This week we discussed Claude Shannon and his concerns with how we maintain quality of sound, and that information does not regard the “meaning” of the message as to deliver it more effectively. The latter argument can be supported by redundancy in the English language, which has been gradually degraded in the modern age through texting and social media, shortening English words while conveying the same meaning. Phrases such as l8r, thru, thnx, even tru instead of true (just one letter longer) conveys the same message. This redundancy goes beyond the words but into the grammar of English language. Languages such as Arabic or Spanish are seen a blunt or commanding since a phrase in English will be shortened to convey the message more effectively, for example: In English a phrase may be “May I please have this item from the menu, thank you,” but in another language translate to “Give me *item name*”. It is not impolite, it is simply more effective. As stated earlier in the semester: information and meaning are two different things, and as argued in Monday’s class: information theory is indifferent to meaning.

In the following class we continued the discussion of medium and message, as well as whether or not information wants to be free. We learned that in the early stages of the web browser Berners Lee wanted the internet for sharing information, not to sell things. I wonder how he would feel about the craze of online shopping, as well as the concept of net neutrality. This leads to the question does information want to be free? Since it is only useful when it is shared I do believe information wants to be free. Those who produce information, however, do not want information to be free. Information is always owned, via citation or even cost. We are slowly losing our free access to information via libraries and bookstores. Soon these mediums will be entirely accessible via the internet, further enforcing the social class restriction on the exposure to information.

In the third week of class the primary focus was advancements in technology as a result of modern warfare. Someone mentioned during the discussion was Max Weber who stated that modern life in the Industrial Age had become rationalized. The following question was raised: does technology produce outcomes we expect or prefer? This question relates back to the discussion regarding the degradation of taste amongst the modern era. Are companies such as wonder bread successful since they mass produce a product that is familiar, and consistent? This may be the case since they are producing the outcome we expect and prefer.

The conversation shifted to information management, how it has evolved over time, and how it allows individuals to be tracked. These identifiers can vary, such as fingerprints. This process developed in the US during major global conflict events including World War I, World War II, and the Cold War. Metrics such as uniform size or assigned set of numbers could be used to identify and track soldiers within the conflicts. As this system continued to be used for all US citizens, such as collecting fingerprints at birth and the concept of social security numbers, has it evolved into a stronger system of population management? In the short story “The Enormous Radio,” by John Cheever, the mental stability of a couple begins to unravel when they purchase a new radio which they believe allows them to listen in on the events in other apartments in their building. This story was written as a reflection of the “Red-Scare” era, as the US sought out to mitigate communism, through the Cold War, Vietnam War, and Korean War. It also led to the thorough examination and tracking of American citizens in attempt to “contain” this ideology. Is this gradual intensification of citizen tracking and data management truly with the intention to protect the American people? Or is it another attempt to track populations of “undesirable ideologies”? Relatively recently the current administration suggested the registration of the American Muslim population with the misguided (and, frankly, ignorant) intention to mitigate terrorism within the US. This was met with an uproar considering the core concept of religion is based in a private relationship between God and an individual, and should not be infiltrated by the government. Additionally this contributed to the negative and primarily western association between Islam and terrorist attacks, as well as violating privacy of the individual and their right to freedom of religion.

This modern warfare events also contributed to various other technological developments such as Bell Labs telephone enterprise, the military industry, computing, and various others which have all influenced the ability to manage and organize data.

In the following class we further discussed the Cold War and the Vannevar Bush essay “As We May Think”. While the US and USSR continued to fight for world domination the military-industrial complex continued to develop, as did the increase in information management. This led to not only government price controls but also the initiation of several government funded projects, leading to the development of: rockets, jet engines, sonar, radar, and many more technological advances. Vannevar Bush, who organized the scientific information being produced to help the war efforts, argued that we couldn’t make use of how much information we have because the system by which this info was organized was inefficient. I believe this may still be true, but not because we are ineffectively storing data but because there is too much data to store. Companies and sites such as facebook and instagram track our web history in order to identify which advertisements we would prefer. Devices such as “Alexa” record our daily lives, and these recordings can be legally used. The government has so much easily accessible data about its population through social media alone, is all of this tracked and stored, or just respectfully unmonitored?

This weeks discussion involved a debate regarding the Carr novel entitled “The Shallows,” which argues the overplayed trope that the internet and technology has severely impacted the intellectual quality and capacity of the modern generations. Is he right? Yes! Technology has entirely altered the process of linear thought, damaged our attention spans, and caused the academic of an inability to think for yourself, due to instant access to libraries of knowledge via smart phones and laptops. While many choose to harp on the failure of newer generations due to their dependence on technology, it seems the obvious benefits of this accessibility are ignored. Our society now has the ability to produce educated and well rounded individuals. Instead of focusing on one specialization, students of the modern era are able to learn anything they desire, essentially for free. Anyone can walk into a public library and use the provided computers, or if one so desires, pick up a book which would not be available without modern technology either! What good is memorization if you can’t apply this knowledge or share it?

