Final Paper

Here it is, the moment you all have been waiting for (ha, I crack myself up), my uploaded final paper to my ISSUU account! 

Click the link to enjoy!

http://issuu.com/shanecullian/docs/rlst_final_draft.docx

Wrap Up: Final Thoughts

It's safe the past 10 weeks of Apple, Google, Facebook have challenged my previous ideas as to how religion is evolving into the 21st century through technological advancements. Some ideas that we have touched upon in class have kind of frightened me (regarding the actual worship of the internet, so to speak) whereas others have given me hope for a harmonious relationship between the two concepts in this world (i. e. understanding the advantages both bring to the table in terms of abstract and concrete human ideals about the world we live in). I intend to make this blog short and sweet, as are the majority of my previous rants, but I'd also like to delve into my opinion of the future of religion and the impact technology has on it's fate.

Whether or not you have a pessimistic view on the fate of popular, traditional, religions as this man does here or as Jason Silva seems to think, or you tend to be optimistic given the fact some of these traditional belief systems have endured numerous critiques for thousands of years, it is safe to assume there is will be a meshing of the two worlds as the 21st century progresses. Organized religions will either adapt to the onset of the internet and it's capabilities, such as mormonism and certain catholic youth group movements, or it will disregard the innovative techniques completely like Amish traditions or certain sects of the hasidic Judaism. I would personally like to believe there can be a peaceful transition between the two cultures of modern society. Religion can utilize technology as a way of bringing people together who have previously rejected certain aspects of their faith, like Catholics Come Home, or they can rebel against technology and claim it cannot represent abstract ideas such as faith, hope, and love in the ways humanistic values are represented in religious settings. I'd like to think there's hope (hence the reason I'm writing about Catholicism and it's adaptations to the internet), and that is where I'll end my final blog: I've reached a better understanding of both sides to this argument and feel comfortable believing in the optimistic future we will all take part in.

What's Wrong with Lock-In? Oh I Don't Know...Everything

The idea of "Lock-in" was discussed at length the other day in class and it took a while not only for the idea to sink into my slow-processing thoughts, but to also form an opinion of what Lanier believes to be true about modern society. Lanier defines Lock-in as a definitive, non-transcendental, idea that fits within a rigid set of confines. Very vague, I know. Lanier believes the idea of Lock-in is taking foothold and ruining certain facets of life, specifically how we interact with the internet and the limiting of options we have once engaged within the world wide web. He views social networking sites like Facebook and musical programs such as MIDI as the simplest, most rigid ideas that humans have conceptualized, and instead of innovating and exploring other options of communication/music programming, humanity has become satisfied with the present technologies. Lanier believes Lock-in drives complacency and the inability to utilize options when it comes to technology, which is where I personally think he's wrong.

Lock-in kind of flew over my head in class, granted many concepts do as my learning curve isn't quite up to par with many students, but after some reflection I want to criticize Lanier and his notion that people become complacent with the most simple, most feasible, and most finite of technologies at their disposal. I'd like to point out a major flaw in his argument: innovation. How does Lock-in succeed on the full-scale level that Lanier refers to when the internet/technology in general is constantly being innovated? My view of social networking began when MySpace and AIM chat were the forefront of my high school social life. People quickly became bored with these sites and then progressed to Facebook and Twitter, two sites that I still use today. Evolving (I hate using this term in this context as a biology major) to fit the needs and wants of society is the definition of innovation. And the notion that people have been "Locked-In" with whatever is most simplistic or accessible is just wrong. Why? Because people change, the world changes, needs change, and thus technology must adapt and evolve (urgh) to fit the bill, so to speak. Lock-in isn't simply just a paranoid theory to how people view and utilize technology, it's also unfounded and completely wrong, in my opinion. Never thought I'd see the day when I would use scientific terminology to describe the history of social networking sites....(side note: completely digging the dreads look Lanier has taken a custom to).

HTML Page Creation

Visit my newly created HTML page regarding Google Nest and some privacy issues with it! Literally making the same points as my previous blog, if you're curious...

