NO TALKING!!!

To me the exercise was difficult and very frustrating, but at the same time I still had a lot of fun trying to communicate. I would say the hardest part was trying to communicate at lunch. Walking through the hallways was a little easier because the conversations weren’t as complex but to sit down with a hand full of teenagers and try to figure out the weekends plans was not easy. It was easier for me to draw or signal objects or commands but when it came to ideas, places or a place in time or event it was more than difficult. At lunch we were trying to talk about the dance and I tried to bring up homecoming but I could not figure out how to get my friends to understand, we ended up using our friends that could talk to help out by having then guess and we would sign back yes or no which made it a little easier at times. This event works perfectly with Postman’s book on pages six and seven when he says that you “cannot use smoke (signals) to do philosophy”, we could not use pictures or actions to talk ideas and details.

neil postman

In Neil postman’s videos he talks about socertes quoting him saying “ the unexamined life is not worth living and he also quotes Micah on how we should walk humbly with our God. In his book he talks about Galileo and how he believes “ the language of nature is written in mathematics, he meant as a metaphor”  in this he is trying to show that nature doesn’t speak and neither to our minds. Postman uses well know great minds to support his argument that technology is ruining our society and that this is not how life should be that technology id just clustering up our life. He uses Micah, a man from our savers time to show that we should be walking close with God and we know that our way of life stands in the way of this a majority of the time. He uses Galileo to show that it is not our minds or our bodies speaking then selves but that speaking is just a way of communicating, we speak our minds.

In Postman’s book he talk s about how we have mover from the magic of writing or speaking face to face to the magic of technology. In his book he talks about the clock and how this electronic is just an extension of our mind and is used to transform the way we think. In the video he talks about how technology will lead to the ability to clone which will also show a whole new way of thinking.

Language Debate

1.       The first six words in Linda’s article are to make sure the reader knows that whatever she may discuss in the nest few paragraphs she still believes that we should think before we speak. She wants us to know that to be civil to those around you is still important.

2.      Linda used the word bellicose when talking about politics. She said that “bellicose metaphor has been a staple of politics from the beginning. What she means by this is that in politics it seems as if people want to or feel like they have to fight. I believe she chose this word because it clearly states what happens in politics and what she is trying to get across from the essay in a whole. That the words that we use offend people but should we really change how we talk, should that really be considered offensive.

3.      Chavez tries to persuade the reader to believe that we should not change the way we talk write or what we read because someone may become offended, but at the same time we should be respectful and not go around deliberately being rude.  Her best argument is that in changing one work we can alter what the author meant and/or can get in the way of the readers understanding.

4.      I agree with her to a point. Is it right to ask that a word be changed in a great pieces of literature, no but if an ethic group prefers one name over another, respect them.