Ullman and I

In Come in CQ: The Body on the Wire by Ellen Ullman, Ellen describes her personal experiences with email. Similarly I can relate to the emotional connection she has with her computer and checking her email. There is a sense of satisfaction given when you are connected to another person constantly. I notice that I love to text because it enables me to constantly keep in touch or hold a connection with other friends. It is as if I had an important place in their life and that gives me a "purpose." This craving for satisfaction is something that both Ullman and I share.

Although, I have not fallen in love with a person through email or network connections alone. Ullman's connection through email lead to deeper emotions similar to the character's Kathleen Kelly and Joe Fox in the movie "You've Got Mail." In my opinion, her craving lead to an addiction because she realized she could not let go of Karl. He was a steady constant in her life and she state's that she fell in love with him. I don't think that Ullman was truly in love with Karl. She was in love with the idea of her and Karl but not with him. She had one connection to him. This would not be a solid base for a marriage or even for a real relationship where two people communicate face to face.

Ullman and Online dating

Can't deny it, I once had a little online relationship going on. I was in seventh grade and began talking to this eighth grader over AIM, which was a big deal at the time. We would talk about school, and life, and we would flirt, but our online relationship was basically our entire relationship. Like Ullman, everything we said over the internet was simple and easy. There was no sense of awkwardness. We would talk for hours and be completely comfortable in our setting. We would talk about things that we would do together, like seeing a movie or going to a party, but never actually did anything. So middle school.

Where Ullman and I differed was in our actual contact with online correspondent. At their dinner, things seemed somewhat awkward with Ullman and Karl. For me and my online eighth grade online correspondent, when we saw each other in person we would tend to just ignore each other. Once again, so middle school.

I think we both enjoyed the "fantasy" we were living online, and didn't want to destroy it by in person awkwardness. Ullman's date was a little odd, and my guess is my elder woman and I didn't want to spoil the fun we were having from behind our computer screens.

Anous and Ullman

Since the rise of email and other online chat interfaces, communication through the Internet has boomed. Ullman finds herself going to the computer in the middle of the night to find companionship on the web when she is feeling lonely. I too go online to chat with friends when I am bored or feel like conversing. The online chat system, (a great development from the email technology that Ullman was using) allows for one to hold conversations with friends at any time. What I believe is true about them, and I think that Ullman would agree, is that these are the most fulfilling conversations. This is because the person you are speaking too is online for the same reason. Therefore if the conversation begins in the late hours of the night, there are little distractions for both of you, and the conversation fulfills your social needs of the moment.

Despite this similarity, I find that there is a key difference between my relationship practices and those of Ullman. She finds that there is a distinct disconnection between the online person and the real person. This is exemplified by the interaction she has with her coworker during the day as opposed to during the night when she is online. She goes from interacting in a cold business setting, to one where she shares her interests and emotions with the person. I on the other hand continue the conversation that I have with the person if I meet them in person, regardless of the setting of our 'real world' relationship.

Raynal & Ullman

Ullman and I often feel isolated from those we feel most connected to. She expresses the need for a visual cue to keep her asleep. Her computers help her sleep at night when she wakes up with insomnia to check her email. She enjoys spending time on her computers, having a sense of belonging. Yet, what she is looking for is 'not there.' She thinks of her childhood neighbor, contacting CQ, and occasionally finding someone out there. I feel the same way at times. I know what I am looking for, however it is often hard to find, and only occasionally is found. Finding that one person to have contact with gives me a sense of belonging and purpose.

Another commonality that we have is the use of email to develop relationships. She 'fell in love by email.' I have not found a love, but have developed friendships based on limited online interactions, especially through Facebook. A person I meet on any given Friday night may request to be my friend, and then a message begins. After going back and forth multiple times, we may meet in the Diag, but avoid each other because of our limited online interactions. Ullman comments on her limited contact with her email-lover, realizing that her and her lover are nothing but 'programmers,' that 'send mail.' She sees no potential in pretending to be more than that in the real world, and their intimacy comes in the form of online communication. I can also relate to that, but not to the same degree. I see people that I have developed friendships with online, and when we pass in person, we choose not to recognize each other. The intricacies of personal contact are extremely developed, and the digital world acts as a social lubricant, enabling interactions that would not otherwise be present.

Ellen Ullman vs. Brian

Ellen Ullman and I both had experiences where we conversed with an individual for a while and eventually met him, but these experiences were practically the same. In elementary school, everyone in my class wrote short letters to a “pen pal”, who was the same age in another school. We had to write on a topic that our teacher told us to write about, such as our interests or our family. My pen pal and I would receive each other’s letters and make comments at the beginning of our next letter. At the end of the year, we met our pen pals. When I met my pen pal, we had structured activities we had to do together. It seemed like our relationship was not real but forced both when we were writing letters and when we actually hung out each other. Similarly, when Ellen met her coworker, they continued to talk and interpolate just like they did via email.
Ellen Ullman and I differ in the seriousness of relationships we have via the internet. I converse with my friends online somewhat regularly, but I don’t communicate with a single person to the extent that Ellen conversed with her coworker. I do not habitually talk with someone when I should probably be getting some sleep. Ellen would stay up in the very late at night chatting with her coworker. Moreover, I’m not in an intimate relationship with anyone, and I’m not as eager as Ellen to want to talk with one of my friends. On the other hand, Ellen fell in love through email with her coworker, making her very passionate about communicating with her coworker.

Ullman Comparison

At times while reading Ullman's article "Come in, CQ," I found myself having difficulty relating to Ullman's point of view. Upon its conclusion, I decided that this difficulty was likely due to one clear difference between Ullman and myself: we're from very different generations. It's obvious from Ullman's story, specifically her fascination as a child with radio communication, that she grew up in a time when the internet was nonexistent. I, on the other hand, don't remember a world without it. When Ullman was a child, handwritten notes were probably the norm and dating via technology was almost certainly unheard of. I certainly agree with her argument that technology has made people less social beings, but because of our strong generation differences it isn't something that I find alarming. It's life.

Another difference between Ullman and I is the purpose we use the internet for. Ullman and Karl developed their personal relationship via email. They exchanged lengthly and detailed emails and developed emotional connections on the basis of these. I have never had this type of interaction on the web. I rarely send emails in general, and if I do they consist of short messages about meeting times and questions for classes. I do use social networking sites to maintain relationships online, but there is a key distinction here: maintain. The people I have online relationships with are people who I know well from previous face-to-face social interactions. They are people I have has actual conversations with before having them on the computer. Perhaps if I were in Ullman's position, I too would find the initial social interaction with someone like Karl to be uncomfortable and somewhat troubling.

Come in Facebook

Ellen Ullman describes her email relationship with a man in her article Come in CQ: The Body on the Wire. She explains how she couldn't help but check her email every minute, and also how she would allow herself to check her email as a reward for doing work. Although I do not have an online relationship with anyone, my email and Facebook-checking patterns are similar to Ellen's. If I am doing work on the computer, I feel compelled to constantly check my email because it offers a break from challenging work yet still makes me feel productive. Similarly, when my mind gets tired from hours (or sometimes minutes) of studying, I like to take breaks and reward myself by checking Facebook.

In addition to the frequency of her email checking patterns, I also sometimes relate to the time she was up late and got on email just to see who else was up. Sometimes, usually in the summer and not the busy school year, when I'm up late at night unable to fall asleep, I will get on Facebook just to see if anyone else is on that I can talk to. This is human nature though; nobody likes being lonely, and for the portion of us who regularly stay up late, we need breaks from work and boredom in which we can talk to people.

