So everybody what’s it going to be red or blue, conformity or nonconformity, the easy road or the hard but real path? After reading different texts on this debate between taking either the red or blue pill I’ve learned that it goes much further than most notice. What does choosing the red or blue pill really mean? Does it judge the character of a person, or does it show if a person real or just living?
It wouldn’t surprise me if seventy five percent of the world’s population either chooses the blue pill or just has it shoved down their throat. Most people in today’s world almost act as machines caught in a ongoing cycle of living, doing what they think they are supposed to do in life, then dying. Like what is a person supposed to do in life? Most people would say grow up, go to college, get a good job, start a family, and die. So many people live to this standard that they are caged inside to where they are programmed to be a “model” citizen. What is a model citizen you might ask? A model citizen to me is a person that grows up in a controlled environment making every typical decision a good person should make. These people obey the law even if they might think some laws are unfair or they are being treated unfair. These people their whole lives are benefiting the economy, even though business tactics and ethics of today aren’t always moral or even looking out for the model citizen. Someone who takes the blue pill gets stuck in society afraid to branch out or discover their internal desires. These people are totally opposed to radical ideas even though some of these radical ideas might sound valid to them. It’s the fact that the idea is radical that automatically makes it automatically irrelevant to the person. These blue pill takers are blue collared, comfortable where they are, and trapped.
What about the red pill? Are these people the extremists? Are they the intellectual? Are they the people that hold their own beliefs and desires higher than the beliefs and desires of modern day society? To me these people are the people that might not live in a suburban home with a concrete schedule and always know their next move. These people are the people that live lives that are true to them and they know it’s what they want to do no matter what it is. These people go through life proposing the question how can I leave my mark on society without letting it leave its mark on me. These people are the risk takers, the ones that think outside of the box and really don’t care about others feelings on how they are living their lives. The red pill in a way is unconformity, its choosing the path that is unknown but real and unstructured. Maybe the choice of the red pill could be disastrous for some but life saving for others.
Through reading the texts I’ve learned that deciding between the blue and red pill goes much deeper than a simple judgment of character. A decision between right and wrong judges character. This decision shows whether a person want to live a real true to themselves life, or just get thrown into a systematical controlled society. So how many people look back on life after choosing the blue pill and wish they had chosen the blue one? Probably many, how many people have you heard look back on their life saying I would of done something different or I wish I had done what I love to do? Even the people that take the red pill might live a life that’s well different than normal, but all in all its their own life that they chose unaffected by the world surrounding them.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Sunday, September 20, 2009
America the Undermining Society
Response to “The Conquest of Cool” By Justin Purvis
This response is going to focus on one idea from this excerpt that caught my interest. What really was the business ideology concerning the sixties, and is that ideology still present today? Its odd how the sixties played a huge role in so many areas of society. The sixties had direct effects in areas of life such as politics, popular culture, and ethics of the American mind. But the sixties pivotal role was in American business to the point where crucial trends are still undermining us today.
One of the main things I thought was interesting from the excerpt was the way it said that big commercial companies of the sixties used the “hippie era” to not only alter its way of marketing, but do this in a way to undermine this counterculture of the time. The idea of taking a mainstream product and use marketing to make it appeal to a certain sect of society is pure genius. A coke is a coke no matter what ethnicity, religion, or social culture a person is in. It’s the idea of using advertisement and marketing to exploit your product to an counter culture(that eventually became mainstream culture) and make it seem as a part to this growing culture that directly initiates success.
During the sixties commercial companies began applying peace signs and easygoing slogans to the commercial display of their product and the outcome was a complete success. That business device in my mind is still around and ever successful. Like for instance what the difference of using a peace sign to engage hippies into identifying themselves with coke, than sprite using Grant Hill during the nineties to engage a sports admiring society with Sprite. It’s the exact same tactic. A tactic that undermines a consumer mentally by making them believe that they are one with the product.
