Response to Baudrillard by Emmanuel, Alexina, Alex.

In the excerpt from Baudrillard's book, the author attempts to decipher reality, simulation, simulacra and hyperrealism. The hyperreal is an idea of truth versus lies. Hyperreality is created in hyperspace, therefore cannot be reality. Simulation becomes a specific type of reality indistinguishable from true life. The human brain is pre-programmed to believe that simulation is reality. Simulation does not exist because it is based on the same aura as reality. God, in combination with religion, is but only a representation which dissimulates nothing. Therefore, it hides no secrets and no reality. Doctors, for example, can tell simulators apart from truly sick people, because the simulator may not always know all the symptoms to an illness. Christianity, for example, was based on the death of the pagan religions. The newly formed religion appropriated the symbols of past religions in an effort to entice previously pagan citizens to the "better" religion using familiar symbols, and therefore manifest their power. "Science never sacrifices itself, it is always murderous." Humans are visual beings, they must see to believe. Preserving historic artifacts and belongings restores visible order and reassures society. Science recreates, reproduces many artifacts and in other time will preserve the authentic artifacts for the meaning. For example, "Ramses doesn't signify anything for us, but the mummy represents a lot". If the science loses this artifact, it loses all conceived meanings about the latter. We can qualify them of a subterfuge, a kind of hallucination. But the reproduction of these artifacts is still a real, because it is real. Hyperreality characterizes the inability of consciousness to distinguish reality from the imaginary, or the fantasy. Only when one believes one is honest with his/herself does reality exist. Grown adults often go to Disneyland with their children, but it is partly for themselves they decide to go, to relive in a childlike world once again. This imaginary land suggests that the imaginary is everywhere (within Disneyland). However, once you step out, you become once again an adult, with worries and bills to pay. But Disneyland is not the only place where fantasy feeds the childish imaginary of adults: all of California is dotted with numerous recycling institutes for those who cannot face their lives. To destroy history or undesirable information, one should not deny. Denying is but only dissimulation which affirms the reality. When the evidence is non-existant, it is easy to accept that nothing happened. He says the capital is immoral, without scruples, cruelty, incomprehensible ferocity and its fundamental immorality. The only interest of politics is its own interest. Situations that seem to possess two diverging possibilities actually only possess one affirming situation. The author demonstrates how situations such as assassinations (and attempts) of a position, such as the president, affirms the situation of power, or create it, if the former did not exist previously. Whether a hold-up is only a simulation or not, the outcome is always the same: fear. The fake hijackers will always have power over those in the plane. Since the Kennedys, on the other hand, politicians can only simulate mythic political substance with the murder-alibi. This way, they can prove they are "invincible" in the face of death and, consequently, of political opposition. Only his survival gives him the power to govern. Reality TV suggests that there is no longer a medium. How can a medium be if it is intangible, if we are all "there" (on our couches, but watching them simultaneously) when the action is executed? How do we know if an argument that was edited to make the arguer sound like the "bad guy" wasn't started by someone else? Where is the message? Baudrillard believes it is simple to pacify opponents. By obtaining the ability of revolting effectively, one instantly loses the desire to do so. Earth's civilization is constructed upon long running traditions and evolution. On the other hand, the moon (and space) is an area controlled by precise laws of science and technology. The environment is calculated exactly and understood extensively. The notion of security becomes transparent and unreal. The balance of terror is the terror of balance, meaning that there is no limit except that of which we impose on ourselves. Atomic war is an argument, just a pretext used by the government to obtain what they want. The result of any war is already established, as Baudrillard explains about Vietnam : "The game is already won".

Marx believes that after capitalism there must be a revolution. Proletarians of the world unite he exclaims. Baudrillard believes that discovering ultimate power only leads to a stasis. When one posseses power they do not wish to suffer those consequences. Baudriard's discourse covers the whole of society and its innate nature from its early begginings in religion up to its advance extra terrestrial forces. It is remarkable to notice how humans prefer to accept simulation as reality rather than discover the underlying truth. The superficial values of society become byproduct of our inability to be honest with ourselves. The OutFoxed documentary is a perfect example of how a mass public can incorporate simulation in a reality, generating a hyperreal world. The online world is such that there exists no repercussions or follow up. Each parcel of information is like an image, a free standing simulacrum. Most of the information found in this cyber-space is empty of meaning. In this absence of true content, there is a medium and a message yet they are only simulated. The punk group "Bad Religion" uses a lot of Baudrillard's points of view. They use music to express their opinions regarding the simulacra. Can we say that reality remains real even when parts of this reality are omitted?

MARX

Karl Marx (Prusse 1818 - Londre 1883) est une des figures intellectuelles majeur de la modernité. Son analyse du capitalisme, des dynamiques organisant l’ensemble des rapports humains, offre une vision systématique d’une profondeur inoui. C’est autour du Capital, sa pièce maitresse, que Marx articula son system. Qu’il construira en étudiant l’analyse faite par David Ricardo, homme d’affaire et économiste anglais, du capitalisme naissant. À la différence de ses prédécesseurs, c’est une mécanique complexe qu’il décrie, une mécanique sur et par laquelle tout rapport humain émerge. Un utilisant le concept de fétichisme, Marx cherche à montrer comment les marchandise, pierres de touche du capitalisme, brouille les rapports sociaux. Il faut donc comprendre ici le fétichisme de la marchandise comme le procédé où la marchandise s’octroit le pouvoir et le sens des rapports entre les hommes.

Dans le cadre de l’analyse marxiste, la marchandise devient un médium. Ce médium est un message, dont le contenue est la nature et l’organisation des rapports sociaux. Marx décrit deux types de valeurs, la valeur d’usage et la valeur d’échange. La première est déterminée par l’utilité d’une marchandise pour un individu, la seconde est déterminé par les forces du marché. Par le fétichisme, l’homme devient subordonné aux marchandises et à leur valeur d’échange.

Marx's Fetichism of Commodities by Audrey, Chris and Éric

Pour Marx, le caractère mythique des marchandises ne vient ni de sa valeur d'usage, ni des caractéristiques qui déterminent sa valeur mais bien de sa valeur sociale. Cette critique du système économique capitaliste repose sur le fait que le travail humain (l'Homme) a été totalement éliminé des paramètres de productions et a réduit celui-ci à un rôle de producteur et de consommateurs. Pour Marx, le travail est le prolongement de l'être homme et c'est de cette façon qu'il en dire un reconnaissance des autres hommes; le travailleur est intimement lié à celui qui bénéficie de son travail. Ainsi, la production, c'est la consommation du travail et l'étape finale, c'est l'acte de consommer. Comme dans la société capitaliste, il n'y a plus de rapport entre le producteur et le consommateur, la distribution des biens qui fixe la structure sociale. Ainsi, le travail du prolétaire n'a pas de sens en lui-même, il devient plutôt un rouage d'un immense mécanisme. Son travail ainsi acheter par l'argent, détruit la réalité des hommes car il élimine la médiation entre-eux. L'argent devient la médiation entre les hommes.

L'analyse critique du système économique capitaliste faite par Marx au 19è siècle semble encore aujourd'hui à propos. En effet, dans une société où la consommation à outrance semble être devenue une vertu, où les échanges commerciaux se transigent entre pays lointains, le travail de l'homme semble être devenu lui-même une marchandise que l'on peut exploiter sans vergogne. La société occidentale est à un point tel obnubilée par la "marchandisation" des rapport humain et de leurs productions, qu'elle en oublie le sens même de ses fondements; la justice sociale, précepte évoqué dans le contrat social de Rousseau à l'époque des Lumières. La grande nouveauté qu'apporte Marx à l'économie politique, c'est de replacer l'Homme au centre de celle-ci. Il critique le manque d'humanisme du système capitaliste car après tout, ce dernier se développe en exploitant les fruits du travail de l'homme tout en reniant les fondements même de son développement. 