Ullman and Me

Ellen Ullman describes in the article “come in CQ – The body on the wire” that how much communications are used through Internet and all. Like Ullman, I had similar experiences throughout my high school. At first, I really did not notice but I felt more comfortable communicating with some of my middle school and high school friends through online than talking someone directly. Not only that I personally feel like when I send and receive emails with people like Ullman and Karl, I have more time to think and write things in details without making a mistake. Being said, it is not the best way to communicate with a person, but I can always go back and check again to make sure you are not off the topic. I remember in middle school, I emailed a girl that I liked and felt affections towards each other. However, when I actually had a chance to see her, it was very awkward for me to communicate with her. Maybe it is because I was not fluent in English back then…? In fact, I am still struggling with English. I think everybody is. I think that Ullman and I both have gone through similar situations. We both develop our relationships with someone through Internet and felt awkward around each other.

However, I don’t see myself falling in love with someone that easily. Just by talking with someone through online is impossible. I am pretty sure that it could hapeen. RARELY. For instance, you could find someone and could possibly think that he/she is special. Maybe get attracted by looking at pictures. I am pretty sure that people, who have facebook, have done that before. Also you cannot find someone’s true identity. This explains that relationship needs to be built through person. Although Ullman continues to date Karl through email, it shows that it is difficult to bond attraction.

Ellen & Emily

Ellen and I share many characteristics and behaviors when it comes to using e-mail and the internet. We both have an obsession with checking our e-mail inboxes. The first thing I do in the morning after turning off my alarm is roll over and check my e-mail on my phone. Pathetic, I know. I continue to check it at least once every hour throughout my day as well. Although Ellen didn't have access to a BlackBerry in 1997, she still checked her e-mail constantly. Ellen and I also share a liking for being surrounded by "fine machinery". Although I don't have three computer on hand at any given time, I do enjoy using my laptop and desktop simultaneously.

Ellen and I both enjoy using the internet for communication and such, but she took it to a new level with which I am uncomfortable. Spending hours in the wee hours of the morning "chatting" with a co-worker via rapid e-mail exchange is both creepy and slightly inappropriate. Ellen even states she fell in love with Karl via e-mail. Perhaps she and I just have different definitions of love, because I cannot fathom such a thing. The most awkward part of the situation is that she basically ignores him when they co-exist during the day, in real life. I'm not sure how Ellen is able to live a double life. Transitioning from a daytime professional to a nocturnal romantic must be exhausting. I prefer to keep my e-mail communication innuendo-free so that I can maintain a separation between virtual "love" and real-life romance.

Ullman and I

The internet has provided a platform of communication that allows a diverse group of people to interact online. Ullman found love and I have found knowledge. Although the ultimate result of our web interactions are different, we have used similar tools to get there. Email and formal news articles, what I spend most of my time on, are not so different in that they are both constructed forms of communication meant to inform (in one way or another) the the other party. The human interaction over the internet may seem to be robotic at first, yet the subtleties of internet communication can make it intimate. Online communication requires the user to be extremely careful about the possible implications of every single word.

On the other hand, Ullman makes some points that are more difficult to draw a comparison with. It seems odd that two people can make such an intimate connection online using only words. I cannot imagine falling in love with someone through the sole use of email communication. There are, of course, also problems that could arise from the online anonymity; because people can lead double lives the may not be themselves. In the worst case scenario, they could be potential felons or sexual predators. Although the situation may have been vastly different in 1997, I would feel extremely uncomfortable connecting with another individual solely online.

Ellen Ullman

Every day I wake up in the morning and check my e-mail. Throughout the day I find myself checking the inbox several more times. Late at night, right before I go to bed, I check it again. Ellen Ullman shares a similar compulsive behavior with me. Even though we know we should be doing our work, or going to bed before 3 in the morning, we can not resist checking the inbox. The addictive desire to read every last e-mail received for me comes out of a fear that I might miss something important. However, for Ellen Ullman it is more out of a fear that she would be incredibly lonely without this "personal" interaction.

Another point of comparison between me and Ullman is our purpose behind using e-mail. For Ellen Ullman, e-mail begins as a tool used to communicate about matters related to work. However, she then begins to use it primarily for personal communication. E-mail becomes the developing medium for her relationship with Karl. The relationship does not even exist in person for quite some time. Even when they were working on a project face to face no sign of the online relationship was present. For me, e-mail is used primarily to conduct work and I do not foresee me ever using it as a means for starting a relationship. My online persona and feelings are no different than my feelings in the real world.

Online Innuendo

If I remember correctly, it was during middle school, around 7th grade, that I started using AIM seriously to communicate with my friends. It was also around this time, or a little bit before that I started communicating with women that I "liked". Being a shy kid growing up, I found it a lot easier to flirt and display my budding affection by using the instant messenger medium. I could say certain things without having to make eye contact with the person, reducing my own discomfort and potential embarrassment. In her article, Ellen Ullman, uses email in order to foster a relationship. While I never had much success with this method, it definitely placed me in an environment that "...is more playful, more inclined to games of innuendo--all the stuff of romantic love." Also, it is mentioned that Ellen does not discuss the online interactions the next day when she sees her companion in person. Similarly to this, most of the topics that I discuss with someone online are never reintroduced in person.

Ellen, since these interactions occurred in the late 1990's, used email as the method of communication. On the contrary, I used instant messenger. Ellen emphasizes a few times the waiting time between messages. "What followed were months of email that rode back and forth between us with increasing speed. Once a day, twice a day, hourly. It got so I had to set a clock to force myself to work uninterruptedly for an hour then--ring!--my reward was the check my mail." This problem never occurs with instant messanging, since it is "instant". Occasionally the other user would leave the room, mentioning that they need to "brb". During this time period, one is able to send messages that the other person will see upon returning to the computer, I guess somewhat simulating the email environment, but the circumstances are still extremely different. Email as a form of casual communication is not nearly as prominent as it used to be, being replaced with other services such as instant messenging.

A Comparison Ullman and I

When I compare my life with that of Ellen Ullman, I can see that the way that we transpose ourselves over the internet is similar. As someone who is often connected with the online community, I find that much of my time is spent keeping in touch with others with internet mediums. Being similar to her avid use of email, I feel like I can relate to Ullman as she portrayed herself in her article "Come in CQ: The Body on the Wire," where she portrays how she found her love life through the constant exchange of emails. I find that while online, a lot of my time is spent communicating with others, not particularly emailing them, but rather through additional mediums, such as chatting, or even social networking site such as facebook. It is true that by keeping in touch with others over the internet, it becomes a replacement to interactions with other when one is alone. I can see how Ullman could become emotionally attached to others online by building a relationship, for even if I was alone for a long period of time, I can still retrieve a sense of human interaction by communicating to others online.

On the other hand, there are some points of Ullmans' that I cannot bring myself to agree with, such as her capacity to strive to have an intimate relationship over an email medium. I cannot find myself pursuing a relationship with someone that I met online, and even considering the awkwardness of the situation, there are inherent dangers. When not meeting face to face with another person, there is a loss of physical connection, for using the internet as a medium serves to shield one's true identity or personality. For instance, there are often reports of older individuals that pose as younger people online, and chat with others. This introduces a danger if they want to meet with them, but stands to illustrate why having online relationships prove to be untrustworthy. Yet, even while I don't believe in online relationships, Ullman continued to pursue this relationship with her addiction to checking her mail. Ullman and Karl forged a relationship together via a constant exchange of emails even before they were able to meet.