My next idea I want to evaluate in the response is pulled from both the video we watched in class as well of aspects of this excerpt. Is there such thing as a undying counterculture or sub society? Basically is it possible for a known (and growing) counterculture to stay a counterculture and not get sucked into being mainstream? For example take the “emo” explosion of the early twenty-first century to mind. At this time the world knew classic, southern, hard, alternative, even punk and heavy metal rock was basically mainstream or becoming mainstream to fans of the music industry. Then out of nowhere came these kids with tight pants, sex confused attire, and a swagger that made it seem cool to be feminine and highly symbolic. The music was basic with forms of both punk and heavy metal rock tying in. But for this sub genre it was all about the unique style of loading these musically mediocre songs with vocals and lyrics that were again highly symbolic and true to a certain type of person. In a weird way I identify the “emo” culture as being similar to the hippie movement of the sixties.
Why you might ask? Both of these cultures gave a person a sense of success and acceptance just because they dress and apart of the culture. It’s the idea that “you might not be cool or dress cool, but if you identify yourself with us, all of your “uncool” characteristics then become cool”. Like for the hippies of the sixties there was no dress code or team color, it was simply about people being a part of a people that is standing up for something engaging in a common goal. So back to my question of is there such thing as a counterculture staying a counterculture? NO! Have you ever heard of Panic of the Disco, Taking Back Sunday, or Fall Out Boy? Most people who listen to a variety of music or watch television have. All these bands started out part of the “emo” subculture and found themselves on TRL far from their starting affiliation with society.
So overall a counterculture stays a counterculture until it gets too big where mainstream society decides to engage in it and make it mainstream and beneficiary to them. It’s unfortunate but in the long run unavoidable, sorry guys.
This response is going to focus on one idea from this excerpt that caught my interest. What really was the business ideology concerning the sixties, and is that ideology still present today? Its odd how the sixties played a huge role in so many areas of society. The sixties had direct effects in areas of life such as politics, popular culture, and ethics of the American mind. But the sixties pivotal role was in American business to the point where crucial trends are still undermining us today.
One of the main things I thought was interesting from the excerpt was the way it said that big commercial companies of the sixties used the “hippie era” to not only alter its way of marketing, but do this in a way to undermine this counterculture of the time. The idea of taking a mainstream product and use marketing to make it appeal to a certain sect of society is pure genius. A coke is a coke no matter what ethnicity, religion, or social culture a person is in. It’s the idea of using advertisement and marketing to exploit your product to an counter culture(that eventually became mainstream culture) and make it seem as a part to this growing culture that directly initiates success.
During the sixties commercial companies began applying peace signs and easygoing slogans to the commercial display of their product and the outcome was a complete success. That business device in my mind is still around and ever successful. Like for instance what the difference of using a peace sign to engage hippies into identifying themselves with coke, than sprite using Grant Hill during the nineties to engage a sports admiring society with Sprite. It’s the exact same tactic. A tactic that undermines a consumer mentally by making them believe that they are one with the product.
My next idea I want to evaluate in the response is pulled from both the video we watched in class as well of aspects of this excerpt. Is there such thing as a undying counterculture or sub society? Basically is it possible for a known (and growing) counterculture to stay a counterculture and not get sucked into being mainstream? For example take the “emo” explosion of the early twenty-first century to mind. At this time the world knew classic, southern, hard, alternative, even punk and heavy metal rock was basically mainstream or becoming mainstream to fans of the music industry. Then out of nowhere came these kids with tight pants, sex confused attire, and a swagger that made it seem cool to be feminine and highly symbolic. The music was basic with forms of both punk and heavy metal rock tying in. But for this sub genre it was all about the unique style of loading these musically mediocre songs with vocals and lyrics that were again highly symbolic and true to a certain type of person. In a weird way I identify the “emo” culture as being similar to the hippie movement of the sixties.
Why you might ask? Both of these cultures gave a person a sense of success and acceptance just because they dress and apart of the culture. It’s the idea that “you might not be cool or dress cool, but if you identify yourself with us, all of your “uncool” characteristics then become cool”. Like for the hippies of the sixties there was no dress code or team color, it was simply about people being a part of a people that is standing up for something engaging in a common goal. So back to my question of is there such thing as a counterculture staying a counterculture? NO! Have you ever heard of Panic of the Disco, Taking Back Sunday, or Fall Out Boy? Most people who listen to a variety of music or watch television have. All these bands started out part of the “emo” subculture and found themselves on TRL far from their starting affiliation with society.