Here's the link

Follow Up: To Memory

I thought this was a pretty admirable concept made by Facebook for the maintenance of deceased users profiles. Prior to this update, privacy settings locked down a departed user's account for viewing solely by family and close friends. This update in the profile settings creates a montage of photos, posts, and nostalgic memories when someone has passed away. It's a morbid topic i'll admit, but I do admire what Facebook has done in order to properly commemorate those who have used their website, and thus passed on into another world.

Click the link to read more!!

Identity Crisis

After reading the somewhat-pessimistic review of The Social Network and Facebook usage in general, I found myself agreeing with a few of what Zadie Smith likes to call, "nostalgic" views about society's relationship with technology. There are multiple points in the article where I think Smith might be slightly too obsessive with berating the idea of connections made over the internet, but at the heart of her argument, where she discusses the reduction of people via their Facebook page, I found myself nodding my head in agreement.

To me, the whole idea behind the creation of Facebook was to connect with others and share similar ideas about livelihood and to engage in self expression. I would personally like to think that I share who I am on my homepage by posting pictures of my experiences, music to which I love and listen to, and threads/comments with friends that I know outside of the internet. In all, ideally it shows others who you are and your general interests. According to Smith, however, it is a reduction and slighted representation of who you are as a person. It is what you wish to show with others and what you wish to been seen as when friends, family, and acquaintances view your profile. Smith makes an interesting point when discussing Lanier's point of view on social networking:

"there is no perfect computer analogue for what we call a “person.” In life, we all profess to know this, but when we get online it becomes easy to forget. In Facebook, as it is with other online social networks, life is turned into a database"

I had never thought of myself as a database before reading her opinion of how i represent myself on the internet. Sure I post which movies I've seen, what books I've read, and have around 650 "friends". But to reduce myself to this generalization of a profile is where Smith argues that Facebook isn't the connective site that it claims to be. It's a version of myself, a projection that doesn't truly represent who I am, whether or not the rest of the internet recognizes that fact or not. 

Follow Up Week 7

Just a quick follow up to my feelings towards Google's vision of all-accessible information. The link provided explains a recent deal between Google and a company called Nest that produces thermostats. Google's intention is to know when the person or persons are home and thus kick-start the thermostat automatically in order to heat or cool the house. This may not seem like something to get up-in-arms about, but the idea that Google is connected to your house, and could possibly lead to a snowball effect of other items, is slightly disconcerting. This all relates to the idea of privacy and how Google has the potential to eradicate borders between the private and public spheres of society, if it so chooses. I'll try to elaborate on this topic in the upcoming HTML assignment, but overall the invasion-of-privacy theme is something that I cannot easily erase from my head.

http://gigaom.com/2014/01/13/when-google-closes-the-nest-deal-privacy-issues-for-the-internet-of-things-will-hit-the-big-time/

Ten Things We Know to Be True #7:

Ten Things We Know to Be True #7:

http://www.google.com/about/company/philosophy/

There's Always More Information Out There

Expanding on some notions discussed last week in class, it is one of Google's missions to make all possible forms of information and data accessible to any user, at anytime, at any place, in any language within the world. Ideally, they would like to see a categorized network of information that is accessible through their always-expanding search engine because, in their eyes it is better to know everything than be ignorant.

This has its perks and it's downfalls, obviously.

I'm not sure whether to categorize my opinions on technology as optimistic or pessimistic in terms of viewpoints, but this notion takes the cake for me. Personally, I don't think I'd feel comfortable living in a world where everyone has access to everything, meaning any piece of information about someone at any given time. Sure, this would lead to an enhancement of community as hinted in today's Facebook commercial, given the fact your friends, your family, people you don't even know, would have access to everything about your personal life. Yes, people you don't even know. That's the part where the rainbows dissipate and the clouds clear. The idea that my private life, as Bellah puts it, could be compromised with the click of a mouse scares (pardon my French) the living shit out of me. There are just some things in this world that people do not need to have access to, whether it be private or public affairs. The idealism rings true to me, and deep down I wish I could trust any person with this sort of power. But frankly I haven't reached that point yet, and I'm not sure if I will.

Comparing leadership: Jobs and Brin

What's in a leader?