Emailing Awkwardness

I can relate to Ellen Ullman, as described in her article “Come in CQ: The Body on the Wire,” in that I, too, have found internet communication at night to be a comfortable medium for communication. Throughout my early teen years, on nights when I either couldn’t sleep or didn’t feel like sleeping, I often found myself instant messaging with boys from school. Some of them were general friends, but others were people I hadn’t known on a personal level before, just as Ullman experienced with Karl. From the onset, there was always a conversation starter based around why we were both on the internet so late at night. Ullman shared a similar situation with Karl when he responded to her late night email in a matter of minutes. Though Ullman spent her time emailing a coworker and I spent mine instant messaging acquaintances from school, we both share common ground in the development of relationships with someone we normally would have felt uncomfortable around. These opportunities were granted to us both through the communication options of the internet.

Additionally, I can empathize with Ullman’s somewhat awkward first date with Karl. I also opted to go on a date with one of the boys I had repeatedly chatted with online. Ullman’s problem fell in the “email-esque” format of her in person conversation. However, my problem arose with being too shy without the protection of a computer screen between my date and me. Ullman felt herself wanting more from Karl after their first in person encounter, while I found the experience too uncomfortable to attempt again. My young age may have been a stronger factor in the awkwardness of my date rather than simply the impersonality of email, as was the main factor for Ullman. She was brave enough to continue her online romance, but I am leery of ever attempting such a situation again. Overall, Ellen Ullman and I found comfort in nighttime internet communication, and we both have learned that it can be difficult to form relationship in that realm.

Comparing Ullman and Myself

When I think about my typical day, it's amazing to find out how much I spend my time using my computer. Like Ullman, I, too, use email very often. I don't use it as much as she does, but I definitely spend a large portion of my day online, exchanging emails or chatting with my friends. This has become a daily routine for me. Communicating through the Internet has both its advantages and disadvantages, but overall, I feel that it is an essential form of communication. Sending emails or chatting online is a fast and convenient way to keep in touch with friends whenever and wherever they are. Also, it keeps me from feeling lonely when I am alone in my room.

However, I do not think I would fall in love with someone by email as Ullman does with Karl. Even though communicating online can be convenient and fun, I still think that without actually meeting him in person and having conversations face to face, I would never truly know about someone much less fall in love with him. What's more, I feel that meeting someone through the Internet can be dangerous because one can disguise himself in any way he likes. To get to know someone and to build friendly relationship with him, our traditional way of meeting in person is much better than having an anonimous chat on the Internet.

The Concept of Communicating Online: Comparing Ullman and Myself

It seems extremely difficult for human relationships to grow intimate/personal strictly over web-based communications. It is the concrete and spontaneity aspects of a relationship that make it realistic; one can develop only so much of a relationship solely by staring at computer screens. In Ellen Ullman’s article “Come in CQ: The Body on the Wire,” she explores both advantageous and harmful features of an online relationship. A feature that Ullman describes, I have also encountered: online communication as a “separate universe.” There have been multiple times when I have Facebook chatted or Skyped with friends and had conversations that are merely forgotten the next day. Like Ullman, it is as if these conversations “exist[ed] in a separate universe,” two universes that do not cross.

A large part of Ullman’s article involves the concept of the interpolation problem when communicating online. Although I have never formed an intimate relationship online, I find that interpolating does get irritating when communicating with friends, and is very similar to Ullman’s description of an “echo.” When emailing friends and family, the concept of interpolating can be extremely annoying and seem aloof. A quick email asking for an update on friends’ lives can turn into an impersonal comment that solely answers the specific questions asked. Similar to Ullman, I never feel answered when someone responds with an interpolation, it seems as if they merely ran out of time formulating their reply.

My Life Compared to Ullman

When I log on to my computer the first place I often go is Facebook. For most people, this is the logical first stop before starting your dreaded calc homework or writing a paper. It kills time and also makes you feel connected to people. Like Ullman, I am entranced by being digitally social. I love talking to people online, not because I'm anti-social, but rather it's just so easy to do. I often seeing myself do what Ullman does, by setting a time when I can check my email and facebook. It's a joy I get and helps me get through the day. It makes me feel less lonely while I'm stuck in the library doing work. It goes the same for Ullman when she was at work. Sometimes the digital world can be come your most social world.

Though I am young, I can be almost certain that I'm not going to fall in love online. Too me, it just doesn't seem right. If I meet someone on facebook and I think they might be someone special, I would want to cut off electronic communication and get to know them in person. Ullman enjoys the fact of falling in love on the internet. To me it's impersonal. You can't learn about someone through a text message, only when you're looking at them face to face. You never know how a person feels when they send you an email. I've always joked that they should add a "mood" box to every form of electronic communication so you know what you're getting yourself into. Ullman speaks of "interpolation" and how she doesn't like it but lives with it. I can not live with someone repeating everything I say. If I'm going to love someone, I want it to be in real life, not via facebook chat.

Comparing Ellen Ullman and Myself

In the Narrative Passage “Come in CQ: The Body on the Wire,” Ellen Ullman describes the relationship she has built with a colleague named Karl over e-mail exchanges.

Like Ullman, I have had an experience, in which I felt more comfortable communicating with someone online than talking with the person face-to-face. Via e-mails, Ullman and Karl have conversations comfortably and even engage in discussions about certain topics. Eventually they come to feel affections toward each other. However, when they personally meet to have dinner, they seem far from feeling comfortable chatting with each other. Their conversation is rather awkward; “one talks, stops; then the other replies, stops. An hour later, we are still in this rhythm.” To an extent, I sympathize with this uncomfortable feeling of Ullman when I face someone that I actually talk to comfortably online. Most of the time, when communicating online, we do not have to face the other person. We can also reply whenever we want, and whatever we want. This sometimes allows me to be braver online and feel more at ease. However, I have had a harder time trying to smoothly carry on a real conversation when I unexpectedly ran into someone, with whom I am not very close with.

However, even though I keep casual relationships with many people online, I cannot imagine falling in love with someone by e-mail. In the narrative, Ullman becomes deeply engaged with exchanging e-mails with Karl. She acknowledges that the love was “as intense as any other falling in love.” Later on, Ullman and Karl send and receive e-mails hourly and when Ullman do get a reply from Karl, she cannot resist replying back. Like Ullman, e-mail is indeed a part of my life; I check e-mails constantly throughout my days and exchange important information with many people. However, even though I have been able to get closer with many of my friends through the internet, I have never made such commitment to someone online. I believe that to develop a deep and long-lasting relationship, whether a friendship or a romantic love relationship, we need to be able to not only communicate face-to-face but also feel comfortable when doing so.

2.0 Different views on Web 2.0

Both Bryan Alexander and Trent Batson are discussing a important topic that is becoming more and more relevant to everyone's lives: Web 2.0.

One of the greatest contrasts that becomes immediately apparent under slight observation is the difference in time between these two readings. While Alexander wrote his article around 2006, Batson wrote his in 2009. It is amazing how pronounced the time difference becomes when one discusses technology. Their examples, while similar in nature, are set in different times. Alexander's examples are near the forefront of web 2.0 technology while Batson's are more in the middle of it. Another difference that sets these two works apart is the attention to technicality and detail. Alexander's article relied more on detailed examples; this can be seen when he discusses blogs, RSS feeds, and wikis. Batson is a little more general and covers a greater amount of topics rather than delve deeply into any one article.

These articles also have some underlying similarities. For one, both articles rely heavily upon direct terms and approach the subject with a plethora of examples. Both writers also talk about web 2.0 with definite excitement and hint at its loose definition. But most importantly, both authors mention how web 2.0 will affect both the office workspace as well as the education sector.

