video games are errotic

During our last class we discussed how video games provide us with the knowledge on how machines impact our lives and how we impact machines. In other words, video games provide a new kind of intimacy or erroticism. Naturally, a lot of us got confused as to what that meant and I blurted out that that sort of thing makes my mind go in the gutter. Indeed, erroticism is linked to biological sex yet there are other aspects to erroticism. In other words it is not soley limited to heteronormal sexual activity, nor is it specifically linked to gentailia. Rather errotic is linked to pleasure, libido and desire, it is sensualized, yet it doesn't have to refer soley to a man-woman relationship. It could refer to a fetish or even a man-animal sort of relationship. For example, someone could find himself obsessed with a pinball machine--there's something very sensual about it--with all those bells and levers and flashing lights--and of course there's the obvious sexual innuendo of trying to get a ball into a hole. Our teacher even referred to the bit in which there are flashing lights and bells as the "climax." Yet it's not necessarily sex, it's sexualized due to libido. There's definately pleasure in video games--and not just because of characters like Laura Croft. It's more that one finds themselves wanting to play a video game all night if they are that absorbed in it. Sometimes, I find myself playing until my arms start to ache or my feet fall asleep. Then, I may find myyself so absorbed in the game that I can't wait until I can get back to it.One time, when I was sick from school, I was actually partially happy because it meant that I could play some more of Paper Mario and the Thousand Year Door.
Here's a link to intimacy and addiction in video games.

Social Networks Increase One's Health?

To be honest, I have not been truly sick since 2 years ago during my Sophomore year at college--most likely due to some bad cafeteria food. Sure, I get sore throats, and runny noses from time to time--but I haven't come down with an actual fever lately--even when I'm in contact with a friend who happens to be sick. I haven't caught anything from them, dispite our close contact.
I always thought it was due to me having a strong immune system, yet there's another plausible theory behind my strong health. Supposedly, having a vast social network--both weak and strong ties, provides one with strong health. Thus, those who have strong social networks that consist of family members, relatives,and friends are less likely to have a heart attack or pregnancy problems. Yet the ironic part is that the bigger the social network the more germs we are exposed to--although at the same time, research has discovered that the bigger one's social ties, the less likely one is to be afflicted with a contagious disease. In other words the more social interaction one partakes in the healthier and happier one is. Truth be told, I am pretty happy--and i do have a pretty vast social network.Social networks have a direct impact on one's physical and mental well being.
Research has also shown that generally amongst elderly white couples--when the spouse dies, the other one dies shortly after--maybe after a few weeks, months or a year or two.However When a spouse dies in an elderly black couple, the other one lives on longer due to having plenty of weak and strong social ties. Thus, elderly black couples are more socially integrated than their white counterparts.

Here's a link that mentions how social networks on facebook and twitter can actually improve one's health.

Bye Bye Book?

There's a new technology out there that most likely will make books forever obsolete. It's called a Kindle. It's sort of like an i-Pod for the book. You can buy and download copies of books online for it--and then read without having to turn any pages. Yet in my opinion, this sounds rather impersonal. I can't picture parents reading their children a bedtime story from a Kindle--although I've been told that they download illustrations too.

The novel first emerged during the Renaissance. It's form embodied the middle class and it has dominated society for the last 400 years or so. In general, the novel contains a main character and a plot and it linear. That means that it includes a beginning and an end.The linear novel is also a way of thinking about the world,yourself, and your life. The novel itself represents your life, and what plans are in store for you. The main charater of the novel is you and the plot is your life.
However, it seems as if we may soon abandon the book. Technologies are never neutral as they contain ways of living and thinking. While linear text represents one type of living and understanding, hypertext is that of a dynamic language. Unlike the typical novel, it is non-linear. There is no beginning, and no end. In a way, it's much like a Choose Your Own Adventure book. Compared to the containment of linear text, hypertext is quite complex. Through hypertext, life looks nothing like you thought it would. Hypertext is fluid and full of contingency and indeterminacy. It changes right before your very eyes. What you thought was one thing, is suddenly another. Hypertext wouldn't just lead to the end of books, but also allow us to save trees.Here's a link about the Kindle possibly making books obsolete.

Mythinformation

There are many myths involving how computers can make society better. There's the idea that through the love of technology-technophilia--we can level society making it structurally contained, restrained and directed. Computers are believed to spread equality through knowledge, thus it can change the economy structurally. We are told that the internet can do anything.

There were two groups attempting to spread greater political information throughout society One group was old school--it relied upon surveys and polls and questionaires. the other was known as Zero Ground and spread environmental consciousness through the internet. One would think that Zeroground won over the traditional method. In actuality, the opposite occured. Zeroground disipated into nothingness while the traditional method affected the political process because it was both convenient and efficiant. Thus it politically increased participation in contrast to that of the internet.

There's also the myth that through the use of computers, people are more knowledgable in our society. This sadly, does not actually seem to be the case. Knowledge and information are constantly mixed up with one another. In reality they are two separate things. Information represents decrete units of facts, dates, numbers and names. Knowledge on the other hand is a much broader narative--in other words theory. With knowledge, facts begin to make sense.

In reality, we don't have more knowledge, rather we have more information. Yet it is false that we don't have any knowledge at all. If that were true we would not be able to dress ourselves. We definately have experiencial knowledge in the form of pre-existing framework. One's political orientation is based upon knowledge.

As mentioned earlier, information is not knowledge. It consists merely of facts. Another myth is that knowledge is power--actually knowledge causes the opposite to happen. We become disenchanted because there are too many structures, we can't do anything about it because we lack the power to change it. Yet in an indifferent sense, knowledge is power because we can control and prevent change. Making knowledge makes power. Also those with knowledge already have power and are capable of reinforcing it such as doctors.

Another myth is that information increases democracy. Yet good middle jobs are disapearing, leaving behind either really bad jobs or really good jobs--but mostly really bad jobs. COntrary to popular belief, outsourcing is not the main problem. Most of those jobs being outsourced are ones that we don't want anyway. Information is not liberating us, it is more difficult to earn a decent living. There is increased surveillance and the goventment benefits more from it.
Here is a link focusing on mythinformation

Theories behind why communities are falling apart

Today, communities are becoming more and more disorganized and focus more upon the individual than upon groups. There are several theories behind this disorganized network community. One of them is that of the nation-state in which a large scale institution manages our lives through complex bureaucracy and a set of laws. Nation-states regulate social interactions. This results in local communities losing their autonomy. While the community is now producing individuals, at the same time the nation-state is destroying the community--which is now governed by a national government.

Another theory is that of globalization--or a world system. Due to the pressure of capital we are forced to move and pursue capital--in other words outsourcing. This fragments the nuclear family and also destroys communities. Through capitalization a global financial capital is produced.

Another theory is that of instrumental bureaucratization which transforms traditional communification. Things must be efficient.

Another reason or theory involves cities such as diverse interest groups, sorting and mobility and diversity.

A final reason is that of transportation--which results in cost efficiency of communication.
Here's a site that explains what a network community is.