Alors que Marx prétend que le sens de l'Histoire est inévitable et qu'il aboutit toujours à l'étape de la critique, de la restructuration sociale, nous sommes en droit de nous demander quand et comment ces changements surviendront-ils compte tenu de la nouvelle économique toujours plus avide de production et de consommation et qui engage à chaque jour, une quantité de plus en plus grande de travail humain.

Response to "Fetishism of Commodities" -- by Angela and Matthieu

The "Fetishism" of commodities" refers to the special relationship between commodities whereby said commodities are the "products of men's hands." The analogy is made with the religious world, where human brains are independent and "enter in a relationship" between themselves and the greater "human race". The root of this fetishism comes from the social aspect of the work behind them -- which is to say, the way in which these products become commodities gives rise to the "fetishism". All this is in the context of a capitalist society. Marx also argues that commodities have no inherent "use-value", but rather, just "value". The proof is that commodities are just that, commodities ("natural intercourse proves it"). Marx equates "use-value" with "riches" and are attributes of men, while "value" is the attribute of commodities. "Value" comes from the social process of exchange. Finally, Marx explores various production-systems like a one-man island, feudal society, and also posits a society of "free individuals" where the distribution of subsistence is determined by the labour-time of each producer.

When reading this text, it's hard not to spiral into Communism, considering its impact on our world, and for each of us, academically and socially. Having said that, we focussed on the idea of a commodity, and what it means in our world (21st century), versus Marx's world (19th century). In an increasingly connected world, where markets are no longer constrained geographically, it seems difficult to transpose Marx's ideas of use-value and value. Most of today's "commodities" are the result of increasingly accurate marketing and cheap labour. As such, the wants and needs (production and subsistence) seem to be so heavily influenced by outside forces (our brains... are they really independent beings endowed with life?) that it's difficult to make the leap. Further, some of the world's biggest and most influential communities are no longer defined regionally, but intellectually. Increasingly these communities may no longer behave in the way the Marx describes -- the organization of the modes of production are not constrained within one community, but intersect across many, and across space and time.

Marx asks of the "modern economy", "does not its superstition come out as clear as noon-day whenever it treats of capital?" Our question is, "Does the essence of capital entirely lie in this superstition, i.e., its Fetish character? Can that be all there is?"

Commodities and Marx: Response by Natalia, Fernando, Martin

In “The Fetishism of Commodities”, Carl Marx explains the Capitalist model of turning products into commodities, and its implication on the social aspects of society. He argues that a product is turned into a commodity as soon as it is alienated from its producer, thus perverting the relationship between objects, their makers, and their users. Commodification, according to Marx, is characteristic to the Capitalist society because the means of production, such as large factories, always create a rift between the product and its maker. Marx discusses the difference between use-value and exchange-value or products, which is the difference between evaluating something based on its use, or based on its value in the market. While the use-value of an object is a natural consequence of its properties (a chair is useful because you can use it for sitting), its exchange-value is not inherent to the object and is a result of society in which it’s defined (a Bauhaus chair is no more useful than an Ikea one). The separation of the use-value from the exchange-value naturally flows out of the separation between the producer and the product, to the point where they appear to be entirely separated. Commodity fetishism, according to Marx, is when a consumer covets a product based on its exchange-value, and not on its use-value. As a result, the process of production of commodities takes control over their producers, defining what they make and how they make it. Marx argues that this system must be altered in order to give the power back to the producers. He believes that the alienated relationship between the maker and the product must be healed, but on a social level, where makers are compensated based on their labour, and the products are defined through their use-value, thus stopping the process of commodification.

One can immediately see the relevance of Marx’s model in today’s North American consumer society which has embraced the commodity in its every aspect. Globalization and outsourcing can be said to be the ultimate expressions of Marx’s alienation between the producer and the product, as most commodities are made in Asia by people who will never be able to afford them. Some things are made simultaneously in different places: a part is brought from one country to another, assembled in the third, packaged elsewhere, and sold in the United States. Following Marx’s line of thought, we can say that the exchange-value and the use-value have experienced a similarly tremendous rift as a result. Branding and marketing are aimed at heightening the exchange-value of products, creating luxury goods that serve no particular purpose and are extremely cheap to make. People buy them for the “image” that they carry, not for their usefulness. Whether it would be possible to turn away from this model and heal the rift created by globalization is a difficult question, considering that a number of world economies have been shaped by commodification in the capitalist West.

Question: Where does the trend of marketing fair-trade local goods, ethical working conditions, and connecting the workers with the consumers, fit into Marx’s model of commodities? Is it a gradual movement away from commodity fetishism, or merely another “trend” that separates the use- and exchange- value of goods?

The Fetishism of Commodities by Karl Marx - Morgan, Peter, JS and Nicolas

In the Fetishism of Commodities, Marx analyses the attribution of value to the objects created in a society based on capitalist production. He says that when objects become commodities, the notion of intrinsic value is warped, since a new social value is bestowed to the item. In a capitalist society, factors of value, like the quantity of human labour, the quality of it or the cost of the materials used do not determine anymore the utility value of the commodity. Instead, a value is assigned extended from the social relations of the men who produce the commodities, which then are imbedded in the commodities themselves. This social construct of value is, according to Marx, deeply rooted in Capitalism and it creates a Fetishism of commodities that is inherent to the exchange process of the production. Throughout the text, he also explores the notions of value in different types of production systems, like Feudalism, an individual self-sustaining system (Robinson Crusoe's case) and he proposes another system (Communism) where the distribution of commodities has a direct proportion with the labour time employs in its making.

Discussing about what a commodity is we agreed upon that it is an object of social value that is non-dependent from its labour cost and its physical properties. This assigned value is unmistakably given by the hegemonic view in society and it is diffused and enlarged by the media. In our capitalist world, the designation of social values onto commodities is done by the upper classes, which control and determine, both, media and production. A perfect example of this value distortion can be seen with the iPod phenomenon. The real or exchange value of the gadget could be determined by the number of microchips and electronic components involved plus the man labour done in the process. The use value, dictated by social parameters, is far greater since it stratifies, classifies and elevates those who acquire it. This way, people don't just buy commodities for their utility; they do it for what they stand for. In the capitalist system, this misdistribution of value feeds off the markets and the economy in a never-ending loop. This process occurs with produced objects, but what about non-material things, like ideas and concepts? Could intellectual property be considered as a commodity? After all, it is exchangeable, it is the product of man-labour and it has social assigned values (i.e. Star Wars IP).

Question: If intellectual property is considered to be a commodity, does it require a capitalist society for its existence and value attribution?

Ramy, Sean and Alexis on Marx

In this text, Marc describes the mechanism of commodity value creation in the social sphere. He describes how man-hours can be counted as a direct value to
man-made commodities. Therefore the exchange-value system is inherent to the creation of man-made commodities.
Labor versus the social property of labor contribute to the inflation of value, as the social caracteristics of labor have nothing to do with the value. It is rather
capitalism that creates false value through the need of society for a type or another of labor, here the offer and the demand. Marx talks of money as the materialization
of exchange-value. But money hides and camouflages the facor of necessity of living and the value of work. So where do we draw the line between a commodity
and a product of labor? Something we do need and something we don't. In the example of the family, given by Marx, all the labor is converted directly into product
of labor because there is no one else to exchange their labor for commodities. This is the allegory of the best system of social production. It is an example of man
controlling his economy rather than being controlled by it, as capitalism knows so well.

Other major concepts if the text are that religion is bad. As he describes, religion is the reflex of the people. Reflex? What does that mean? When you brun your arm,
the nervous system of reflexes is so fast that this message does not even have time to get to the brain. Extreme speed if the key. What happens to a people when
they don't know where they come from? Who put them there? They immediately create come higher beings to explain their presence. This relates to the concept of
abstraction, once again. Taking things as they are, direct exchange-value from labor for example rather than abstractgion value by using money.