It was argued that literacy has been the downfall of civilizations, and stated that preliterate cultures where superior. These cultures had the ability to argue, memorize and recite information. The scholars of this time period also were only able to effectively share their information and discoveries through record keeping, which takes us back to literacy. Additionally, most did not believe in any kind of human rights and believed the world was flat. The internalization of knowledge with the assistance of technology has allowed it to be dispersed, creating accessibility to the masses, without discrimination of gender, age, race, or economic class. Does this allow authors to “own” us? Not necessarily but it does allow them to own our intellect, especially since one is legally required to cite them within a paper or presentation. This may be a downside, but once again it allows the masses to be informed in various subjects, rather than what they can discover individually.

The next question that was posed was whether or not history belongs to us. In museums artifacts are preserved in a way that visitors can only view them from behind glass, creating the idea that history is a set of fixed and static moments and that only sacred figures can make change. One could argue that history belongs to no one, since regardless of the narrative there is always an inherit bias, so the truth can not be found. Every version of historical events has been altered and glorified, for example the story of Pocahontas or even just the process of American Westward expansion. The Native American narrative has been completely erased and overshadowed by the glory of America, looming over like how Mount Rushmore’s placement in native lands serves as a constant reminder of the genocide of their ancestors. In American history books, the pioneers are depicted as brave individuals enduring rough terrain and conditions in search of new lands, but the onslaught that followed is frequently forgotten. Do these textbook writers own our perception of history by spreading this false narrative across the country?

The following class was categorized as “philosophy day” as we discussed idealism versus realism. The two are distinguished by seeking or believing in an ideal (typically created by God) and by not believing in an ideal. Realists are not guided by an ideal but are influenced by the play of similarity and difference. It was interesting to see how the class was split, particularly when describing the posed question: why do we like looking at a sunset? As a realist my answer is that regardless of the contents of the day, whether it was wonderful or chaotic, it comes to an end the same way. Also it is just beautiful. Initially I was confused by the concept, conflicted which identity I ascribed to, but I slowly realized that throughout the entirety of my existence I have weighed possibilities, items, meals, and everything else against one another, based on my own personal standard rather than an ideal. I also took several quizzes to solidify my hypothesis, which all confirmed that I am a realist.

The week was filled with the usual niceties, for example “hello my name is professor so and so welcome to my class here’s what your grade is made up of,” and then we were posed with the classic question: does this generation have terrible taste in music? Now anyone below the age of 30 has been asked this or been accused of this. If I could count on my hands how many times my dad or grandfather has said the phrase “you haven’t heard anything like this before” or “they sure don’t make music (or really insert anything) like they used to” then I would be in the Guinness book of World Records for over 1 million fingers. Growing up in a modern, eclectic American household my music taste reflects my upbringing. I listen to everything from American bluegrass (not country, exclusively bluegrass) to Saudi Arabian folk songs to Brazilian pop. My parents CD collection ranges across the globe and as a classically trained vocalist I have certainly heard it all, but it was not until this class did I hear the phrase dynamic range be used in the argument against my generations quality of music.

I believe the phrase used to describe the quality of compressed music with minimal dynamic range was “grotesque impoverishment as the result of industrialization” and a result of “mechanization taking command”. So what do I, as a young person of the modern age, a consumer of modern media, and arguably part of the problem, think about the claims of my professor? I completely agree! Two claims that I identified with are:

-We are lazy (hence the minimal desire to adjust the volume)

And

-Is the best art, art you don’t have to pay attention to?

With the industrial revolution (where it always seems to start) the desire for rapid production consumed our economies, creating mechanical titans which continue to cheaply mass produce, providing American consumers with one less thing to worry about. So said consumer can walk in to a store and pick out anything, from bread to apples to sushi to pie, all without having to exert any laborious effort. Has everything lost its value now that you can buy the same exact footstool as someone else at IKEA? Or purchase tasteless Wonder bread are your local supermarket? Have we achieved the American dream of efficiency or have we entered an era lacking individuality? In my opinion yes and no. We find a mundane, repetitive, consumer reality on the surface but if you are able to seek out exceptions you can find freshly made bread, locally grown apples, undistorted music, and much more. The ability to do so connects to another question raised: is more expected of our generation? The pressure of the 9-5 rat race and the nuclear family is still prevalent in a society where your income is one of the primary factors determining your worth. Due to this stress and demand to focus on work and nothing else for eight hours a day does this leave time for art and music? I would like to pose a few questions of my own: Has music been repurposed? What was once an art form for aesthetic pleasure, much like film or visual art, is now completely versatile. It is used while driving, while working out, while doing homework, as a defense mechanism or barrier, as a sense of status or “coolness level”, to dance to, to enjoy at home, and much more. Is this versatility a reflection of the modern era or is a sign of demise? Additionally, is this accessibility not a benefit of modernity? Once an exclusive art form of those who could afford a record player or radio or tickets to a concert, can now be enjoyed by listeners everywhere, eliminating the income level exclusion (to an extent). I’m not sure the answer to these, hopefully the next class will provide some insight!