Web 2.0 - ER

Both authors of these articles cite Web 2.0 as more than "just the technology" behind the Internet. Both see the Internet as a tool functional in multiple settings: in the classroom, as a social networking tool, and as a sort of library. The articles format their definition of Web 2.0 as a stipulative definition, never putting it into a sentence or two, but rather spending the entire article writing an informal, descriptive analysis of Web 2.0.
However, the articles differ in a few aspects. First, the authors are addressing different audiences. One writes a response to the others paper. In these descriptions, the authors focus on different emphases: one focuses on the concept of being open, while the other more on the practical application of technology in education. Overall however, the articles form a good basis for an introduction to Web 2.0 to the new user.

Web 2.0

The appearance of Web 2.0 is not any new occurrence, being around for many years, but its integration with society has been an aspect of recent study. Both Trent Batson and Bryan Alexander wrote articles discussing the implementation of web 2.0 and its impact on society. A common belief in both articles is that as technology has been advancing, more and more people have been able to become avid internet users. In the past there was a stigma that technology was dominated by "geeks" but Batson mentions how the internet is not for geeks anymore, but more like a "social software." They speak of how social networking sites, blogs, and other communication mediums. These all allow people to connect together via the internet, expanding the horizons of bring people together and exchange information.

Yet, even while both article authors agree on the versatility that is brought forth from web 2.0 as a communication medium, they have differing opinions of who the information is portrayed for and how the innovation of web 2.0 is affecting the online community. Baston writes his article to inform education instructors, speaking of how web 2.0 is a monumental event that is a whole new innovation in the world of education. Where students and teachers can further their interactions with each other via web 2.0 mediums, such as blogs. Being an interaction that previously was lacking, by having the internet to facilitate this, a new wave of education can be utilized. Yet, Alexander had a different approach, analyzing the more social forms on 2.0, that emphasizes the interactions that users have, via social networking sites, blogs, wiki, podcasts, etc. Alexander stresses how the web 2.0 came to be through the collection of interactions and innovations over a period of time, where it slowly advanced to what it has become today, with so many active users communicating and remaining connected through the mediums that the internet can provide.

Web 2.0

What exactly is Web 2.0? The answer to this question is very subjective, as shown in Trant Batson's article, Why is Web 2.0 Important to Higher Education," and Bryan Alexander's article, "Web 2.0: A New Wave of Innovation for Teaching and Learning." Batson uses words like "turning point," "moment," and "advent"numerous times to describe Web 2.0 as something that happened suddenly and at a specific time. He explains that the technology was always there, but there was a point at which websites became easier to use and started catering more toward normal people's interests and purposes. On the other hand, Alexander's article could serve as a direct attack on Batson's definition of Web 2.0. Alexander argues that Web 2.0 is not about a single new development, but rather a continuous and gradual evolution of the internet. He stresses that "the label "Web 2.0" is far less important that the concepts, projects, and practices included in its scope.

Of these concepts, the one that both authors agree on is the social aspect of Web 2.0. Alexander stresses the vast emergence of social networking sites and blogs. He argues that blogs and discussion threads offer a whole new style of communication, much different from the outdated style that books offer. Batson describes the importance of the social aspect of Web 2.0 as creating a whole new style of learning, one that stresses cooperation, not only among students, but between students and teachers. He states that this cooperation is the key feature that was missing in old teaching styles, and now, thanks to Web 2.0, "We no longer lack the resources and tools to develop learning designs that fit how people learn." Although Batson and Alexander disagree on the meaning of the label "Web 2.0" as well as when it actually came into existence, they both agree that the social function of it is an important key to successful education.

Web: 2.0

Trent Batson’s article “Why is Web 2.0 Important to Higher Education?” and Bryan Alexander’s article “Web 2.0: A New Wave of Innovation for Teaching and Learning?” have some similar arguments. Both authors discuss that certain aspects of web 2.0 have been around for decades. In particular, Alexander states microcontent is nothing new but now it is mostly open for everyone to view. Batson proclaims that the technology of the web has been there since the very beginning; however, websites have become easier to use, allowing ordinary people, not just the computer geeks, to become users. Additionally, both authors mention that Web 2.0 is a way for people to share information. Alexander states one can draw information from the “wisdom of the crowds”; likewise, Batson claims students can inform one another and create a collective textbook. Furthermore, both authors use quotation marks in their titles.

On the other hand, Bryan Alexander’s and Trent Batson’s articles have some distinctions as well. First, Bryan Alexander claims that web 2.0 was a gradual emergence while Trent Batson believes web 2.0 is a true turning point comparable to Pearl Harbor or 9/11. In addition, Alexander’s audience is anyone who is somewhat familiar with the idea of Web 2.0. Contrastingly, Batson’s chief audience is professors and others affiliated with education. This is because Batson focuses on his belief that Web 2.0 can replace the procedures of the “traditional Classroom”. Moreover, Batson’s article is three years newer than Alexander’s. Perhaps part of Alexander’s argument would apply less today then Batson’s claims.

Learning from Web 2.0

The two articles “Web 2.0: A New Wave of Innovation for Teaching and Learning?” and “Why is Web 2.0 Important to Higher Learning?” by Bryan Alexander and Trent Batson, respectively, each have many ideas to offer about the implications of Web 2.0. Firstly, the two articles share many similar ideas about the benefits and uses of this innovation. Both men agree that Web 2.0 has allowed all types of people to be active internet users. Batson specifically mentions that the internet is no longer only for geeks, and Alexander calls out that blogging and social networking sites, among others, incorporate people of all types into the internet. This idea is furthered by both Alexander and Batson in stating that this technology brings humanity closer towards its true social and interactive nature. Additionally, both authors ask questions within their titles. These titles provoke readers and question typically held ideas about the usage of Web 2.0.

Furthermore, the two articles also have many differences in their takes on Web 2.0. The Alexander article emphasizes that the transition to Web 2.0 was the result of a gradual change rather than one major event. He focuses more on the features and concepts of Web 2.0 rather than the word itself. Alexander portrays Web 2.0 as a social and interactive center. He discusses blogging sites, tagging, and RSS feeds and how they connect people and sites throughout the internet, delivering the information in a very formal manner. On the contrary, Batson gives more attention to the implications of Web 2.0 for educational purposes. He directs his work towards specific people, namely teachers, mentioning that using blogs and other features of Web 2.0 allow the students to learn more from each other and to respond to each others’ opinions than from the teacher alone. Combined, the two articles give strong insight into Web 2.0’s impacts on today’s society.

Web 2.0

The articles "Why is 2.0 Important to Higher Education?" by Trent Batson and Web 2.0: A New Wave of Innovation for Teaching and Learning?" by Bryan Alexander both detail the significance of Web 2.0. Both authors argue that Web 2.0 has made important strides for our digital community. With 2.0, digital resources and interaction are simplified from what they used to be.

The key difference in the articles is that Batson describes 2.0 use in an educational setting, while Alexander discusses its benefits in terms of communication. Batson argues that technology and Web 2.0 has changed the educational setting by creating new ways to learn. Instead of a traditional lecture, teachers can now use online resources to convey the same lesson. Furthermore, Batson argues that Web 2.0 is not for geeks, but rather everyone. Alexander, on the other hand, seems to stress more the geekier aspect of Web 2.0. He discusses social networks, wiki's, blogs, and "tags," which are all ways to virtually interact with one another. The focus of his article is not about the classroom, which is the focus of "Why is 2.0 Important to Higher Education?"

Web 2.0?

Both the articles "Web 2.0: A New Wave of Innovation for Teaching and Learning?" by Bryan Alexander and "Why is Web 2.0 Important to Higher Education?" by Trent Batson have very large similarities and differences as well. For both, the term "Web 2.0" both meant a new, open internet with many social characteristics. It has turned into a place where people can come together and share with each other like never before. Batson procliams that Web 2.0 is a place "to find ourselves again" instead of just reading books, in regards to the social aspect. It allows students to go farther than books and actually talk easily to others about education.