So overall a counterculture stays a counterculture until it gets too big where mainstream society decides to engage in it and make it mainstream and beneficiary to them. It’s unfortunate but in the long run unavoidable, sorry guys.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Brainwashing: A way of American life?
Through both of these readings multiple questions now come to mind. “Why do we listen to what they say” is a great one coming from the Rushkoff reading. I feel like people today hold people with obvious media direct control to be almighty and unquestionable. It’s funny that these people giving us this information are simply passing on to the masses the altered and restructured stories that might be similar to the truth but far from the actual truth. Even if these people do give raw true information the way the story is represented in a visual sense could lead viewers to a wrong view on the subject at hand. After reading both articles it’s obvious that people are being manipulated and according to Rushkoff this trend is an undying one.
For instance an example from my life I can connect to is ESPN’s take on professional sporting teams. The facts could be on the table that a team isn’t going to fair well against their upcoming opponent maybe due to games in the past or current injuries of the team. What amazes me is that if ESPN gives a glorified analyst or sports legend ten minutes of airtime to share a exotic idea on how this team will magically do better in their next game because of this persons inside information then it’s likely that people that whole week will be talking about this team as if it’s obvious that they will emerge victorious. This motion is not because of the person watching ESPN really feels inside that the team will win but the idea that an educated sports analyst told him so. Its radical, its unavoidable and overall its brainwashing.
Now connecting Rushkoff to the online article, what connection do Liberal Arts really have to people’s ability to ask why they perceive the world in the way they do instead of how they will perceive the world? Maybe if Liberal Arts were injected more to the curriculum than America would give birth to more liberal independent thinkers. These people might be able to refuse the almighty public authority (mostly distributed to the public by ways of television and radio).
Also secondly is it not a bit scary to you that government is trying to of all things limit the amount of liberal arts classes available in the school system? What are they trying to do exactly? Are they trying to dumb down America’s people to being susceptible to their economical plans of controlling the mind to do their economical bidding? Are they trying to fill up young peoples’ minds with black and white knowledge of facts and ways of evaluating to induce the public to act in one simple manner? While this view might be exotic it’s debatable and almost scary.
While we view business officials and politicians to be role models of American society is that anywhere close to the truth? What are they really doing within their job responsibilities? To me it seems they are putting out information that is fake or spun. They put out stories and media that will engage the viewer by portraying a certain mood or false conclusion of successfulness and not even come close to the true characteristics of the subject at hand. These people are manipulators working in a manner not because they feel it is right, but because they know it will work. For example gum companies even though all gum is similar use ads and commercials to sell a product conveying mood or energy far from the true characteristics of the product.
Overall a piece of gum is a piece of gum. No gum or body was will give a man multiple female admirers or a brand new Mercedes no matter what media displays. The whole gig is tricking the American mind, even though how unfair it might be.
For instance an example from my life I can connect to is ESPN’s take on professional sporting teams. The facts could be on the table that a team isn’t going to fair well against their upcoming opponent maybe due to games in the past or current injuries of the team. What amazes me is that if ESPN gives a glorified analyst or sports legend ten minutes of airtime to share a exotic idea on how this team will magically do better in their next game because of this persons inside information then it’s likely that people that whole week will be talking about this team as if it’s obvious that they will emerge victorious. This motion is not because of the person watching ESPN really feels inside that the team will win but the idea that an educated sports analyst told him so. Its radical, its unavoidable and overall its brainwashing.
Now connecting Rushkoff to the online article, what connection do Liberal Arts really have to people’s ability to ask why they perceive the world in the way they do instead of how they will perceive the world? Maybe if Liberal Arts were injected more to the curriculum than America would give birth to more liberal independent thinkers. These people might be able to refuse the almighty public authority (mostly distributed to the public by ways of television and radio).