Given the two highlighting examples we have read about in class, it seems there is a dichotomy when it comes to defining the quintessential leader of an innovative, technologically advanced company. On one hand, you have a man of many colors. Steve Jobs has been described as merciless, authoritative, scheming, and outwardly mean by numerous critics as well as coworkers. On the other side, you have the co-founder of Google, Sergey Brin. From what I've gathered while reading Douglas Edwards's account, Brin at times seems autonomous, composed, and encouraging rather than berating.

How can two seemingly different men place themselves at the same level of innovation and overall genius?

The answer is simple, they share the unique qualities of passion and intensity that you don't see in the average man or woman. They share the will to push people, understanding what's probable and what's impossible. They share the idea that knowledge and technology are not only extensions of the self, but help define who we are in an ever-changing world. They realize that as humanity becomes more and more technologically dependent, there needs to be a handful of leaders that are willing to take risks to ensure we advance as a society, hand in hand with the self and extensions of the self. It is through the leadership of these innovative companies that the average citizen has the pleasure of curling up with a tablet every night, or to utilize a search engine at any waking moment of the day. Regardless of the startling differences between Brin and Jobs, it is the will and passion they share for innovation that defines them as the quintessential leaders of our time.

Follow Up: Medium is the Message

Shane Rant 101:

I really hadn't intended on ending this week's series of blogs with a follow-up in the form of a rant, but I feel like I need to get a couple feelings out of the way. This follow-up is regarding technology (one of the two themes of this class) and it also regards a cynical feeling I have towards a certain form of technology. I am a fan of books. Literally, paper-filled books with hard and soft covers surrounding the exterior. I love the way they feel, the way they smell, the way my roommates look at me when I drive by Barnes & Noble on a Sunday afternoon. Cannot begin to tell you how greatly I appreciate the fact I can pick up a book whenever I wish make a note in it, set it down and ponder for quite some time, and then revert back to reading it when I have the time.

This being said, I view the kindle/books on the iPad as a disgrace. I'm almost positive someone somewhere in the world has voiced their complaints about the inability to connect with literature over a tablet of some nature, but this is my blog, and frankly I need to vent. Referring to my prior blog this evening, I believe technology is effecting the human mind in terms of cognitive abilities. This being said, I believe the kindle/iPad is not doing justice to the books they present and the people they serve from a cognitive standpoint. When I read from a book, I tend to let information and story soak into my mind. I can put it down for a long period of time, flip to a certain page that I wish, and connect in ways that I physically can't with a computer screen. I understand the convenience of being able to carry around a less-bulky form of literature, as well as the being able to carry around multiple books at one time without looking like a wandering merchant in the streets. These seem like reasonable arguments. However I still believe the internal, cognitive, connection is lost somewhere between the physical book and the technology that represents it.

SO folks, if you've read this far tonight, I appreciate you listening to my argument and opinions. Hopefully with a little experience, you can form a few opinions as well about this issue. But for now I'm signing off for the evening, technology in my backpack, book in my hand.

Internet and the Brain: "The Google Effect"

Within the past few years, numerous studies and research has brought the effects of technology on the human psyche at a faster rate than ever. Notions criticizing the internet in particular, which originated in the mid 1990's, are resurfacing due to the stream of research that was conducted over the past decade on citizens of the "tech age". Being a member of this particular generation of internet-communicators, I feel this sort of information is important to the understanding of human reliance and behavior because of computers, cell phones, hi def television, and the internet. After reading a few of these studies , I'm not going to sugar coat my feelings about the effect technology is having on my mind as well as everyone else's: it scares the hell out of me. 

From what I've gathered, it seems many in the scientific community have come to the conclusion that the internet is directly effecting the cognitive abilities of humans. By cognitive abilities I'm specifically referring to memory, a vital aspect of human existence and survival in order for society to progress. The general consensus revolves around the decrease in retention of information. For example, searching for a recipe or instructions online may be beneficiary in the short term (having dinner ready for your family in a jiffy may seem like a win-win), but what are the chances you'll actually remember the basics of that recipe when the time comes to make it again? Researchers claim the short term memory functions are out-managing the long-term functions due to the reliance on a resource that is accessible at any moment of the day. This reliance is what worries me, and with that reasoning I'm going to make a vouch to limit myself to the resources of the internet as of now…….well maybe in 20 minutes from now when I manage to log off of twitter and Facebook….I'll get back to you on that vouch….