So where does that put modern day money in the game? Even worse, where does that put credit? This is a fourth level of value abstraction. And the further we abstract,
the more capitalist and uncontrollable the economy becomes. (value of labor, value of commodities, value of money, value of credit)

And on that note :

"The Fetishism of Commodities and the Secret Thereof" - Karl Marx. John, Chris and Tomer

The main idea in this reading is Karl Marx trying to analyze how comodities get their value.
there is a difference between the value of a comodity as percieved by man, to the actual cost and time of labour needed to make that comodity.
In trying to explain where that difference comes from, Marx turns to the realm of Religion: people throughout history have explained rational indiscrepencies through acts of god, and Marx compares this void to the rational voids filled by religion.
He explains the "hidden" attributes that a product recieves, that give it it's "worth", as comodity fetishism.
A "fetish" is "an object believed to have magical powers...", though in this case it is not so much "magical" as it is "not easily explained", or rather "not obvious".
Marx also talks about the commerce of commodities:
When a product is produced, by a group of individuals, it recieves a marketable value.
This implies that it actually has two uses. One is the basic use for which it was created,(furniture, books, clothing) and the other use is for the producer to "exchange" this product for something else that he needs (as currency).
Therefore when we look at "value", a product must not only be usefull, but be usefull to others.
Marx also has a bit of critisism aimed at the existing capitalist system, romanticizing the ideal of every individual creating what he needs, and thus the modes of production will not belong to the ruling class.
This is seen in his Robinson Cruso's example and the comparison to Medieval economy.

In our opinion, when viewing Karl Marx's work, one cannot ignore the man behind the writing, and disregard his other works, namely the "Communist Manifesto".
Karl Marx did invent the idea of Communism, and though this work is not radical in nature, one can still read the undertone that lies between the lines.
Almost all of the facets of communism are in this work, though they appear more discreatly then his full-blown books about Communism.
Marx critisizes the capitalist lifestyle of purchasing products we don't necassaraly need. He critisezes the entire idea of commerce, stating that the work that is done regarding the commerce of commodities is thus "wasted" labour that could be used for actual production.
Communism is secular in it's nature, and Marx critisizes religion in this work too.
Marx states that "christiany is most fitting for a society that treats their products as commodities and values."
The main idea of Communism is restoring the "means of production" to the people, so it is not controled by a ruling class.
In this work Marx states that we live in a society where the process of production has mastery over man, not the other way around.

Our question from this reading is:
Karl Marx's analysis of the capitalist market and about the "fetishism" of commodities, is in our time more prevalent then ever.
While Communism has been proven ineffective and obsolete by modern history, does that necassirily mean that all of Mark's anti capitalist market ideas have no merit? Or can we gain to benifit from some of his concepts when viewing and criticing our consumer mentality today?

Response to Marx: Manuella, Sam, John, Yinyin

Marx defines several terms such as 'product', 'commodity', and so on. He values human labor in the sense that it is to create things necessary to our development or survivability or that of people we know. On the other hand, products that are made not for ourselves, or rather for people that are unknown to us - such as mass produced items -, are seen negatively by Marx. These products, named commodities, have the ability to alienate the creator/worker/builder. Marx also mentions the use-value of an object versus its exchange-value. He states that when a person looks only into the exchange-value (monetary value) of an object, it can lead to what he refers to as 'fetishism', a sort of attraction and strong desire to the object in question.

In today's world, it seems that we attach a lot of value to an object based on its exchange-value, even though we do not always realize this fact. Marx' argument is much like that of Kant, who argued in his Critique of Judgment that beauty in itself does not belong to an object, but is rather our reponse to the said object. If we exchange the words "beauty" and "value", then we obtain Marx' argument. (from http://everything2.com/?node=commodity+fetishism http://everything2.com/?node_id=1365102) It sounds like a very negative point of view, which suggests that the whole existence of commodity fetishism is based on the illusion of the importance of the monetary system. This whole argument bases our lives around commodities, especially since we are so strongly anchored into a capitalist system. We become less preoccupied with the social bonds present in a society because we are in a race to acquire diverse commodities.

Considering that we are so preoccupied with the exchange-value of objects today, would Marx' theory apply to art? In this sense, are people more interested in the commercial value of art than its content or originality?

Marx response

Scott, Kevin, Khuong Duy Pham, Ben Sauv

Marx introduced his theory by giving the example of a family. In a family, goods are distributed according to the needs of each person in the household. Goods produced become common goods in the household, and the properties of a product are seen as the amount of labour put into it and it’s usefulness for others. According to Marx, individuals have their own specific skills but for a product to be valuable it must be exchanged; a lack of exchange makes a product less valuable and that society is based on these exchanges. The concept of “labour-time” is defined as the amount of work that went into producing a product. This decides how much value an object has. Fluctuations in value should only be associated with its labour-time. Produce should be distributed based on the amount of labour-time that put into it.

Discussion: Karl Marx based his idea on a system that works well on a small scale (in a home, in a small village) but it might be difficult to implement on a large scale successfully (an entire country). Labour-time may not be a fair concept, as some workers could be lazy since they will be paid the same amount no matter how hard they work; it does not encourage individual achievement. Marxism would lead to very little choice and variety in products, as only their usefulness and labour-time would be considered. Due to the controlled environment of Marxism, society could become homogenized.

Question: In Marx’s ideal society, how would television, without the element of marketing or commercials, differ from television in a capitalist society?

Marx response: Charles-Antoine, Charlotte, Jos

Karl Marx is describing his opinion that assigning value to objects is a bit ridiculous, unnatural (will not be seen in nature), and has a dangerous effect on people in the way that labour is what defines human quality. Marx expresses his disappointment in the fact that our society assigns value on people’s work based on the value of the commodity their labour will produce. The text expresses a fear of the potentially harmful effects of money concealing the social character of private labour; it was by analysing something's trade value that determined its value. Marx draws the parallel that something that is highly in demand should cause it to have more value.

Assigning value to objects appears in nature, even today. Although it does not appear in the form of diamonds or pearls, animals hide, hoard, and protect objects all of their lives: items which provide nourishment: in other words, food. And this includes all types of food, animals rarely eat one seed or bug or animal their entire lives; they make a choice, whether it be consciously or unconsciously. Gold may be valued more than iron only because of its anti-oxidizing properties, which attributes to its beauty. Marx mentioned that unnecessary commodities are just that and are produced only through a state of commodity ‘Fetishism’. He suggests that people should have a functional and practical use in society in order to have something to trade for, that they cannot produce themselves. So what does he consider being useful and useless? Without the production of unnecessary commodities such as duplicates (branding), Marx forgets or simply fails to mention, that there would be no choice, and thus no freedom of.
It may be agreed, to a certain extent, that society values a person’s labour based on the end-result ‘commodity’. However, such a concept is not always so ridiculous as Marx suggests. A commodity may be more than a material product, i.e. a skill, like the skill to perform surgery. How does the work of a surgeon differ from that of a custodian? According to this text, it does not. The work is both required in society: to heal and repair the unwell and to maintain a clean and thus healthy environment. Agreed. But should not years of study, training and promotions to larger responsibilities be rewarded? It is naïve to assume that all surgeons endure such intensive and extensive training out of the goodness of their hearts alone. If such work, including study and training, is valued equally and is then paid equally to all others, it is not so far-fetched to say that the world will lose a lot of surgeons. Removing the praise that we give as a society to the hard work and excellent skill of a surgeon and other highly regarded professions, removes the motivation in entering this profession as well. Is it wrong for society to reward those who choose hard labour, physically or mentally, depending on the ‘commodity’, or service, that results? Not at all: like a pat on the back after a hard day. The only danger here is that we are often unable to make such rankings fairly: who is to say that one person works harder than another? It is up to society to decide, and society does not always know what is best.

Question: Could we say that the principle of open-source software adheres to Marx's idea which stipulates that duplicates (branding) are unnecessary? Is it realistic to think of open-source for an analog world?

Response to Marx: Alex, Alexina, Emmanuel

In the text, Karl Marx illustrates that the capitalist society considers commodities as items with the ability to satisfy their needs. It is this process that attributes a use value to the objects. When humans are employed, they are remunerated with a commodity - money.  Although they never come in direct contact with each other, all humans in this capitalist society work together. This is because their individual work efforts are exchanged in the form of commodities without the parties being directly involved. The employee labour-time does not affect the exchange-value of their products, and neither do their physical properties and material relations. Their exchange value is affected by their perceived usefulness for consumers. It is then that the monetary value of the product inflates.