Also secondly is it not a bit scary to you that government is trying to of all things limit the amount of liberal arts classes available in the school system? What are they trying to do exactly? Are they trying to dumb down America’s people to being susceptible to their economical plans of controlling the mind to do their economical bidding? Are they trying to fill up young peoples’ minds with black and white knowledge of facts and ways of evaluating to induce the public to act in one simple manner? While this view might be exotic it’s debatable and almost scary.
While we view business officials and politicians to be role models of American society is that anywhere close to the truth? What are they really doing within their job responsibilities? To me it seems they are putting out information that is fake or spun. They put out stories and media that will engage the viewer by portraying a certain mood or false conclusion of successfulness and not even come close to the true characteristics of the subject at hand. These people are manipulators working in a manner not because they feel it is right, but because they know it will work. For example gum companies even though all gum is similar use ads and commercials to sell a product conveying mood or energy far from the true characteristics of the product.
Overall a piece of gum is a piece of gum. No gum or body was will give a man multiple female admirers or a brand new Mercedes no matter what media displays. The whole gig is tricking the American mind, even though how unfair it might be.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Tarantino: Ingenious Bastard
A review of Inglorious Bastards by Justin Purvis
Watching the previews for Bastards I was anxious and totally ready to view Quentin Tarantino’s next work of art. Considering I’m not a huge Brad Pitt fan (and was caught a little off guard when he landed this lead role) I still had huge expectations for Tarantino’s latest blockbuster. Everyone I had talked to before viewing the film said it was intense and worth the wait. Afterward I was pleased but still had a lot of quirky thoughts on the film.
At the first scene I was ready for something heavy and loud but I got the exact opposite. Even though I like the ending of the first scene I still thought it was slow. The dialogue was quiet at times and I could see where some people could get bored with the introductory scene. Then obviously all hell breaks loose and I was reassured I was watching a Tarantino film.
The story I thought was good because it was unique. I enjoyed the weird spin on WW2 different perspectives mastered in this film by the director. I guarantee if you will not see any other WW2 movies similar to this one. Bastards was serious but not serious, laid back then intense, totally formal then extremely sarcastic, again personally I know I enjoyed the film but afterward don’t know what to make of it.
My favorite characteristic of the film was the evident, key, jaw dropping scenes. Also you knew when these hit scenes were going on because the theatre filled with these loud theatrical sounds that only Tarantino would think to put in his movie. I really think that’s the loudest I’ve ever heard it get in a theatre, maybe I was just caught up in the moment. Overall by far the best scene was the ending scene where the place goes up in flames, pure genius, pure madness, pure Tarantino.
The structure of this film in a lot of ways reminded me off Resevoir Dogs. The unique style of having chapters and voice overs during the film almost resemble the way he introduced the “Mr.’s” in Resevoir Dogs. The notion was odd and irregular to your mainstream movie viewer but to those like me who appreciate the out of the box tactics made for a great film.
Now thinking of the intent of the film I find myself almost puzzled. What was the director trying to get across in this film? I didn’t really think this movie was a “serious” historical film like say Pearl Harbor or Schindler’s List, but it had some factual parts, right….. Maybe the director was trying to give a quirky representation of WW2 through this film.
Basically this movie can be enjoyed by just about anybody, especially those who enjoy those not so everyday movies. Bastards has encouraged me to go back and watch some of Quentin Tarantino’s older stuff just because I enjoyed this film so much. To tell you the truth I intend on seeing this film again because I enjoyed it so much the first time. Also I see how you might have to watch this film two or three times to get its full impact.
Even after watching this film I now don’t mind Brad Pitt as much as I did before. I think he did one hell of a job in the film staying true to his characters role of a hardnosed southern gentleman from Tennessee. His accent and all round swagger was perfect. I can’t say when I picture the character In the film the first movie star to come to mind would be Brad Pitt but all in all he pulled it off and made for a great character.
Watching the previews for Bastards I was anxious and totally ready to view Quentin Tarantino’s next work of art. Considering I’m not a huge Brad Pitt fan (and was caught a little off guard when he landed this lead role) I still had huge expectations for Tarantino’s latest blockbuster. Everyone I had talked to before viewing the film said it was intense and worth the wait. Afterward I was pleased but still had a lot of quirky thoughts on the film.