---This video gives an "everyday" perspective of how people view the internet and the ways in which it changes our lives…. Enjoy!!---

Reddit and the COmmunity pt. 2

https://voicethread.com/share/5425601/



Above is my link to my presentation on reddit and the integral role they play in the internet community. Enjoy and post feedback!!

Follow Up: The Times They Are a Changin'

Bob Dylan once wrote a song that can hold it's own against the tests of time, given the fact it remarks on exactly that notion: once in a while, the people, thoughts, and times will change. Regarding what was discussed in class this week, I thought it would be appropriate to expand on the ideas of "Sheilaism" and the ever-changing demographics of religion in American society today. The religious community is evolving from the traditional, conservative religious values and belief systems to more radical, liberal ways of thinking about life in the context of spirituality. The topic of Sheilaism was discussed as the primary culture-shock that religion is receiving in society: basically the cherry-picking of values to fit your personal thoughts on a possible afterlife, as well as the meaning of life in general. Notions of choice, self-discovery, and free will come into play when deciding which faith to follow in this day and age.

Bellah describes this phenomenon as a growing concern in society. His interview with a woman (named Sheila), who believes that her personal preferences should dictate her faith, describes his observations of Americans becoming more individualistically-minded rather than understanding the benefit of a community and organized religions. He claims that instead of seeking inward spiritual satisfaction, one should continue to rely on others, based on the ideology of "being in it together" and of dependancy. I tend to agree with the notions he sets forth, being a practicing Catholic, and to some extent I'm taking interest in the shift from traditional forms of belief to more liberal, individualistic forms. Whichever your preference, I recommend reading an article from 2012 that expands on this idea of "Sheilaism". Even though I may not agree with the changes that are occurring in society, I accept the fact that indeed the times are a changin'.

Reddit & Community

The internet today consists of options. Options, options options options……….literally millions of options to how one wishes to view his or her own sources of news, multimedia, entertainment, pop culture, sports, scientific information……..the list goes on. I'm here to recommend one, measly option in this vast web of resources known as reddit. Literally meaning "I read it" or "already read it", the site brings to the forefront the most popular posts, topics, photos, videos and opinions streaming the web via it's users. I use the word popular here for a reason given the fact that reddit users engage in their own civic duties of voting on what they find to be popular or relevant at the time. This group of users form an online community that recognize what is important/funny/entertaining in society, and gives them specific categories or "subreddits" that appeal to each individual user. To expand on how reddit is utilized I have included a little tutorial from youtube:

What I enjoy the most about reddit is the ability to choose what I can view, as well as vote towards what I find relevant in the internet community. Acting as the "front page of the internet", reddit gives me the resources and tools to navigate the wide variety of multimedia sources available at my fingertips, as well as individual power. This approach to deciding which posts should show up on my bulletin board, rather than a newsfeed showing anything and everything, allows me to individualize my search for news, entertainment, and knowledge within the web. It is this ability that I enjoy the most because it has the possibility to connect me with a news-oriented community that is easy to use and encouraging to participate within.

This kid encourages reddit to those who wish to empower their searches. And since it's open to everyone, I suggest you become a user to determine what you wish to view and deem what is important to you!!!

Death of a Dream: Individualism and Success

In a way, the classic play Death of a Salesman exemplifies the concepts of success, the American Dream, and individualistic qualities that make Americans "Americans". I can remember reading Arthur Miller's Magnum opus my sophomore year of high school and thinking "is this really the bleak portrait we paint ourselves when believing in the American Dream?". My answer to that after enrolling in a couple sociology classes at Lawrence: yes. The so-called plan for success in today's society is the concept of pulling one's self up by the bootstraps, engaging in hard and purposeful work, and living the American Dream by rising through the socioeconomic ranks via individualistic qualities and perseverance. Death of a Salesman, and specific studies such as this published in the Washington Post suggest otherwise.