Marx chooses to eliminate factors such as competition within his analysis because his solution promotes equality among the needs of the members of society. It is possible to relate Marx's theory to an ant community. Classes are created where everyone is grouped into different strata with a specific duty/job to accomplish for the benefit of the colony. Another point we discussed was the process of supply and demand. Presently, the United States are going through a mortgage crisis. Lack of demand, created by unmanageable debt, has brought the prices of homes to a new high. As well, the internet has become a massive community where individuals often provide their time for free. Collectively, they ask questions and find answers efficiently. Each user is part of a niche that has its own expertise. The open source community is one of the most prominent examples where everyone contributes to its expansion. They exchange time as a commodity and benefit from the outcome of the project. Marx theorises that money is the curtain hiding the process of creation of the item and the destruction of competition by multinational corporations. This may be one of the reasons for outsourcing and unfair labour.

Considering the current north-american situation, where people believe that constantly acquiring new posession will satisfy their constantly growing needs, is the proposed model well-structured to the point of solving capitalist issues?

Medium is the message. / "Encoding & Decoding*." (Eric, Chris and Audrey)

In McLuhan’s study on media communication, he proposes the idea that the medium is the message, therefore the message does not transmit as much information than the medium itself… everything depends and is referring to the medium. The author underlines the important role of media, were as the reception and the perception of the message could be completely changed by the medium and the respond modified not by the content (message) but certainly but the medium, because the content of a medium is always another medium. In the second reading, "Encoding/Decoding", the author Stuart Hall explains there are mixed messages. You have the medium and the message where the meaning of the message, to Hall, resides between the "producer" and the "reader". Even though the "encoding" part is done by the producer (he encodes it into a way that he himself perceives something), then the reader "decodes" the author's message into a different message. The communication process is built on a structure (production, distribution, consumption, distribution and reproduction) that describe the progression of the message into society based on cultural dominant signs that have to lay on a certain degree of reciprocity when encoded. When the decoder reads the message the in the way the producer intended people to, then the producer's been successful in transmitting the message. If the decoder doesn't however, if there is a "misunderstanding", then Hall states that it results from a "lack of equivalence" between the producer and the decoder.

According to McLuhan the media can change the whole communication process of the message, this idea is completely true but disagree on a point, were as we think the message is more important than the medium itself, the statement is the main source of reflection, not the medium… yes of course it has a strong influence on the message but it is not the essence of it all. One could say that media distort the essence of the message but I would say that, knowing what we know now about the communication world, transmitters must be, and most certainly are aware of that and they will play on the way the receptor will perceive the message to get the right perception. It is a complete industry of money making, therefore we as decoder stand in a place were we do not have any power on the encoding… we are in the process and as a mass like Hall says, live in universal unconsciousness and a world of universal symbols.

Question :

Response to McLuhan and Hall by Group 6 (Kevin, Duy, Ben, Scott)

Summary:

The typical definition is that medium delivers or communicates the message. Marshall McLuhan argues that the medium itself is the message and this message is the scale of change or pace or pattern that that medium introduces to the human affairs. The characteristic of all media is that the content of any medium is always another medium. In the second reading, Stewart Hall said that encoding and decoding are related to each other, and the two are determinate moments with the communicative process as a whole. His argument is that the sender takes the receiver into account when he encodes the message. Signs are employed in encoding, and could be decoded in many different ways. Analysis of the message in the decoding process makes use of denotation and connotation, as well as dominant, professional, negotiated, or oppositional codes.

Discussion:

According to Marshall McLuhan's notion that the content of any medium is always another medium, it is interesting that our actual process of thought itself is a medium, probably the absolute and eventual one. McLuhan also talks about the electric media which had a lot in common with the internet even though he wrote this essay in 1964. Marshall McLuhan is of the opinion that only the serious artist is capable of 'encountering technology with impunity'�; however, he is mistaken, as serious artists are not the only experts aware of the changes in sense perception. Part of development of technology involves understanding these changes. Study of the effects on the population also involves this understanding. Many professions deal with these. The combination of denotation and connotation creates a better understanding of the message being conveyed. Denotation works on the basics of the message and connotation is mainly to enrich and define more clearly the essence of an idea. Stuart Hall's mention of the near-universal signs which are interpreted similarly by many people in a similar way could be compared to Carl Jung's idea of the universal unconsciousness and universal symbols; the virtual unconscious interpretations of symbols may be due to preprogrammed rules.

Question:

How does sensory input play a role in interpreting signs / symbols?

Response to the McLuhan and Hall readings -- by Angela and Matthieu

In the McLuhan reading, what is examined is not the content of any given message, but the form of the content -- the medium. He uses the electric light as an example of a medium that has no content, or no message. He argues that the electric light is a "message of electric power in industry". He also argues that media determine the scale of the patterns of human interactions, referring to their properties of time and space. Finally, he also posits that the effects of technology do not occur at the level of opinions and concepts, but patterns of perception. Media is an extension of our human senses, which explains why artists, highly-tuned to sense perception, are well-conditioned to issues of technology. He uses the example of De Toqueville as having understood the effect of print and typography. In Hall's "Encoding/Decoding", the author describes communication as a complex structure in dominance, a process consisting of linked but distinctive moments -- production, circulation, distribution, consumption, and consequently reproduction, analogous to Marxist commodity production. This process has a set of social production relations which he refers to as media apparatuses. In the translation of stages in the process, there exists misunderstanding as a result of asymmetry in the encoding and decoding moments. Finally, he talks about 'naturalized codes' that demonstrate the degree of habituation when encoding and decoding are equivalent.

In our discussion, we agreed that the McLuhan excerpt discusses the medium and how technology shapes society. Hall is more concerned with content and meaning, and how a message flows through a process. This process affects the content, as the sometimes asymmetrical encoding and decoding processes exemplify. We discussed the following quote from the McLuhan reading: "For a society configured by reliance on a few commodities accepts them as a social bond quite as much as the metropolis does the press. Cotton and oil, like radio and TV, become "fixed charges" on the entire psychic life of the community." We found this interesting when approaching Hall's writings, because we found Hall's argument ("no intelligible discourse without the operation of a code" and "lack of equivalence" in the communication process of production/consumption") to be more revelatory of the way media operate. We found "entire psychic life of a community" to be too broad. It makes no mention of "dominant/negotiated/oppositional meanings and codes", which in our view is a better approach to understanding the "social bond" McLuhan alludes to, since media varies so much today. "Charges" these media may be, but in reality (at least in our opinion) they are not necessarily fixed because of the encoding/decoding, as opposed to commodities like oil and cotton. Finally, we discovered an interesting difference between the two readings: the first (McLuhan) was published in 1964, while Hall's was published in 2000. Could this perhaps shed light on why McLuhan's ideas are less developed in relation to the encoding/decoding process? We think so.

We arrived at the following question. Between the analyses of McLuhan and Hall, which one carries a greater impact/effect/consequence for our societies? In other words, should we give agency to the technological aspect (McLuhan, the medium is the message) or to the process of production/consumption and variable encoding/decoding (Hall)? Perhaps both approaches have some merit?

dude, the medium is the message, far out - Alexis, Ramy, Sean

In the first reading, the media is the message, Marchall McLuhan attempts to distinguish the communicative properties of message and medium. He discovers that that the content of any medium is just another medium.This portrays meaning as greatly attributed to the medium itself, instead of the message. As a result, our values become a of function of the mediums we use to communicate and not much else.

The reading from Stewart Hall's Encoding Decoding explores the processes of meaning through mediums. Hall explains the process a message being distributed throughout a network and how the message must be encoded/decoded between nodes to be communicated effectively.