At the first scene I was ready for something heavy and loud but I got the exact opposite. Even though I like the ending of the first scene I still thought it was slow. The dialogue was quiet at times and I could see where some people could get bored with the introductory scene. Then obviously all hell breaks loose and I was reassured I was watching a Tarantino film.
The story I thought was good because it was unique. I enjoyed the weird spin on WW2 different perspectives mastered in this film by the director. I guarantee if you will not see any other WW2 movies similar to this one. Bastards was serious but not serious, laid back then intense, totally formal then extremely sarcastic, again personally I know I enjoyed the film but afterward don’t know what to make of it.
My favorite characteristic of the film was the evident, key, jaw dropping scenes. Also you knew when these hit scenes were going on because the theatre filled with these loud theatrical sounds that only Tarantino would think to put in his movie. I really think that’s the loudest I’ve ever heard it get in a theatre, maybe I was just caught up in the moment. Overall by far the best scene was the ending scene where the place goes up in flames, pure genius, pure madness, pure Tarantino.
The structure of this film in a lot of ways reminded me off Resevoir Dogs. The unique style of having chapters and voice overs during the film almost resemble the way he introduced the “Mr.’s” in Resevoir Dogs. The notion was odd and irregular to your mainstream movie viewer but to those like me who appreciate the out of the box tactics made for a great film.
Now thinking of the intent of the film I find myself almost puzzled. What was the director trying to get across in this film? I didn’t really think this movie was a “serious” historical film like say Pearl Harbor or Schindler’s List, but it had some factual parts, right….. Maybe the director was trying to give a quirky representation of WW2 through this film.
Basically this movie can be enjoyed by just about anybody, especially those who enjoy those not so everyday movies. Bastards has encouraged me to go back and watch some of Quentin Tarantino’s older stuff just because I enjoyed this film so much. To tell you the truth I intend on seeing this film again because I enjoyed it so much the first time. Also I see how you might have to watch this film two or three times to get its full impact.
Even after watching this film I now don’t mind Brad Pitt as much as I did before. I think he did one hell of a job in the film staying true to his characters role of a hardnosed southern gentleman from Tennessee. His accent and all round swagger was perfect. I can’t say when I picture the character In the film the first movie star to come to mind would be Brad Pitt but all in all he pulled it off and made for a great character.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Bernay the Dangerous....
The Century of the Self (Part 1) Response
To be honest a minute into this video I thought for the next thirty minutes I would be watching another boring informational video that would leave most students struggling to stay awake. Thirty minutes into the video I was engaged and almost blown away by the content of this short video. In a broad sense the idea’s Bernay put forth during that time period were genius, powerful and overall dangerous. His tactics he used to achieve his goals were in my mind one of a kind and I believe Bernay’s psychological ideas were crucial to society during World War 2.
A student and colleague of Sigmund Freud it was obvious that this man had the potential to produce both knowledge and power to whoever ends up getting him to work for them. Obviously during the twenties Bernay’s ideas shined not only to the government by getting America to go from a “needs to a desire” country, but also his ideas within politics proved to be a outright difference maker. To me his work with transforming America’s society was amazing; but I think almost put people in a position where they were being brainwashed. Although his ideas were used to obtain a national good, did people stand a chance against this ethical mastermind? For instance the situation where he spun the idea of how smoking to men symbolized power, therefore women to gain power in a symbolical sense should start smoking. Pure Genius! These women were simply conforming to their sect of society and the cigarette companies were gaining grounds in business all because of Bernay’s ideas.
Bernay to venture into politics proved to be only another success. The idea of using popular culture icons such as movie stars to fling politicians images upward is again rather abstract thinking but extremely effective. He made mass society associate popular culture with politicians (who in a whole sense had few things in common) and therefore gain support just through recognition. In my mind I think that at this point Bernay could use his profession in just about anything. His work in psychoanalysis could be connected and used with just about any area that consisted of shaping society to act or behave a certain way. What if Bernay dabbled his ideas into other things such as music or athletic events during this time? Would we now be recognizing different sport stars or musicians for their work during that time?
