Clark, Andy. Natural Born Cyborgs: Minds, Technologies, and the Future of Human Intelligence. Oxford: New York, 2003.
Clark argues the idea of humans as natural cyborgs. Clark wants to make the point that human beings unlike other animals, have the ability to extend their intelligence and brain power beyond the limits of their skin. Clark suggests that our brains were created in such a way to seek outside intelligence. For example, when dealing with evolution our brains are geared toward collaborating with "external non biological sources of order to better solve the problems of survival and reproduction" (Clark, 5)
Clark's goal in this book is to change the modern concept of cyborgs. The modern idea of cyborg is that of man merging with some sort of electronic circuitry. Clark's goal is to reshape that image "revealing it as a disguised vision of our biological nature." (Clark, 5)
Clark continues to elaborate on his idea by trying to convince the reader to look at technology not as an extension of nature, but look at the brain and its ability to understand technology. The ability for the brain to take in such information does not involve wires or implants but our openness to process.
I think Clark has something going here. I do think there has to be a reason other than the thumb for humans to be so far advanced beyond other animals. The brain as our key to survival makes sense. We clearly are designed differently. Technology is after all only here because of the human mind. We have to go back to Darwin and survival of the fittest. Technology, although it seems inhumane is part of human evolution, those not willing to learn will eventually become obsolete. Like the human appendix they will just sit there not contributing to society and eventually be lost.
Monday, October 8, 2007
Monday, October 1, 2007
The Art and Science of Handwriting
Naomi Baron. The Art and Science of Handwriting
Baron takes us on a journey through the history of handwriting in this essay. Handwriting as a societal issue began with professionals. Doctors, Lawyers and Clergy were the most obvious group of people using handwriting in their trade, the next group was ladies, gentlemen and their secretaries. Baron points out that the third group was most influential in paving the way to our modern understanding of handwriting. Employees in commerce were a widely growing group. New jobs were being created, jobs in which writing was a needed skill. Copy writing was the first method in which these laborers learned the skill. These people were not writing as a means of getting a point across, they were simply copying the works of others. Eventually the practice of copy write became a useful tool in understanding the shapes they were writing. Handwriting then became a method in which to define class. Proper handwriting was not necessarily a sign of upper class status. People with better handwriting were considered lower class. Aristocrats in France in fact created a form of illegible handwriting to separate themselves. It was during this time that handwriting was used to differentiate not only classes but people themselves. Handwriting was used to find prospective spouses, criminals, and employees. Soon after handwriting began to be considered mechanical, this would change it into a science. People did not consider handwriting as a discipline until the mid to late 19th century when Platt Rogers Spencer began "coaching" the science of handwriting through commands and instruction. This was called Spencerian. Later in the century another American eschewed Spencer's method and focused on another style of writing. Norman Palmer focused less on the beauty of the handwriting and more on the eligibility, and usability of the penmanship saying that "no attempt is made to make the penmanship more beautiful than is consistent with utility."1 There is a question as to whether Spencer and Palmer actually improved handwriting.
It is interesting in a essay about the history of handwriting that actual intelligence never comes up. Sure there is mention of social status, but when referring to high social status it is said they had poor handwriting. The argument now is whether handwriting will become obsolete and how that will affect our intelligence. It is my opinion that the discipline behind handwriting can be applied the same way to type. As young children we learn to read and write. I learned denealon, then cursive, I do not use either in my handwriting, I use a combination. I do not think it will hinder us as a people to focus less on penmanship. I do think time needs to be spent learning the shapes of letters. It would be impossible to read without the memory of letter shape. The things we read are most often not written but typed. If I wanted to read ancient scripture I would not look to yellowed parchment; I would look to Google. If each of us has unique handwriting then what is the point in learning one specific style of penmanship, we will never see it on paper the same way twice.
1. From the works of A.N. Palmer sited in-T.P. Thornton. Handwriting in America. (New York: Yale University Press. 1996
Baron takes us on a journey through the history of handwriting in this essay. Handwriting as a societal issue began with professionals. Doctors, Lawyers and Clergy were the most obvious group of people using handwriting in their trade, the next group was ladies, gentlemen and their secretaries. Baron points out that the third group was most influential in paving the way to our modern understanding of handwriting. Employees in commerce were a widely growing group. New jobs were being created, jobs in which writing was a needed skill. Copy writing was the first method in which these laborers learned the skill. These people were not writing as a means of getting a point across, they were simply copying the works of others. Eventually the practice of copy write became a useful tool in understanding the shapes they were writing. Handwriting then became a method in which to define class. Proper handwriting was not necessarily a sign of upper class status. People with better handwriting were considered lower class. Aristocrats in France in fact created a form of illegible handwriting to separate themselves. It was during this time that handwriting was used to differentiate not only classes but people themselves. Handwriting was used to find prospective spouses, criminals, and employees. Soon after handwriting began to be considered mechanical, this would change it into a science. People did not consider handwriting as a discipline until the mid to late 19th century when Platt Rogers Spencer began "coaching" the science of handwriting through commands and instruction. This was called Spencerian. Later in the century another American eschewed Spencer's method and focused on another style of writing. Norman Palmer focused less on the beauty of the handwriting and more on the eligibility, and usability of the penmanship saying that "no attempt is made to make the penmanship more beautiful than is consistent with utility."1 There is a question as to whether Spencer and Palmer actually improved handwriting.