Our group was strongly in disagreement with the first text. His arguments were essentially founded on the basis he was trying to establish. "For the message of any medium or technology is the change of scale or pace or pattern that it introduces into human affairs." So in essence, the meaning of technology is in the measurable change to human behavior. However, one can argue that technology has the ability to create new behaviors and not just augment pre existing ones. Although the Internet made it possible to communicate quickly (communication the operand that became more efficient with technology), does this in itself not initiate a change in values? Would this change of values not effectively create new behavior patterns that one could argue were not derivative of pre-existing ones? As hard an argument to maintain, (the difference between pre-existing behaviors vs new ones) its important to address such issues when talking about them at all. For not addressing this issue McLuhan created a lot of confusion.

The second text talks about the interpretation of meaningful discourse and defends his point that it is not an individual event. We find this idea full of holes as he then tries to present different code sets that a person may use when they are "reading" a message. The text used the televisual process as an example when we believe he couldn't have picked a worse example to transmit his argument. His ideal of a perfectly transparent communication can not be achieved and we find that he is simply attempting to explain why by referring to different codes an individual may be working under instead of understanding the process of individual interpretation. He goes on even to say that "there will always be private, individual, variant readings". Constantly throughout the text the author seems to undo his own argument. The Systematically distorted communication the author mentions is inherently part of interpretation and will always be present just as when he talks about language not having a "degree zero" and that it's representation of reality will always be skewed to a degree. He hints at the structure of a system when he says that reality exists outside language, but it is constantly mediated by and through language

What Is A Medium: JS, Morgan, Nicolas, Peter

The Medium is the Message, by Marshall McLuhan, addresses issues such as the extension of senses by technology and sensory perceptions bias (ex.: narcissism in relation with media). He also talks about linearity an continuity in literature versus new media. Ultimately, the text serves to demonstrate that the properties of media themselves are more important than the content that they disseminate. The second reading, Encoding/Decoding, by Stewart Hall, looks at the dynamics of broadcast television; how broadcasters cannot ensure uniform interpretation (decoding), so encode content, defining only a parameter-space in which the audience can decode. The distinction between the terms ‘denotation’ and ‘connotation’ is reduced to its analytic aspect, and the idea of transformable connotations is applied to the different positions that codes can be operated from. These positions of interpretation can be taken during decoding ‘moments’ and classified into three different modes: ‘domination’, ‘negotiation’ and ‘opposition’.

As both texts relate to ‘the medium’, it is correct to point out that the second text (Encoding/Decoding) exists inside McLuhan’s idea that the ‘medium is the message’, the common agreement being that the content is unimportant in the analysis of media. Hall specifically address the structure of the processes used to circulate content (the medium), and how communication is assured by particular ‘moments’, which all together create a medium. In Hall's context, the content does not matter as much as the medium itself, and can shift in meaning depending on the point of view (code) adopted. Viewpoints (codes), of a limited number, have been defined in literature or by hegemonic structures, but from a private look at media, when everything can be criticized, analyzed and interpreted without the need of a common agreement, the truth is variable. However, aside from Hall's implicit agreement with McLuhan's central argument, we were unable to draw any parallels between the texts. We concluded that "Encoding/Decoding" was like a microscope taken to "The Medium is the Message", explicating the media-dynamics that McLuhan glosses over.

On page 15, McLuhan writes, "'Rational,' of course, has for the West long meant 'uniform and continuous and sequential.' In other words, we have confused reason with literacy, and rationalism with a single technology." Does this imply that new-media is bringing the West closer to a "total inclusive field of resonance"?
"In [Western] philosophy, rationality and reason are the key methods used to analyse the data gathered through systematically gathered observations. In economics, sociology, and political science, a decision or situation is often called rational if it is in some sense optimal, and individuals or organizations are often called rational if they tend to act somehow optimally in pursuit of their goals." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality)
Will the 'philosophical' definition of "rational" phase out to be replaced by its (social sciences [and also artificial intelligence]) alternative, paving the way for the acceptance of (post-modern) modes of self-contradictory thought?

Group Response to “The Medium Is the Message” and “Encoding/Decoding” (Natalia, Martin, Fernando, Mike)

McLuhan’s goal in “The Medium Is the Message” is to redirect the focus of analysis from content towards the medium. He suggests that social and personal consequences of any new technology can only be understood by looking at the media that is created, whereas viewing the content does not pay adequate attention to the significant changes that are brought about as a result. McLuhan only focuses on content as intertwined with the medium, but does not go into the details of how the resulting message is coded to be understood by the audience. Stuart Hall, on the other hand, in his essay “Encoding/Decoding”, pays great attention to the process through which events become messages that are then encoded and decoded by the audience. He emphasizes that meanings are not naturally constructed, but are a result of a social order in which they are created and understood.

Looking at McLuhan’s argument through the framework of Stuart Hall, we can see how the process of encoding/decoding is also present in the ways that McLuhan sees the medium. While he does not approach his argument from a semiotic perspective, it is interesting to explore how Hall’s concepts can be applied to the formation of codes that are created by the “medium” as opposed to the content, which is Hall’s main focus in the article.

If, according to McLuhan, new media in itself can change society, then how is the process of encoding/decoding (which, in Hall’s view, is linked to the social order in which it takes place), altered by these changes, and how can the symmetry between “encoder – producer” and “decoder – receiver” be maintained if the medium keeps changing at such a rapid pace?

"The Medium is the Message", "Encoding/Decoding" Chris, John and Tomer

The main idea of "The Medium is the Message" is a reminder to the reader, that although we are a culture accustumed to dividing all things, the medium and the message are not to be divided for they are interchangebe. It is not a question of "cause and effect", but more the precense of duality between them, and Mc Luhan asks that we percieve the message and the media through which it is delivered as a complete whole.
Stuart Hall's "Encoding/Decoding" is about the processe that goes from the moment an idea is conceptualized, through the medium of distributing said idea, to the moment that idea is recieved by the public and interpreted. Hall describes this process as a series of codes. Coding the idea to a medium is "encoding", and the deciphering of that idea by the viewer is "decoding"

What we learn from the excerpt "The Medium is the Message", is that the “content” of any medium is always another medium, while the message of any medium is usually affected and altered by humans with regard to scale, pace, or pattern.
It is ignorent to ignore the medium and only view the underlying "message", because the medium is not only integral for the true understanding of the message of the whole, it sometimes affects the message and changes the way it is percieved, outright. Disregard the medium and you may lose sight of the true message.
Problematic in this view, in our opinion, is that if you always look the medium as part of the message you risk losing the message, as intended by the creater. If you are biased to a certain form of media (books, internet, cinema), you risk missing the underlying message when you engage a medium which you are not that familiar with or comfortable around. In our opinion sometimes the message is the message and the medium is just an excuse for conveying that message. If the message is truthfull it shoudn't matter if it is conveyed through a youtube video or a stone tablet.
Hall has a different set of views in "Encoding/Decoding". Although not oposing the ideas brought forward by Mc Luhan, Hall puts less of an emphesise on the medium itself and more on the underlying message. His article is about coding the message in a way that will be understood (decoded), in the desired way by the viewer.
Hall talks about the fact that the same symbol can mean different things to different people, depending on culture, upbringing or even the level of deepness you are looking for in the symbol. As in his example of the "sweater" which can mean a warm garmet or, the coming of winter.

In today’s culture where we use any medium , mostly to gain control of the message at all cost, it is at times confusing to know how to interpret certain things.
Our question from these two articles is:
In a world of ever evolving mediums and technologies, signs and symbols, do we not risk losing the underlying message entirely, as the medium acquires more and more subsatnce over the message?

Marshall Mc Luhan "The Medium is the Message"and Stuart Hall "Encode/Decode" - Charlotte, Jos, Charles-Antoine

In « The Medium is the Message », an excerpt from Understanding Media, Marshall Mc Luhan emphasizes on the importance of the medium in understanding its content.
Content, without any reference to it's medium is an [idea] that can be interpreted on many levels, as explained by Stuart Hall. Understanding the nature and origin of a medium aids in decoding [the dominant code]. In other words, the message is the medium because a message cannot be 'perfectly transparent' (in relation to the dominant hegemonic point of view) if we don't consider the medium in the analysis of the discourse.