Both authors argue that Web 2.0 is an open space, but differ on the value of that space. Alexander argues more about the term Wed 2.0 itself. He feels that just because the internet is more open doesn't mean it should be distinguished as a new version of the internet. The term "2.0" does not sit well with him. It's still the same internet, just a bit more social and free now. Alexander says that there are enough "blogs, wikis, trackback, podcasting, videoblogs, and enough social networking tools...tog give rise to an abbreviation mocking their very prevalence," but not to give the internet a new description. Batson has a completely different view. He feels Web 2.0 goes inline with terms such as D-Day and Pearl Harbor. It is a term that has become synonymous with a change in the web. It is a turning point in how we run our lives digitally. While both authors agree and disagree on certain topics, it is really a personal choice as to whether the internet is 2.0 or not. It all depends on your view and how you use it.

Web 2.0

Trent Batson argues that Web 2.0 is "no longer just for the geeks" in Why Web 2.0 is Important to Higher Education. The ease at which the web can now be used opens up a whole new methodology of communication, one which he argues is an improvement upon traditional teacher-student learning. Batson primarily focuses on the impact of Web 2.0 on the classroom setting, and how it can be used as a tool to facilitate education. Bryan Alexander, in his article Web 2.0: A New Wave of Innovation for Teaching and Learning, addresses the potential impact of the web on accessibility. He emphasizes the organization of web pages in Web 2.0 as being more coherent to the average person than those pages of Web 1.0, a similar perspective to the opening argument of Batson. However, Alexander focuses on the way in which this difference is created: by the invention of micro-content and metadata tagging.

Both articles make the argument that by networking computers and connecting people together the intention is to increase the potential for learning to occur. Bryan Alexander puts the most emphasis on openness. In his article, he describes the ability for people to create, edit, and read the content of web-pages as imperative to their ability to facilitate learning. Batson addresses how the open micro-content web-pages fit more in line with human nature than book reading or teacher-student learning. Together, the two articles provide a convincing argument for why Web 2.0 has the potential to change the way we learn.

Web 2.0 how much will it change?

The articles "Why Web 2.0 is important to higher education?" and "Web 2.0: A new wave of innovation for Teaching and Learning" both acknowledge the arrival of this new technology Web 2.0. They both believe that it has become a power worth reckoning in the technological world. However a similarity in these articles that I find slightly confusing, is that neither completely define what Web 2.0 actually is. This makes me believe that Web 2.0 is a technical term for people in the educational framework. Another interesting similarity between these articles is exemplified in the fact that both of their titles are questions. This means that they both are uncertain of the extent to which web 2.0 will help education progress.
Despite the many similarities in these two articles, there are also many differences. The main one being in how the authors believe web 2.0 will change education. The article "Why Web 2.0 is important to higher education?" advocates the use of these social technologies in the classroom. The author believes that Web 2.0 has provided the framework for educators to go back and teach through collaborative methods that will come naturally to students. On the other hand, the article "Web 2.0: A new wave of innovation for Teaching and Learning" is not so enthused by the idea of Web 2.0 revolutionizing education. The author believes that there are too many distractions on the web. Furthermore he believes that the open nature associated with web 2.0 will allow for the propagation of incorrect knowledge. Upon reading these articles I am exited to see whether the Development of Web 2.0 in education will change teaching in a positive or negative way.

Web 2.0

The articles "Web 2.0: A New Wave of Innovation for Teaching and Learning?" by Bryan Alexander and "Why is Web 2.0 Important to Higher Education?" by Trent Batson have similarities in that they both emphasize Web 2.0's openness and its social-networking characteristics. In his article, Alexander states that "Web 2.0 sees users as playing more of a foundational role in information architecture" and that Web 2.0 is open to all users to take control of the web contents. In a similar context, Batson explains in his article how the Web is "no longer the exclusive domain of the geek or the brave, but a gathering place for the world." Alexander and Batson both point out the importance of cooperation and two-way learning and explains how the Web 2.0 can make this possible.

Despite their similarities, the articles have differences as well. One distinction between them includes the types of evidence the authors incorporate to explain the characteristics of Web 2.0. Batson confines the topic of his article strictly to a classroom setting, discussing how using the Web brings a new way of learning and contrasting it to the "traditional classroom." He also includes specific examples and comments from students to support his argument. Batson, on the other hand, approaches his topic in a broader way, talking about the contents of Web 2.0 and how people can use it. The two authors also have different tones in their articles:Batson being more informal and friendly, whereas Alexander being formal and informatic.

Web 2.0

The article “Why is Web 2.0 important to Higher Education?” by Trenton Batson and “Web 2.0: A new wave of innovation for teaching and learning?” by Bryan Alexander hold similarities. I sense that both authors are trying to emphasize to look broader scale than just the technology. Using the social service systems, they are able to reach out more features than those ones that are already out there in the world. Another similarity I saw in both authors is that Web 2.0 plays important role in the society and it is excellent program that plays in social life. Authors point out that people can always learn further than what is there.
Although both authors have similarities, they approach their points in a different way. On the one hand, the author Alexander just tries to notify to readers that Web 2.0 is and how it is useful to each individual in the society with greater education. The other hand, author Batson starts out with analogy but eventually changes his tone with negative tone at the end. Batson especially emphasizes his article with the starting phrase “Let’s” in order to send his messages clearly.

Web 2.0: Compare and Contrast

The articles "Why is Web 2.0 Important to Higher Education" by Trent Batson and "Web 2.0: A New Wave of Innovation for Teaching and Learning?" by Bryan Alexander both give their topic in the title, leaving the reader to assume that the information presented will be about Web 2.0 and its place in the academic environment. The articles each touch on the idea of revolutionizing the classroom teaching approach to incorporate networking and expand knowledge. These changes also entail a greater degree of collaboration among students and educators. Batson states that "with so many ways to create knowledge now very rapidly and collaboratively, we are freed from the necessity of a singular approach to teaching." Alexander makes a similar point by saying that networked computing can "connect people in order to boost their knowledge and their ability to learn." Each author addresses the benefits of implementing Web 2.0 into the classroom.

The authors also have differences in their delivery of information about Web 2.0. The intended audiences for the two pieces differ slightly. Batson primarily addresses educators and faculty members. This is apparent, for example, in this idea: "the textbook of this age is the work that students generate under your guidance and under your design." Batson is directly speaking to educators and those responsible for students' education. Alexander's piece seems to be aimed at a broader audience because he never addresses specific groups of people. Another contrasting point between the two articles is their tone. Batson uses a friendly, relatively impersonal tone when expressing his information and opinions. He also clearly supports the integration of Web 2.0 into the classroom. Alexander takes a more neutral, informative approach in relaying his ideas. His article was more factual, yet less exciting to read.

Web 2.0-Compare and Contrast

The two articles “Why is Web 2.0 Important to Higher Education?” by Trent Batson and “Web 2.0: A New Wave of Innovation for Teaching and Learning” by Bryan Alexander possess similarities simply within their titles. Both are not mere statements, instead they are questions that let the reader believe the articles will be one of contemplation. Another similarity is within one concept both articles address: the togetherness Web 2.0 promotes among its users. Batson writes about Web 2.0 helping the human instinct's “gregarious nature,” Alexander introduces a large component of Web 2.0 to be “social software.” Both articles agree that a major purpose of Web 2.0 is its endorsement for cooperation and communication between individuals. Also both articles place an emphasis on users participating and playing a critical role in Web 2.0. Batson goes so far as to state “the new textbook is student work.” Meaning that students are the ones who will be generating ideas and concepts, instead of a pre-written textbook. Alexander implements this same concept by stating “[Web 2.0] sees users as playing more of a foundational role in information architecture.” Once again, the concept of information coming from individuals is promoted.