Now you may ask why I regarded Bernay’s ideas as being “dangerous”. It’s not because his motives of that time were dangerous but what if his motives had been different. The ability to alter and control peoples’ minds is outright scary. Now is when World War 2 and the connection between Bernay’s ideas and Germany’s propaganda usage become relevant. I think there is a direct correlation between the way Joseph Goebbels used propaganda to make most Germans during WW2 let loose of their moral and ethical conscience. He simply “manipulated the masses” and led German society to believe that their motives behind engaging in the war were right and anyone that challenged their beliefs were incorrect. Again it’s scary how this idea and ability to use anything from magazines, movies, commercials, etc to control a mass group of people can conduct such immoral activities. The progress in itself is a powerful one that could produce a wide variety of outcomes such as advancements, successes, and even huge mistakes.
Personally after watching the video there was a lot of questions that first came to mind. Questions like; what if Bernay’s ideas connected to different parts of society? Also what if Bernay used his ideas to induce “bad things”, such as revolts or out lashes against certain accepted societal tendencies of the time? Could he of led people of America to believe anything, for any reason?
To be honest a minute into this video I thought for the next thirty minutes I would be watching another boring informational video that would leave most students struggling to stay awake. Thirty minutes into the video I was engaged and almost blown away by the content of this short video. In a broad sense the idea’s Bernay put forth during that time period were genius, powerful and overall dangerous. His tactics he used to achieve his goals were in my mind one of a kind and I believe Bernay’s psychological ideas were crucial to society during World War 2.
A student and colleague of Sigmund Freud it was obvious that this man had the potential to produce both knowledge and power to whoever ends up getting him to work for them. Obviously during the twenties Bernay’s ideas shined not only to the government by getting America to go from a “needs to a desire” country, but also his ideas within politics proved to be a outright difference maker. To me his work with transforming America’s society was amazing; but I think almost put people in a position where they were being brainwashed. Although his ideas were used to obtain a national good, did people stand a chance against this ethical mastermind? For instance the situation where he spun the idea of how smoking to men symbolized power, therefore women to gain power in a symbolical sense should start smoking. Pure Genius! These women were simply conforming to their sect of society and the cigarette companies were gaining grounds in business all because of Bernay’s ideas.
Bernay to venture into politics proved to be only another success. The idea of using popular culture icons such as movie stars to fling politicians images upward is again rather abstract thinking but extremely effective. He made mass society associate popular culture with politicians (who in a whole sense had few things in common) and therefore gain support just through recognition. In my mind I think that at this point Bernay could use his profession in just about anything. His work in psychoanalysis could be connected and used with just about any area that consisted of shaping society to act or behave a certain way. What if Bernay dabbled his ideas into other things such as music or athletic events during this time? Would we now be recognizing different sport stars or musicians for their work during that time?
Now you may ask why I regarded Bernay’s ideas as being “dangerous”. It’s not because his motives of that time were dangerous but what if his motives had been different. The ability to alter and control peoples’ minds is outright scary. Now is when World War 2 and the connection between Bernay’s ideas and Germany’s propaganda usage become relevant. I think there is a direct correlation between the way Joseph Goebbels used propaganda to make most Germans during WW2 let loose of their moral and ethical conscience. He simply “manipulated the masses” and led German society to believe that their motives behind engaging in the war were right and anyone that challenged their beliefs were incorrect. Again it’s scary how this idea and ability to use anything from magazines, movies, commercials, etc to control a mass group of people can conduct such immoral activities. The progress in itself is a powerful one that could produce a wide variety of outcomes such as advancements, successes, and even huge mistakes.
Personally after watching the video there was a lot of questions that first came to mind. Questions like; what if Bernay’s ideas connected to different parts of society? Also what if Bernay used his ideas to induce “bad things”, such as revolts or out lashes against certain accepted societal tendencies of the time? Could he of led people of America to believe anything, for any reason?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