Media is the vehicle by which we express our thoughts, or the initial « content ». Because Mc Luhan emphasizes the importance of the medium as being the message it could then be said that he's in agreement with Hall on the level of « subjective capacity ». Having subjective capacity enables people to decode messages perhaps more clearly; in order to do so, one must consider this in formulating any assumptions.
It could also be argued that someone without such subjective capacities might not be able to decode messages in the way they were intended, therefore such individuals could then fall in to the category , as described in Mc Luhan's article (the criminal). Without subjective capacity, one may be in danger of being assimilated by dominant, hegemonic manpulation.

Is it possible for technology to blur the line between medium and content? If so, to what extent?

The Medium is the Message - Encoding/Decoding - Yinyin, Samantha, Manuela, John

In The Medium is the Message, the idea of a medium combined with another is brought up numerous times. But is it beneficial for humanity to have to constantly create new mediums in order to adapt to new situations? Our non-stop dependence on technology has weakened our senses and forced us into the following direction: "Every extension of mankind, especially technological extensions, has the effect of amputating or modifying some other extension." (http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/mcluhan.html) With each new invention or alteration to our environment, another is evoked. New media not only changes our culture but how we think and perceive things. Not all inventions are good, and some have the power to silently alter our thoughts, perception and senses over time, which is not always positive for us. It has become obvious that the inability to see the good or bad side of a medium is "the true Narcissus style of one hypnotized by the amputation and extension of his own being in a new technical form" as McLuhan put it. Encoding / Decoding covers the notion of creating a message, sending the message and the process of decoding and understanding the message through television broadcasting. When the message is finally comprehended the viewer completely agrees with what is presented, agrees partially or is absolutely opposed to it.

McLuhan’s takes on medium and message raises obvious issues in today’s world. Not only is he suggesting that we must not linger on the evident content of a message, he is also stating that we must be aware of the medium. The latter can become a strong system to induce certain ideas into a person’s thoughts and way of life. For instance, in the case of a news broadcast that displays neutral facts, its content is merely informational, yet the whole medium of the television or radio is meant to cause a change of state within its viewer: such things as instigating fear or patriotism within people are quite easy to accomplish in the way they are transmitted. Hall’s theory comes into play when we realize the accuracy of the encoding of those trying to persuade us to hear their message. Those trying to persuade us into adopting their point of view know of ways to manipulate our thoughts at will. A medium is a powerful vessel which turns dangerous if used in the wrong way. McLuhan’s criticism of General Sarnoff’s theory of extensions being good or bad depending on their uses sounds irrelevant if we take into account that some things are truly evil because they possess an evil facet. The risk outweighs the benefits.

Considering the impact that our new technological "extensions" have on us, is it too late to relinquish their hold - and that of those who control the media - on us?

Response to McLuhan & Hall : Alex, Alexina, Emmanuel

Marshall McLuhan explains that it is impossible to transmit a message without a medium. A video clip is itself a medium, but it can be transmitted through different media such as the television, where the mind will be less involved, or the computer monitor, which tends to be an area where, because we choose what we will view, we become more involved. This variation of perception is an inevitable byproduct of media since they are an extension of our senses. It is essential for creators of "content" to choose their medium and encode their message carefully so that it is not misunderstood. Stuart Hall's take is that readers/listeners/viewers may adopt different stances when trying to understand a text/movie/etc. Some might understand the message (a word, even) implicitly because their social situation is close to that of the creator. Others might negotiate the message in a slightly different way because their social situation is slightly different, and others might understand the message completely differently because of a totally different social situation (i.e. rich vs. poor). A meaning, or message, is not individual. That is why pictograms, or international codes, must be designed carefully so that a greater number of people can decode them. Certain other codes may be interpreted in a way that is more natural for humans, like learning to walk. That is to say that the meaning of this message possesses a clear symbolism.

Although some may say that the interpretation of the message embodied within a film versus a book is dramatically different, we believe that this is mostly not the case. It is possible to extract specific scenes from movies while maintaining their integral idea. The same is applicable for books. Contrarily, some books and films become more of a personal experience, suggesting that the reader should not takes pieces of these works independently for fear of distorting the creator's intention. It is important not to neglect that the medium dictates what it contains. The viewer of a television program is also its source because her or his perception and interpretation becomes part of decisions made by the producer before outputting or "encoding" his creation. A newspaper's article is a medium in and of itself; what completes it (an image, for example) is a medium which becomes another medium when incorporated in conjunction with written word. In addition, the gun was created in the first place for feeding needs; the Internet was created for military needs... Do we still use them in the same way? We can therefore say that the creation of media is independent of intention. It solely depends on its use. Another equally important point that we wish to raise is the concept of chronology regarding mechanization came before the machine, or vice versa. Our take is that mechanization and the machine are two completely different things. Such as in relation to the movie La Jetée: events are separate as they occure in completely different times. Events pass and they can never be retransmitted in their original form. Take, for example, the photo of 9/11 presented in class: we cannot feel the same emotions as those who lived through the horrendous event.

What is the extent at which it is possible to manipulate the medium so that the latter is able to transmit the intended message?

L'Allégorie de la caverne

(Julien St-Yves, Jean-Francois Duval, Jonathan Desjardins)

Le savoir est un long fleuve dont les berges semblent souvent indistinctes et inchangeantes. C'est le processus de l'apprentissage et de la détermination qui en délimitent les contours.

Ces contours sont propres a chaque parcours et a chaque expérience. Chez Platon, le fleuve est une caverne. Avec les nouveaux médias, c'est une nouvelle caverne que l'on habite. Avec ses lumières et ses zones d'ombre.

Ceux qui en sortent, continuent a projeter ces ombres qui trompent le peuple. Nous ne partageons pas l'utopie de Platon et ne croyons pas aux "Lumières" des nouveaux médias. Seulement c'est une nouvelle réalité qui s'offre a nous.

Plato Allegory of the Cave by Chris, Eric & Audrey

The “Allegory of the Cave” by Plato represents a comprehensive metaphor comparing the different ways in which normal human beings believe, perceive and acknowledge the true meaning of reality.

The reading begins with a description of the surroundings: a dim cave sets the location where a group of prisoners, chained in such a way that they cannot move their legs and necks, stare at one of the opposing walls inside the cave. One of the very few light sources, a small fire, casts shadows on the wall. Having always been in the cave, the prisoners imagine that both the shadows they see and the echoed voices they hear are real. One day, one of the prisoners escapes through his chains and is set free. As he makes his way to the cave’s entrance, the secrets of the puppeteer shadows are revealed to him and he is guided towards the sunlight, which immediately blinds his eyes. Now knowing the truth, he re-enters the cave to tell the other prisoners about his newly discovered facts of reality.

Like most things in philosophy, Plato’s allegory can be interpreted many different ways. It claims that all human beings live their lives ‘unenlightened’, and no one really sees what life is truly about. The puppeteers casting these shadows represent the individuals whom make us look at the world the way we do. The shadows, however, can be any possible source of information: a parent teaching morals to their child or, better yet, more recently, televisions, radios or any other form of informational media. Similar to when the prisoner finds the ‘true reality’, we as people have a tendency to want to expand this truth. When we do, however, we are looked down upon by others for not having the same perception and are told to be fictitious.

As mentioned on p.5, Plato claims there are two different types of visions: the “mind’s eye” and the “bodily eye”. The prisoners, when in the cave, solely use the bodily eye. It relies on the way human beings feel and perceive the world in order to determine the meaning of reality. It tells them that the world they live in (the cave, being a physical world filled with defective and imperceptive images) is real because their feelings force them to think so. The mind’s eye symbolizes a superior level of thinking, like that of a philosopher’s. In the allegory, this ‘eye’ is obtained when the prisoner exits the so called distorted world, which he thinks is reality, and steps out into the sunlight, and sees the true reality.