Although the two articles present many similarities their differences are just as distinct. One distinction between the two articles is the target audience. Batson’s target audience includes educators, specifically “faculty member[s].” While it is apparent Alexander addresses education as well (due to his title including the words teaching and learning) he keeps his audience more generic by never explicitly stating a specific group of people. Another difference includes the evidence each article presents. Batson keeps his article solely related to education in primarily the classroom setting, whereas Alexander does not solely focus upon Web 2.0 in classrooms but in other environments as well. It is evident that both authors had similar concepts regarding Web 2.0, but each analyzed the notion in a different manner.

Web 2.0

Web 2.0. What is it? Two authors, Bryan Alexander and Trent Baston describe the change from Web 1.0 at the beginning to Web 2.0 of today. Similarly, the two authors agree that Web 2.0 is defined by social software and interactive, easy-to-use web sites. Through Web 2.0, learning and teaching has become an important innovative tool for teaching and learning. Both authors argue that by using the social services of Web 2.0, one can experience a new cooperative style to gain information and knowledge.

While both authors agree that Web 2.0 has arrived, they disagree in the ways that it has finally come to be the internet as we know it. Alexander describes the development of Web 2.0 as a long process that has built off of ideas that were already present in the world. In opposition to this, Baston describes Web 2.0 as a major life-changing and culture-changing event. Baston compares the arrival of Web 2.0 to D-Day and Pearl Harbor: A dramatic change in history. Another difference between the work of the two authors is the intended audience. Baston specifically addresses faculty members which is different from the more general audience-users of the web- that Alexander addresses.

Web 2.0

"Why is Web 2.0 Important to Higher Education?" written by Trent Batson, and ""Web 2.0: A New Wave of Innovation for Teaching and Learning," written by Bryan Alexander, are both articles about Web 2.0. Both articles refer to Web 2.0 as "social Web," or "social software." They emphasize Web 2.0's potential to create communities that "[link] people around the world." More specifically, the articles appreciate how this quality of Web 2.0 can be helpful in higher education. Batson states that as a "knowledge-generating technology", Web 2.0 allows interactive learning through conversations and coopertaion between faculties and students. Similarly, Alexander says Web 2.0 was derived from the idea of "using networked computing to connect people in order to boost their knowledge and their ability to learn." Another similarity between the two articles is their discussion on the openness of Web 2.0. While Batson lists "open education, open knowledge, and open resources" as "faces of the Web 2.0 revolution in higher education," Alexander also states that "oppenness [is] a hallmark of [the] emergent movement [of Web 2.0]."

Despite these commonalities, the two articles also differ in many ways. Firstly, Alexander focuses on the elements of Web 2.0 that makes it work and popular. He believes that along with the openness, the "microcontent" nature of Web 2.0, for example, blog posts instead of web pages, allow users to build upon each other's information. Also, the organized tagging system makes the clustering of information easier and consequently the Web 2.0 to work in a orderly manner. On the other hand, Batson puts much more emphasis on the effectiveness of Web 2.0 on the education field. He argues that instead of "solo and autonomous learning mode" of books, Web 2.0 provides interactive and convesational learning environment, which can "[help] us rediscover our naturally cooperative, creative, and gregarious nature." Moreover, the tone of the two passages are significantly distinct. Overall, Alexander's article is written with rather neutral and informative voice. Even though most parts of the article discusses the positive features of Web 2.0, Alexander is not biased when he engages in describing and explaning aspects of Web 2.0 The primary goal of this piece is likely to inform the readers what Web 2.0 is and why it can be a useful tool. In contrast, Batson is approving and supportive of the possibilities that Web 2.0 can open for better educational systems. While delineating advantages charateristics, he tries to persuade the audience that Web 2.0 is certainly beneficial. In a sense, Alexander, in his persuasive voice, attempts to promote the use of Web 2.0.

A Pound of Flesh - ER

After internalizing the four examples of human and posthuman existence as described by Mischa Peters in her article, "exit meat," I was able to pick one of her body concepts to identify with. But before divulging personal preferences, let me first discuss the ramifications that posthuman existence would have historically. King Leonidas, with the help of an enhanced body, would never had fallen to the powerful Xerxes. This historical change would affect stories, textbooks, movies, and culture. Had Shakespeare's Antonio but a cyber body to represent himself to Shylock, there would have been no fear over losing a pound of flesh. History would be altered, and culture because of it.

Personally, I can relate to having a natural body. That isn't to say my life is not aided by the use of technology. Peters discusses the definition of a natural body, that it does not mean that it is "less marked by technology than the cyberbody, modified body, or enhanced body." It just means that a natural body can function independently from technology. Growing up in Boy Scouts, I am confident that put in the wild, I could survive many perils. The effects technology have on me are not excessive. It is, however, a conscience effort of mine to keep it that way. I will not allow devices like my cellular phone and computer to keep me from doing what I love. If I decide to get a tattoo, I would like to have human flesh to put it on. If I decide to cut my hair, I want it to grow back at a natural rate. Call me traditionalist, but some things, I believe, are meant to stay a certain course.

Natural Body

After reading Mischa Peters’s article “Exit Meat: Digital Bodies in a Virtual World,” I most identify with the “natural body”. The technology associated with an “enhanced body” can be scary and superfluous. I have no desire to have “retractable knives implanted in [my] hands.” I can simply find and use a regular knife or other tool. Granted this may be less convenient then having blades available in a split second wherever I go; however, I would never pay a hefty surgery bill and endure a probably extensive rehabilitation just for this convenience. Also, the idea that people can have deadly knives in an instant would be frightening. A short-tempered individual might become a murderer.

No one can circumvent death; everyone has to accept this. “Excessive organ transplantation” and “bioengineering to stop cell deterioration” seems like we are trying to conquer death. Technology should not be invented to attempt this. On the other hand, I do think there is nothing wrong with wanting to have a long, fruitful, and enjoyable life. Technology can be used sparingly to attain this. For me, a person with a prosthetic or pacemaker still have “natural bodies.” This technology can extend the life of and happiness of an individual.

Naturally Me

Out of the four described conceptual bodies in Mischa Peters’ article “Exit Meat”, I most identify with the natural body. This body is described as being “human” with “external technology” in the article’s matrix of conceptual bodies. This body represents the traditional human body as they were born, but it incorporates technology readily into their life, though keeping it distinctly separate from the body itself. I connect with the natural body because, though I am intrigued by technology, I am weary of its potential impacts. I use technology daily, however I do not rely on it for my very existence. No battery supplies my energy or disk controls my brain. The thought of having such devices engrained within me frightens me because you never know if any glitches may arise or parts may breakdown. Having a natural body, I can rest assured that I will only encounter natural system breakdowns. I also will not have to struggle with the blurred line of what constitutes my flesh and what is only artificially me.

On the contrary, I am interested in experiencing the cyber body. This conceptual body is defined by Peters as “human” as well as the natural body, but it incorporates “internal technology” in addition to human flesh. This body functions essentially as a virtual you. I think it would be a completely strange way to live, but it would make for an exciting experience. It is odd to think about the mind as a totally separate entity from the body, but this conception makes the distinction happen. I am not much of a physically active person anyways, so I don’t feel that I would have as much of a struggle adjusting as others might upon converting to a virtual person. I would enjoy being protected from physical harm, since a digital version of me would not feel any pain. However, I dislike the idea that my actual body would basically be lying somewhere to rot. To prevent this scenario, I think I would prefer to simply experience the virtual life once for a short period of time. This way I will be less likely to regret the return to my natural state, which is presently and will always be the true me.