It is interesting in a essay about the history of handwriting that actual intelligence never comes up. Sure there is mention of social status, but when referring to high social status it is said they had poor handwriting. The argument now is whether handwriting will become obsolete and how that will affect our intelligence. It is my opinion that the discipline behind handwriting can be applied the same way to type. As young children we learn to read and write. I learned denealon, then cursive, I do not use either in my handwriting, I use a combination. I do not think it will hinder us as a people to focus less on penmanship. I do think time needs to be spent learning the shapes of letters. It would be impossible to read without the memory of letter shape. The things we read are most often not written but typed. If I wanted to read ancient scripture I would not look to yellowed parchment; I would look to Google. If each of us has unique handwriting then what is the point in learning one specific style of penmanship, we will never see it on paper the same way twice.
1. From the works of A.N. Palmer sited in-T.P. Thornton. Handwriting in America. (New York: Yale University Press. 1996
The First Writing-Machines
Mark Twain. The First Writing-Machines
In this essay Twain discusses being one of the first people to own a typewriter. Twain tells the anecdote of being introduced to the machine for the first time. Twain was fascinated by the woman who could type 57 words per minute on the typewriter. He tells of the typist, she typed 57 words per minute and when that was not proof enough, she did it again, and again. The typist did her work on small slips of paper. When Twain got home with his newly purchased machine he was disappointed to learn that each slip of paper contained the same 57 words. Twain, having felt duped, began his own monotonous task of typing the same sentence over and over again. Twain gained a bit of respect for the woman when, after typing the same sentence so many times, he still only managed 12 words per minute. Twain hired a girl whom he dictated to, she typed faster than he. Twain claims to be, although with admittedly no proof, the first person to "APPLY THE TYPE-MACHINE TO LITERATURE". Written in capital letters of course because that is all the machine was capable of in the beginning. The adventures of Tom Sawyer is the book Twain recalls dictating to his typist. Soon after working on the book Twain decided to give the machine away. Giving the typewriter to a friend proved to be more difficult than he thought. Twain kept getting the machine back, finally getting rid of it by giving to a friend who then traded it in for something else.
Twain is adamant about expressing his unfamiliarity with the typewriter. Twain found it to be a burden. This of course makes sense considering how simple and difficult early typewriters must have been. I could not imagine typing on a typewriter now, especially one with no element of power. In the late 1800s a typewriters, although advanced for the time were very simple compared to what I am typing on now. Here is a picture of what a typewriter from that time looked like. I can't imagine what it weighed!
It is interesting, reading words of such a literary legend that seem so similar to our discussions today. The idea of a typewriter, a machine to do the work of a quill, seemed too difficult for many people, Twain could not give it away. People enjoyed writing, found the technology too much of a task. Today we think of the simple typewriter as obsolete, you could not pay me to write this much on one. Our attitudes toward technology are not new, but we should look to history to remind ourselves, someday we will be trying to imagine life without blogs!
In this essay Twain discusses being one of the first people to own a typewriter. Twain tells the anecdote of being introduced to the machine for the first time. Twain was fascinated by the woman who could type 57 words per minute on the typewriter. He tells of the typist, she typed 57 words per minute and when that was not proof enough, she did it again, and again. The typist did her work on small slips of paper. When Twain got home with his newly purchased machine he was disappointed to learn that each slip of paper contained the same 57 words. Twain, having felt duped, began his own monotonous task of typing the same sentence over and over again. Twain gained a bit of respect for the woman when, after typing the same sentence so many times, he still only managed 12 words per minute. Twain hired a girl whom he dictated to, she typed faster than he. Twain claims to be, although with admittedly no proof, the first person to "APPLY THE TYPE-MACHINE TO LITERATURE". Written in capital letters of course because that is all the machine was capable of in the beginning. The adventures of Tom Sawyer is the book Twain recalls dictating to his typist. Soon after working on the book Twain decided to give the machine away. Giving the typewriter to a friend proved to be more difficult than he thought. Twain kept getting the machine back, finally getting rid of it by giving to a friend who then traded it in for something else.
Twain is adamant about expressing his unfamiliarity with the typewriter. Twain found it to be a burden. This of course makes sense considering how simple and difficult early typewriters must have been. I could not imagine typing on a typewriter now, especially one with no element of power. In the late 1800s a typewriters, although advanced for the time were very simple compared to what I am typing on now. Here is a picture of what a typewriter from that time looked like. I can't imagine what it weighed!
It is interesting, reading words of such a literary legend that seem so similar to our discussions today. The idea of a typewriter, a machine to do the work of a quill, seemed too difficult for many people, Twain could not give it away. People enjoyed writing, found the technology too much of a task. Today we think of the simple typewriter as obsolete, you could not pay me to write this much on one. Our attitudes toward technology are not new, but we should look to history to remind ourselves, someday we will be trying to imagine life without blogs!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)