The individualistic qualities shown by Willy and Biff in Death can be directly attributed to Bellah's idea of individualism in America: they are outgoing, proud of their accomplishments, and wish for a better life by way of providing for their family in order to attain happiness and "make it". Both of these characters, however, fail at their goals due to various circumstances involving their practices used to achieve success. Biff initially steals to make it look as if he has accomplished something, and Willy constantly refers back to a nostalgic period of his life, imagining success but never quite tasting the actual experience. The lives of these two characters resonate in today's society because they share the same belief system of modern Americans: success via individuality. "Making it" in today's society doesn't seem any easier than it was 60+ years ago, and surprisingly, the ideology behind this goal has remained the same. 

Follow-Up Week 2

Posted above are two fan concepts of the soon-to-be unveiled Apple Watch, or iWatch according to the rumors. I was personally interested in some of the designs that the common consumer is able to devise based on the everlasting imprint Steve Jobs has had on society. He preached simplicity and the beauty that lies in intimate objects that rely on our intuitive command. The first image screams his sense of style and taste, however (I'm not a tech guy by any stretch of the imagination) I'm not sure how one could possibly fit all of the components into such a fragile-looking accessory. Safe to say it's anyone's guess regarding the look for new Apple products. Here's to building anticipation and speculation!!

Whole Earth and The Self: Becoming One

Although it is hard to read given the size of the text, a certain product within these pages of a previously-issued Whole Earth Catalog is a book entitled Man's Role in Changing the Face of the Earth. Going along with the notion the Whole Earth Catalog gives it's readers (as well as the product description on amazon.com since my eyes can't read the print), Changing the Earth describes how man has become the dominant species on the planet and has harnessed numerous tools in order to complete his conquest. 

How does the concept of altering nature to how man sees fit, as well as the inevitable consequences, relate to "the self" and the understanding of human nature? I interpret the connection as "knowing the world around you (and ultimately shaping it to your image) will bring you closer to knowing your true self". The Whole Earth Catalog gives one the tools to understanding and becoming intimate with the world around you, similar to how the techniques of Zen taught by Suzuki give one the tools to understand how becomes intimate and understanding one's self in nature, for example the bird. Man sees himself in nature and through certain tools, he can access his "inner self" through multiple ways, in this case either altering his surroundings or enlightening himself with deep thinking. It depends on the tools, but the end goal remains the same: understanding and intimacy. 

Death Dynamics: Steve Jobs and Religion

While reading through the text of Steve Jobs' commencement speech at Stanford University, the idea of death and the religious perception of morality spoken through his third "story" enlightened my perception of the broad picture of life. In simplistic terms, Jobs spoke of the fragility of life and the ironic notion that many people seem to fail to understand that their lives are temporary.
No single person understands the fragile aspect that human life holds until we know of someone who has passed, or in Jobs' case, who has limited time left to live. It's an undeniable fact that our bodies will someday become one with the earth once again, however few manage to acknowledge it in their daily lives. We as a race seem to bypass the notion of "dust to dust" with the everyday challenges of life, no matter how bombarding certain religions seem to be with this concept.
This made me think of the religious aspect of humanity and how death/morality is intertwined with the everyday thought process. In Roman Catholicism for example, the image of Christ dying for people's sins, ensuring a pathway to heaven via confession, and the chance of landing in eternal damnation are prominent reminders of the message death brings to the table. Surely these themes, along with every other portrayal of death as a spiritual path to another place, would give people the perspective of dealing with the uncertainty of morality? Right?
To me, this is not the case. Unfortunately, most people need a wake up call to become intimate with the idea of death. Steve Jobs was diagnosed with cancer, which changed his perception on the fragile-ness of life. I've lost quite a few relatives and numerous pets over the course of my life, each instance begged me to understand the morality of all living things. I'm convinced that it is the circumstances and events in one's life that will provoke the idea of death and bring it to the forefront, rather than the sole abstract themes of modern religion present in today's society. Could there be a happy medium? I suppose (being a good Catholic I should say yes). But as of now I'm sticking with my aforementioned opinion.