A Difficult Realization

More often than not, I think of myself as a human who has not been affected by technology. However, living in this digitally saturated world leaves no room for the denial of technology’s active, and sometimes overwhelming, role in my life. I find myself constantly turning to one form of technology to another, whether it is my laptop, iPod, or Blackberry. I cannot even fathom making it through ten waking hours without having access to a screen of some sort. Sad, but true.

Although I would ideally like to be classified as a “natural body”, my inability to go through daily life without technology makes me more of a “modified body”. Peters defines the modified body as one “that uses technology as either a necessity or as a commodity.” I can definitely identify with the former. I willingly utilize technology, but do not internalize it or allow myself to lose the essence of being human. Perhaps the most important point made about the modified body is that “technology offers something to the user, but at a certain price.” I fully and somewhat reluctantly acknowledge the cost of making technology such a main focus in my life. My inter-human relationships have become less personal, and my life more abbreviated and sped up. I hope to regress from or at least remain in the state of the modified body instead of progressing to the next level.

What is Natural?

There has been talk about people having bionic arms or legs to enhance their strength or even having technologically enhanced body parts. In "Exit Meat", Mischa Peters explores the extent to which the body can be technologically modified by categorizing the level of technological enhancement into a matrix. The options are the natural body, Cyber body, modified body and enhanced body. All of which have different levels of technological integration into the fabric of the human body. In her discussion of these different categories, she describes how those with the different types of bodies regard one another, and this is what pushes me to make my decision of which body I identify with the most.
I personally do not like to take medicine unless I am very ill, and therefore I strongly oppose the idea of integrating technology into the human body. Therefore I think that my life identifies most with that of the natural body. I consider the integration of technology into the human fabric to be more of an invasion of what is natural. I strongly agree with the concept that is presented that there are boundaries between the natural and the technological that must not be crossed, and would be on the side of Rosa in her anecdote from Synners where Sam is used as a computer battery. The body is a natural creation and technological interference should only be present for those who require it to lead a normal life, and not to enhance humans.

A new race?

Mischa Peters article "Exit Meat," as well as the novels such as Neuromancer and Synners, introduced some extreme stories of technology being used to modify the human body. These dehumanizing alterations described might be seen as absurdly unrealistic, yet I feel that they symbolize where the human race is headed. Technology is becoming so advanced, and we are becoming more and more dependent on it. Furthermore, many people today are unsatisfied with their bodies. People get plastic surgery to look better, and athletes take legal (and sometimes illegal) supplements to improve their physical performance. The cyberbodies and Posthumans mentioned in Peters's article symbolize what could be the result someday of these factors combining into a new race of technologically enhanced humans.

Personally, I think the idea of these inhuman cyberbodies is sick, and I would like to think of myself as a natural body. Peters defines a natural body as one without "technological modifications or enhancements." Sure my life is enhanced by the technology such as computers, cell phones, and mp3 players that I use on a daily basis, but my body is not enhanced by any such things, and I don't think that anybody's bodies should be enhanced by technology unless it is necessary for medical reasons such as individuals who are paralyzed or on life support. In summary, I think Peters's article is a prediction of where our world is heading, yet it is a prediction that I hope never comes true.

Body Movin'

And you thought cyborgs were only in movies?? While I don't necessarily associate myself with any of Peter's four types of bodies, if I had to choose one it would be the natural body. Peters discusses the "materiality of the body" and its "symbolic construction within a certain culture" that "defines the natural body." This is what sold me apart from the other three. I am a tall, skinny, and Caucasian male in itself, separate from any sorts of technology. I am not disabled in any way nor do I rely on any sorts of medical technology (i.e. asthma inhaler, respirator, defibrillator, etc.)

The author contends that the natural body is "fallible." I disagree. The natural body is a self-sustaining entity, capable of reaching great heights. Nothing can sustain forever, not even the natural body, but in its prime the Natural Body can accomplish great things. Look at athletes of any level. Athletes are healthy individuals who will their body (without technology) to perform unbelievable feats. Look at Kobe Bryant. Bryant just recently became the All Time leading scorer for the Los Angeles Lakers and he did it against technology. Bryant has played through injuries and refused surgery (technological changes) in order to stay on the court. Bryant is perhaps the greatest example of what the natural human body can do.

Technology + Body = ?

In Mischa Peters' article "Exit Meat", the concept of an individuals' relationship with technology is analyzed. Thus as a society that is becoming more and more dependent on the advances of technology, Peters' suggests concepts that portray the relation that one has with technology to a certain degree: natural body, cyber body, modified body, and enhanced body. These concepts revolve around one being either human or posthuman, and uses "internal technology" or "external technology." For the most part, I believe that these are not applicable in present day for the technology to improve on the "human body" to form a posthuman does not exist.

Thus, I view myself to resemble the concept of a natural body. While I may use technology in my everyday life, I am not dependent on it on such an extent that living would be impossible without the presence of technology. Thus, having a body void of a dependency on technology, it lies to be external to my body and am not "post human" retaining my original self. In actuality, I believe that all people are for the most part relate to a "natural body" relationship with technology.

The natural body

In the article "Exit Meat", Mischa Peters discusses the relationship between technology and human body. Among the four conceptual bodies described in the article, I most identify with the concept of "natural body". Natural body, as Mischa explains, is the body without any technological modifications or enhancements. I most certainly do not have any technological modifications in my body, but I have to acknowledge the fact that I heavily rely on various kinds of technology everyday. In fact, I cannot imagine my life without my cell phone, lap top computer or ipod.
When I look back at my daily routine, it is kind of amazing to realize how much technology is taking a huge part of my everyday life. I wake up in the morning at the sound of the digital alarm clock, use the internet, cell phone, and ipod throughout the day, and go to bed after finally turning off the computer. Without realizing it, technology has soaked into people's lives in such a fast way that now human lives and technology are considered to be inseparable. What is more, the impact of technology in people's lives is growing ever more. Although physical modifications of human bodies such as in those depicted in the science fiction movie "Matrix" do not seem realistic now, who knows what will happen in the future?

Flavored Meat

The concept of the enhanced body is the easiest for me to identify with. Most simply because it is a medium approach when compared to the concepts of the natural human body and the cyber body. The enhanced body involves making some improvements to the human body, but it does not require the complete removal of the physical human form. I find it incredibly difficult to relate to the concept of a life lived completely in a virtual world. However, I also find it difficult to ignore the potential benefits of incorporating technology into the body.

The human body is fragile. The frailty of the physical body, and of the life lived through the body, is a sign of mortality. The use of technology in combination with the body is a way to enhance the fragile physical form and prolong life. As Mischa Peters points out in "Exit Meat", the use of optical devices can enhance the eyes, the use of artificial limbs can provide the physical form with greater strength. All of these enhancements share a common goal, to protect the mind, the non-physical, that which can not exist without some type of embodiment. I find that it would be beneficial to use technology in order to prolong life. In fact, technology is already being used to do so, just on a much smaller scale. With as frequently as we interact with technology in today's society, I do not believe that it would be a tremendous leap to integrate technology into the body.

MY BODY

Mischa Peters reflects in the article “Exit meat” the interrelationship between human body and the technology. In the article, there are four concepts: human, posthuman, internal technology, and external technology. It discusses about how technology will play in human body. Then ask yourself. Which of peters four conceptual body do I most identify with?

All four conceptual body doe fit in our body some how but I would say natural body fit with me the most. I know I use technology often most of time such as computer, I-pod, cell phone, and more. However, I don’t think they are controlling my life. That being said, it does not mean they are like awful or anything like that but I just do not think that technology has power to completely change my life. Overall, I do not think that the Matrix will be true.

