sam Harris, in consequentialism if everyone in the society is suffering the maximum amount that they can suffer, a just government would make any decision they could make to increase happiness in tern reducing suffering. So why does this change when a society is very happy, my two takeaway was to question why shouldn't a society make a decision to increase utility as much as possible, right now the government has no way of telling how a society feels after a major decision in terms of happiness, we can look at GDP, approval rating, or unemployment rate. But we can truly tell whether a society is happy, and this will be the next step for humans: to be able to be so connected to technology that we can objectively you things such as happiness or morality.