Plato’s allegory remains a philosophical reading that, after two thousand years of being written, continues to be discussed. There are infinitely many interpretations that can relate to the subject matter of what is ‘real’ or not. Expanding on this distorted reality, how can a ‘false reality’ be managed in order for human beings to accurately communicate their understanding of things?

Response to "Plato" by Matthieu, group Unknown

NB: I don't know my group yet, so here is an individual submission.

In summary, Plato's Allegory of the Cave is a transcript of dialogue in which the two speakers work together to explore how "our nature is enlightened or unenlightened". Essentially, the allegory of the cave serves as the backdrop for explaining the process of enlightenment. Insofar as the idea of the "State" is concerned, the conclusion reached is that those enlightened enough to have sought the sunlight must be made to return to the cave of shadows and imitations, to act as guardians and administrators. Virtue and wisdom is the "blessings of life", not "silver and gold".

The conversation I had with myself focused on why we were reading Plato. I am already familiar with Plato and the allegory of the cave, and I'm sure most students are, and I think we're likely taking in more than just the philosophical content. For this is a text that is over 2000 years old, and yet here we are reading it in our homes in PDF format over the web, after a few clicks. I find that remarkable in itself. The style of the writing is unlike much of what we read today, but with a little effort its message is deconstructed and understood. To say this has survived the test of time might be an understatement, and (disclaimer) I'm not fully aware of its history, but it seems to me that we ought to pay special attention to such refined texts.

Consequently, 2 questions came out of the reading. They are, Why aren't our modern-day democracies more mindful of older bodies of knowledge, and, What does the survival of this text say about the modern-day media and our access to it?

Plato's "The Cave": Peter, Morgan, JS, Nicolas

In Plato's Allegory of the Cave, prisoners are chained so that they can only gaze directly forward, towards a cave wall. Behind them puppeteers parade all sorts of objects in front of a great fire which casts shadows of these objects against the wall. Since the prisoners have been confined since childhood these shadows are all they know of reality. If a prisoner were to be freed and shown the exit to the cave he would experience a world of light, colour, and truth, though it would be painful and perplexing. After becoming accustomed to the upper world he might return and attempt to compete with the shadow-gazers, but his eyes not yet adjusted to the darkness, he would fail and seem ridiculous. The allegory serves to illustrate that enlightenment that can be achieved by seeking absolute truth.

(While "The Cave" occurs within the context of The Republic, which outlines Plato's plan for the most just society possible, we elected to, instead, interpret the allegory in the context of this class: the study of media, with "media" standing for 'the electronic media conglomerate'.)

It is tempting to relate 'the media' to the role of the puppeteers who use vision and sound to deceive the populace. This however cannot be the case since who is the more deluded, a hermit who lives without any form of media and knows nothing of the many discoveries and events happening across the planet (the non-prisoner) or someone who is connected to the internet, watches TV and/or listens to the radio (the prisoner)? It is true that the media can be deceiving, often manipulated to support one's agenda, like the puppeteers casting their shadows, but it can also serve as an extension of the senses, allowing knowledge from across the globe to reach the individual. We therefore conclude that the enlightened human must remain skeptical and take an analytical stance towards all things, especially the often deceptive media, which should be questioned and debated. The prisoner in the cave is now the passive consumer soaking in front of their TV set, where as he who has chosen to ascend into the light is the active consumer, breaking down what he absorbs analytically. In a way, the media today, faster and more far-reaching than ever before, has strengthened our chains yet given us a key.

We are left with the question: is it necessary or desirable for a society to have its general populace kept deceived yet content so that it can be controlled (Brave New World)?

Response to Plato by Alexis, Ramy, and Sean

Plato's allegory of the cave is the discussion to Glaucon about the quest for truth, how seeking knowledge away from the “cave” will help you see and understand the truth and that it is one's responsibility to come back from that position of enlightenment, to come back to the cave, no matter how reluctant they may be, in order to tell others of their false reality. The discussion goes on to tell about the retaliation that is to be expected from those who dwell the cave when telling their entire perception of reality is mere illusion and that there lies a greater truth. A truth beyond the world sight. And finally, how it is those who come back from a world of knowledge who must lead the people of shadows as politicians instead of those who have fallen in love with themselves and consequentially only fight for themselves and between themselves.

Critical points of discussion were the reception of a new truth and how dwellers of the cave were supposed to react to those coming back and tell them about a new reality. Obviously, when believing in something, it is difficult to let go of that belief once it has been sufficiently established. We looked at the case where someone who had left the cave and acquired much knowledge but did not come back down. How those people, knowing what they do, would have no excuse to act as they do, for it is the responsibility of everyone who seeks knowledge to share it and get rid of a class division and contribute to the collective good. By not coming back down it creates a higher class, probably a selfish and manipulating one.

Questions that have come up were: How are we supposed to act rationally when people constantly question out ability to do so in the first place? do we not just end up acting unreasonably because we are simply skeptic of the truth? How are we supposed to make a difference between what one person tells us is the truth and what another tells us? There is also a talk about knowledge and how it can not be taught, “like sight into blind eyes” and how the power and capacity of learning is innate in the soul to begin with. He follows his next paragraph and talks about art and how that will effect conversion “but has been turned in the wrong direction, and is looking away from the truth”. What does that say about us? Aren't we all here as students of art? How is it, that all the deepest and profound meaning in our art work that can be extracted isn't pointing in the direction of truth and good? Is there even a distinction? if so, then how do we make it? Finally, what kind of responsibility does that put on us as, I suppose, aspiring artists; How are we now supposed to communicate our knowledge and truth?

Plato Reading: Charles-Antoine, Charlotte, Jos

As our group has understood, Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave” describes two extremes: ignorance and the desire for knowledge and truth. Ignorance is represented by the darkness, with imprisoned men accepting what they see as truth because it is all they know. When one prisoner’s chains are broken and he is led into the light (knowledge), the steps between the opposite states are described. He begins his journey to the light blinded, and then is slowly able to accept visions as truth: from the shadows he knows so well to, finally, the objects which cast them.

It was interesting to read Plato’s differentiation between being blinded because the eyes required time to adjust from coming out of the light, and not seeing because one is dazzled by the light. It was a little confusing, though, when he says that it is better to laugh at the one who is blinded going into the light, but we think he suggests (please excuse this repetition) that it is better to be blinded coming out of the light and back into the dark than to be dazzled by the light because one may become greedy up there, thinking only of one’s own welfare.

Plato explains that once this man has seen the light he must return to those in the darkness, because the objective of the experience is to enhance the wellbeing of not an individual, but of a society as a whole. Therefore, the best political leaders of a society do not seek to stay in the light, to be above the rest, but are those who willingly go back down into the darkness to be with the others in the shadows.

However: Plato does say that it would be evil for such a man to, after having returned to the darkness, force his newfound beliefs upon those who have not seen the light; trying to force the others to understand that the shadows are cast by objects, that they are not the objects themselves would be futile. But to create a better society, is someone who ascends to knowledge dutiful to inform others (without force)? Or does truth and good only exist because they are subjective? And in turn, may we construe that men (as in the text) fight for selfish desires and interpret reality as they see fit, or is reality itself is entirely subjective of one's own experiences?

Another point which confuses us a little is that, if we are wrong to assume that informing others is okay whereas forcing others to believe is evil, and in fact informing is evil as well, how is the society improving as a whole? And who then is responsible for leading the prisoner to enlightenment? We believe that there is a level of willingness to learn (i.e. the first sign of light stings his eyes and yet he keeps walking towards it) but at a certain point it is said that he would be "dragged" up the steps to the light. Is it the prisoner who drags himself him up the steps, out of curiosity? Because if we are wrong about this, it would be a contradiction as there would be no desire to accept the knowledge beckoning to him from above.


We were compelled to ask a few other questions after having read this text:
Is power itself evil? Does the prisoner who has seen the light keep all his knowledge to himself, governing in silence? Does he govern at all? Is it possible to have a political leader if he/she is always held up on a pedestal? And if we put them up there, will they inescapably become greedy, thinking of only themselves? So then, is Plato’s ideal society a socialist one, or even a communist one, where the leaders are all around us; they are ourselves instead of leading better lives than those who remain in the dark? Or is it possible to merge these ideals and have leaders who live the lives of individuals as a part of the populous and still be great?