Now natural, but are we becoming modified?

In “Exit Meat: Digital Bodies in a Virtual World,” Mischa Peters explores the relationship between human body and technology and discusses the idea of alternative brain-computer interfaces. While using numerous quotes from popular scientists, science fiction authors as well as examples from cyberpunks, Peters puts forward four different body concepts that differ in their level of involvement, or connection with technology: natural body, cyberbody, modified body, and enhanced body. These four bodies are either of human or posthuman, and their use of technology is either internalized or externalized. Of these four bodies, I personally identify with the natural body the most.

Natural body is the body of a human that has not undergone technological modifications or enhancement. Even though I use technological devices such as laptop, mobile phone, and many other, in my daily life to make my life more convenient and for entertainment purposes, I do not use them to support my own being. In other words, even thought technology is becoming a big part of my life, I do not need them to survive, or to represent my thoughts or my body itself. Neither would I ever imagine using energy from my own body to run other machines as Sam does in Synners. Unlike cyber, modified, or enhanced bodies, there is clear boundary between my own body and technology.

However, I believe that not in a distant future, increasing number of people could become more like modified bodies. In fact, there are many current cases where patients are aided by technology to extend their lifespan. Also, like Molly in Neuromancer, many occupations in the future, especially those that demand physical work, will utilize advanced technology that will assist them.

Where to draw the line?

Frightened, that was how I felt after reading Peters' article "Exit Meat". As human beings, identity is something that we hold in high value, especially in an individualistic culture like we have in the United States. It seems in the article that as technology in the body goes further, sense of self is lost. The characters described become more like robots than human beings. This being said, it's probably clear that I would classify myself as having a "normal body," and I would like to keep at that way. Certainly there is something attractive about the power, strength, and utility that could come with the technological advances described in "Exit Meat," but to me this is not enough of a gain for what would be sacrificed.

However clear this may be to all of us, as I assume we most all will identify as a "normal body" and not wish to have another type, the article indirectly poses an important question: when has it gone too far? Technology is growing rapidly and most of us don't oppose this, but should we? The changes technology causes in our lives happen slowly and are barely visible to us now, but when we look back in the future what will we think? Is technology going too far, to the point that it will one day be indistinguishable from the individual?

Exit Meat and My Life

The "Exit Meat" article is very interesting. It looks at how much technology has affected our lives and what kind of "human" we are now. The four categories our natural body, modified body, enhanced body, and cyberbody. Each category adds a little more technology on to your body until you are completely computerized. Many find this view to that of science fiction movies such as "The Matrix", which are referenced in the article. It often scares people because they only want to be a "natural body," one that has a limited to no connection with technology. It is my view that the "Terminator" robot is nothing to be afraid of. It is okay to push the boundaries between human and machine, not being afraid of being exit meat.

That being said I still consider myself a natural body. There is nothing attached to me that is technologically related, but I am not afraid of become a modified or enhanced body. Technology has the ability to change peoples lives. The medical world has fully adopted robotic limbs to help people function and computers to help people think. This is a small section of that technology that can help people all over the world. The Matrix will never come true, but the ability to become a modified body will be and I say humans should be accepting of that.

Meat, you can stay

The conceptual body to which I feel most connected to is, of course, the human modified body. I'm not physically connected to technology 24/7 but its presence (and sadly even its absence) have made a huge impact on my life. My forms of communication are mainly technological and I use a computer, cellphone, and ipod almost continuously throughout the day. So although I don't really find myself connected to technology internally in the literal sense, my mind spends so much time processing output/input related to technology that it may as well be.

This brings me to the square of the matrix which I would most want to be. Honestly, I believe that testing out all of them for a set period of time would be a very interesting experience. Currently, having only had the human modified body, I find it natural and comfortable. I have no real way of knowing which type of body I will most desire until I have tried all of them out. The scariest and most interesting of these would be the "enhanced body" in which my body is so interwoven with technology that my mind sees and realizes things not seen before.

Ultimately, I am very happy with the "modified" body that I currently reside in and have no real itch for a conversion. The only thing I could hope for is a tad less reliance of technology. Of course, the fact that I'm hypocritically using a computer to display this very message weakens my case quite drastically.

Only Natural Ingredients

In her article "Exit Meat", Mischa Peters introduces and discusses four concepts of how technology plays or will play a role in the human body, more specifically in science fiction. Peter's created a matrix that mixes and combines the concepts of "human", "posthuman", "internal technology", and "external technology". Using direct quotes and examples from a variety of science fiction media, Peters goes on to illustrate the four concepts she has created that are the "natural body", the "modified body", the "enhanced body", and the "cyberbody". The natural body consists of an unmodified body that is affected by technology around them, the modified body is one that has technological additions to it, the enhanced body is one in which the actual anatomy of the human body is changed by technology (strengthening muscles etc.), and the cyberbody is when technology takes over the entire body (a virtual body).

I feel like most people in our day in age would relate to the natural body, seeing as no such thing a a cyberbody, or even an enhanced body, is available. Our scientists are currently working on various elements of the modified body, but almost everyone is surrounded by an array of technology that contributes to the natural body. Every day I use a computer, view a televisions screen, and use my cell phone. Peters description enters a zone that is a little beyond our time, such as harvesting the body's own resources in order to power a computer, but I can't really relate to due to my laptop adapter and plugs in the wall. Pondering the future and whether or not we will have access to things such as an modified or enhanced body really is interesting. If i were presented with the option of adding something to my body or boosting its performance, right now I would say I probably wouldn't want to, but results may vary if I am actually placed in that circumstance.

The Natural Body

Mischa Peters reflects in the article “Exit Meat” the relationship between science, technology and the human body, specifically the concept of posthumanism. Technology is becoming so intricate in its methods and inventions, that the human body’s boundaries are being tested. It is to no surprise that many appraisals and disputes have been created regarding the transformation towards posthumanism. When analyzing the four conceptual bodies Peters has created, I most identify with the natural body—the body that has no physical modifications due to technology.

In agreement with the definition for the natural body, technology has not physically modified me in anyway but it does still have a heavy impact in my life. I am marked by technology just without direct physical alteration. I do rely on medical, and basic technologies, but I acknowledge the clear boundaries between technology and the body. The example in the article explains a girl who exploits her own energy to power her computer; I do not believe that the human body should deplete its own energy solely for technology’s advantage. Although I fully recognize myself in the state of the natural body, it makes me wonder if in the future the natural body will be able to compete against those with modified or enhanced bodies; or if the science behind natural selection will solely extinguish those bodies that remain natural?

My Body

In this new age of technology, some philosophers would agree that we have reached the point where it is possible to make the transformation from human to post-human. The definition of post-human being that the body is modified or enhanced by technology and is no longer "natural". In my opinion there are multiple moral issues that come up when the choice to modify one's body is made. I have to say that I most identify with Peter's "natural" body which is untouched and virginal to technological modifications.

From a conservative standpoint, the idea that one should be able to modify his or her body permanently with technology is similar to me in ways to modifying a body by plastic surgery. In my mind, there is a fine line between what is acceptable/necessary to change one's body for medical purposes and what is done to change one's body for the sake of personal enhancement. For example, it seems grotesque to me that a person would change there body beyond recognition via plastic surgery and take away the "natural" beauty they were born with to become a "super" beauty for the sake of personal enhancement. In the same ways, I find it grotesque that one would change his or her body using technology simply for personal enhancement. I can not imagine changing my body to have implanted knives in my hands or a microchip in my brain to interact with computers. It does not seem human to me. It seems like an alien being with similar functions to both technology and humans.