A topic that came up in today's class with Tian that really interested me is the difference between noise and music.  At the beginning of class, when he performed by standing in silence to show us that in Cage's (I think that was the composer's name?) view, all noise can create music.  This idea was further explored when we sang the raindrop song, a kind of song that can never be repeated exactly as it was sung before.  Both of these examples brought me back to a book from my Politics of Music class. 

 After class on Monday, I started thinking more about whether objectivity is possible in the physical world. The video we watched on Dr. Quantum and how particles react differently when being observed made me wonder if the behavior of the particles mirror the real world. Perhaps the way in which the world as we know it is actually classified by those who control information, despite what the actual fact of the matter is. When we discussed gender earlier in the course, we talked about how classifications are restricting. Perhaps these classifications, like many other classifications we use, actually mirror the views of those who create the classifications, and are subjective rather than objective.

 March 21, 2011

GIST Notes 

Panel feedback, what worked, what didn’t:

more interactive

more dialogue

more time

For Monday:

Come to class ready to speak about collective practices we have not explored together

Speaking for a group as though you are studying this group i.e. an anthropologist or sociologists

How does this group engage with science

Possible groups include: post op transsexuals, doctors without boarders, car makers, scientists studying climate change, emergency responders, first group of hominids to use tools, midwives, etc.

I was really intrigued by the importance a lot of people gave to whether or not the character had died.  I guess I've never really thought about it because, to me, in order for a character to die the story has to die as well.  Because as long as the story exists, so will the character.  Therefore, I was surprised and slightly amused to see how there were so many 'emotional connections' or stories about the character's death. 

One of the things "Generosity" continually makes me think about is how genetics and ethics are becoming so interwoven.  For instance, if a method for introducing a happiness gene (or any kind of gene, really) in to a person was discovered, should every newborn just have that gene?  It's a difficult question, as technology fast approaches the point where we could, theoretically, design our children with traits that were more desirable.  I get the sense that there is something wrong Thassadit.  She has had such a traumatic life, but still maintains that preternatural happiness.  But is that even really happiness?  Without an intimate knowledge of unhappiness, there is no sense of genuine happiness. 

Charlotte inquires whether there is something broken or something really fixed with Thessa during her student conference with Mr. Stone. Stone and Candace initially focus on the first half of Charolette’s inquiry until Thomas Kurton’s article makes a splash and convinces the population that Thessa possesses something incredibly right. After learning about Thessa’s existence and the alleged scientific explanation for her condition, society concluded that they were the ones that needed to be fixed since their brief moments of happiness paled in comparison to Thessa’s euphoria. This notion of fixing the body’s natural state with scientific intervention reminded me of certain elements of Darwinian medicine.

By 5 p.m. on Friday, post as a comment here a description of the culture you will speak "for" during next week's panels:  a group whose lives or work circumstances shaped, or were impacted by, an interesting intra-action of science w/ one of our other three categories: gender, information, or technology. (For a list of possibilities we brainstormed on Monday, see kgould's class notes--thanks, k!) In your post, describe the group for whom you will speak: when did they flourish, where did they flourish, and in what context? Who was their constituency, or audience? Why do they matter?

In an effort to do this before I forget...

For the next panel, the group I want to study is.... LIBRARIANS! Do you all think this works? I'm not sure in exactly which way I should be looking at this, because it is very flexible. The degree for someone wanting to go into the library field is called the MLIS: Master in Library and Information Science, but you can also get an MSLIS: Master of Science in Library and Information Science. Whoa. So that should be both science and information right there, right? But not only that, it's the science of information.

But from there, I could also look at librarians and gender. I'm thinking along the lines of....