Response to Plato by Chris, John and Tomer

People can be ill informed of the truth for so long that they start to believe their false reality and even cling to it desperately, for that is all they know. That is what we see In Plato's “ALLEGORY OF THE CAVE". Plato represents his metaphor of the way in which we recognize and believe in what is reality. The theory behind his story is the basic belief that all we know are imperfect “reflections”, which ironically also represent truth and reality. In his story, Plato uses the image of a cave in which prisoners are chained down and forced to look at the front wall of the cave and all that they are able to see are their own shadows. The shadows being the false world that surrounds them, it is all what they see and all that they know.

We are living in a world where the truth is in plain sight but is overshadowed by a false reality that is driven by society, politics and the media. Plato represents that with the shadows the prisoners see. That is all they know and all they believe to be the truth. When one is finally exposed to the truth, it is a big shocking blow to the mind. Discovering all that was once reality is now and always was ruled by deception. He will see that what he has seen is what the true realities are and it goes beyond the shadows that he had been forced to embrace. Later, once educated, the same man will look at a person in his prior state of ignorance, with pity and contempt. All this is kindly summarized in this quote from the matrix:

“Morpheus: The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.”

Our reality is our prison and our perception is what binds us to it. In order for us to strive for our freedom we must amass information. The more information we possess the closer we are to being truly liberated. This is especially relevant to our own time. At this very moment, mankind strives to advance more than ever before, progressing further and further with all the new technologies and space exploration for example. It’s a never ending task; they are determined to go as far and as deep in space as they can. And in the end, is that not what man has dreamt of since first he looked up at the stars?

Now the question that arises from this theory is "Can we ever truly be free from our prisons?” The chapter talks about the notion of "street smarts" making the distinction between that types of intelligence, to classical book smarts to show that not only scholastic knowledge is needed to achieve enlightenment but also the ever evasive honing of human skill, intuition and problem solving techniques acquired through experience.

True enlightenment is not measured in silver and gold but in virtue and wisdom. You are not truly rich until you’ve reached enlightenment, happiness and knowledge.

For those of you who care to watch, I’ve also posted a link to a 9min clip of the last cinematic video from the game metal gear solid 3:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGiNVXst9AU&feature=related

Snake, the hero, is awarded the title of "Big Boss" and given the Distinguished Service Cross for his efforts. Prior to that, he found out that the final part of his long time mentor’s mission was to sacrifice her honor and die at the hands of Snake, under the guise of a traitor, to prove the US's innocence in past events. A little before 5min we see Snake is disgusted by his superiors for double crossing him.

Response to Plato by Jeannie, Alex, Emmanuel and Alexina

Plato's Allegory of the Cave serves as a basis for educating on the unequal knowledge of Man and on our search for improvement. Points of view on the subject will unequivocally be different for everyone, these diverse opinions makes our quest for truth a nearly impossible task, for everything that we say and do is shaped by experience (what we've seen and heard before). Therefore, such a combination of experiences might stimulate doubt. For instance, the theory of evolution over that of creationism, or technological advancement versus a status quo are scenarios where questioning personal values becomes crutial. Other individuals accept things as they are. Most likely caused by fear of the unknown or lack of sufficient knowledge. This leads us back to an unending search for improvement: lose a turn or advance a square?

Following the reading of Plato’s allegory and the film The Net, we established, during our discussion, that the two can be linked: the danger in searching for intellectual advancement is one who doesn't agree with general consensus can be easily manipulated to share identical beliefs as his peers. Plato was often antagonized for his "illuminating" ideas, believing that we must only trust ourselves to find the truth. Not others because that may be construed as brainwashing. He seems to have been against conglomerate evolution. Kaczynski, similarly, was locked into jail for not adhering to a technologically demanding society's idealisms. However, isn't technological evolution responsible for what made us realize that we come from the ape, that while man isn't superior to black man, and that typing is really much faster than writing?

Structure of entries

Dear students,

please keep the suggested structure in mind that we proposed via email: 

1) Summary (1 paragraph), 

2) crucial points of discussion/concerns (1 paragraph), 

3) one question that has emerged in the discussion (this is really interesting and important)

Group Interpreation of Plato Article - Manuela, Yinyin, Samantha, John

Who would have known something that was written so long ago, would still be so relevant in the current media flooded 21st century; Plato, a great Greek philosopher created a timeless piece of writing, which brings to attention the ignorance of society, a society that’s perception on reality is clouded, and the only way to achieve the true vision of reality is through knowledge, which brings us to Plato’s “Allegory Of The Cave.”


In the short chapter from Plato’s Republic one can come to the conclusion that the more knowledge you take in (done with reasonable thinking) the better you can interpret a clearer perception of reality. Plato believed that the only way in becoming more knowledgeable, one had to adopt the theory of logical reasoning and open-mindness in order to comprehend simple reality.

In this chapter few humans live in an illusion version of a utopia, they truly believe in this world because that is all they know. If one were to leave there perfect version of a world and discover the shocking reality of earth (portrayed as a sharp blinding light) they would soon learn that they have been living a lie. Once coming to the notion that it is earth that is reality and not the make believe world one would want to share there findings. Finding out that earth is no utopia at all, one would dismiss the truth with ignorance and continue to live in there “perfect” world and refuse to believe in any other version of earth and will remove someone that they deem a danger to their concept This short exert is much like the world we live in today, our humanity is bombarded with gossip and trashy magazines which can blur our vision of reality. We get so caught up in the glitz and drama of celebrities that we sometimes refuse to believe in the tragedies of humanity.

Response to Plato by Group 6 (Kevin, Duy, Ben, Scott)

Summary:
In Plato’s ‘the allegory of the cave’, a cave full of restrained prisoners is used as a metaphor for those who are not enlightened. The combination of echoes and shadows of the ‘puppets’ are interpreted as actual voices and human figures. The ‘prisoners’ are convinced that these distorted images are the actual entities. The ‘prisoners’ believe in an ‘absolute truth’ which is based on false or incomplete predicates. Later, a ‘prisoner’ is introduced to the ‘light’, which at first is overwhelming and undesirable. The light represents absolute truth. Only those are can gradually become accustomed to the new environment will be able to adapt to the overwhelming knowledge. Afterwards, those who have been exposed to the ‘light’ re-enter the cave to share their knowledge with the ignorant, but they must be careful to not forget the state-of-mind of their brethren in the cave when sharing their knowledge of the ‘light’.

Discussion:
Change is often difficult, as is stressed by this reading, and leaving our comfort zones is no easy venture. The truth may be intimidating and it could be too much for one to handle. The mass-media could be seen as a method of communication similar to the shadows and echoes in Plato’s cave. The mass-media, however, can be imperfect and limited in that it cannot transmit a perfect representation, or the complete essence of any idea or being. How much is lost in translation? The world of sight is especially dominant in our ways of living, thinking, behaving, and interacting with our surroundings. We are constrained by the limits of our senses; what we see, hear, touch, and feel, are insignificant in comparison to our nearly infinitive universe. What we experience is only a small fraction of the truth, a particle of the whole. Much of what we know and learn about the world has been totally or partially filtered and manipulated intentionally or unintentionally by elements such as the minds behind the media and the press, or even by our own cultural and political backgrounds. Unless the truth is continually questioned, and critically sought after, what we know will simply be a shadow of the truth. For example, we can only hear a limited range of frequencies, but with the aid of an oscilloscope, many more can be observed. Another point of discussion was on how those who had entered the light should not be contemptuous but to walk among the ‘prisoners’ still in the dark in order to empathize with their situation. We concluded that not every weary soul would be so eager to keep walking, and in their insecurities so easily forfeit acceptance by their peers.

Question:
From the darkness, are you walking into the light, or simply a larger cave?

Welcome!!!

Hello everyone,

welcome to the CART 255 Blog. please sign up to be able to post and start posting as soon as possible.

Cheers

Christoph