Post 8: Moooo

First of all, I don’t think our session in the MOO resembled a typical class in the MOO. We touched on many of the reasons the session in the MOO was a failure while in class on Tuesday and I thought most of the criticism was right on. I think the MOO is a flawed classroom system for many of the reasons that people mentioned; lack of facial expression, lack of tones, too much to keep up with, lack of organization, necessity of technical (typing) skill, lack of filter for the people who demand the attention of the class, etc., but I do think things would go better in an actual class held in the structure of the MOO.

First of all, if one was taking a class in the MOO they would receive a syllabus by email before coming to class. Within this syllabus would be a list of expectations, classroom procedures, participation policies, etc. There would also probably be a pre-class training time so people could learn the technical stuff needed to effectively communicate within the structure, i.e. comments directed at specific people (so you can tell who is responding to who) or the whisper command where only one person receives the message as opposed to the whole class. There would be an obvious leader in the classroom, not someone who dominates the conversation, but someone to guide it effectively in the correct paths. Overall, there would be a lot more direction, so while it is hard to focus on teaching one specific thing, I do think it is possible to have worthwhile discussion in the MOO.

I say some of this because I took classes in the MOO this summer and they did not at all resemble class last Thursday. Granted, they were graduate level courses and ‘development’ levels were a little different, but I think the instructor set a tone and the class followed. I never met my instructors or my classmates but I feel like I know quite a bit about them. We all shaped the discussions, the teachers gave guiding questions and most people shared their ideas. I don’t think anyone took any one specific thing from the classes, but I do think we all learned. I did not love the MOO. I felt like my typing skills were too slow, my ideas were too similar to the ideas already presented on the screen, my deficiencies as a student were exposed, etc., but I do think the classes had value. I don’t think learning in this environment is worthless, just different.

Post 7: Cell phones

I love my cell phone. I remember having to scrounge up quarters so I could call for a ride home from the mall or the theatre. I remember being pissed when they raised the price on these calls from 25 cents to 35 cents. Now a quarter was not enough. How inconvenient. My how a cell phone would have been nice. I don’t have the same necessity to call for rides, but I never have to look for a phone. The cell phone is convenient. It is a privilege. Some abuse the privilege. I wish all people had to take a cell phone etiquette class, but I love the convenience of my cell phone.

I am not a person who enjoys talking on the phone. I enjoy talking to people, but in person. I would always rather be doing something than talking about the things that I have done. It just seems like a waste of my time. That is why I constantly talk while I’m driving. I’m still getting one thing accomplished, getting from point A to point B, while holding my obligatory phone calls. The cell phone allows me to keep contact with my friends at a distance, while not stealing any of the immediacy of my life like a stationary phone. Perhaps I am abusing the privilege by endangering the lives of others, but it allows me to live more of my life, and ironically waste less time talking though I spend more time doing so.

I think I value simplicity. I like text messaging for this reason. When I have a chatty friend, I can simply send a text and avoid the difficulty of getting off the phone. Message sent; idea taken; idea comes back; no filler. I enjoy being able to cut the small talk out of conversation sometimes. It is a valuable form of composition in my life. It saves me a lot of time and headache. This way I can get together with my friends without asking about their day twice.

Text: Let’s meet at Starbucks at 7:30.
A: OK.

This is so much more efficient and leaves me with more to say when I actually come in contact with the person, thus enriching the experience. I feel like I spend more time in actual valuable human contact, due to my impersonal cell phone. It’s all in how you use the tool.

Post 6: Rhetoric and the classroom

I have to say that I consider myself most attracted to the rhetorical theory of composition. I have always believed that truth is constructed and not necessarily a concrete item we can find, or discover through science, or ever really know. This rhetorical view gives me a model to reference which summarizes some of my own beliefs that I have held for a long time. I constantly modify my own values. I think it is healthy to be open to some form of change in opinion at all times. This change in truth does not necessarily have to be absolute swing from one side to the other, merely little tweaks here and there. I think I have my opinion on the world, and I am entitled to that opinion, and it is an educated thoughtful opinion. I also think you have an opinion, you are entitled to your opinion, and I enjoy hearing that opinion so I can use it to shape my own.

I think being able to define this viewpoint adds some form of legitimacy to my way of thinking. By adding legitimacy and actual theory to my beliefs, I can focus on a classroom where negotiation is valued. You can take things to a more democratic playing field and when questioned by superiors, parents, or students, reference actual theory. When you want to change things in the classroom it is important to be able to discuss the reason behind it to your administration. Maybe by the time class is over, and I have heard Kevin’s speech about rhetoric and negotiation enough times, I will be able to defend myself when I want to do things beyond the formula.

Post 5: Philosophic jargon

I want to address the concept of humanism and its utopian logic. I want to argue that technology may have us closer to this “utopian” idea than we acknowledged in class the other day. As Jesse said, “The problem with Utopia is that everyone’s utopia is different.” This means that in Utopia, interaction would be different than it is here in this world. Each individual would need their own little sphere to fill as they may please. Let’s say we have two individuals to illustrate the necessity of separate spheres. Say individual #1 wants to be alone on an island with the love of his life, which he messed things up with and divorced in the real world. Individual #2’s idea of utopia is being alone on this same island with the same lover who is #1’s love of his life. With separate spheres and transient selfless beings this may be possible. I think these separate spheres, or at least the transient being, are necessary for Utopia in any domain.

Now virtual reality presents the possibility of these separate spheres. Each individual has their own little room, with their own blueprint or program. Sensors placed on the body give it the sensory experience. Every individual can have what they desire with an experience so encompassing, that you forget it is artificial. In this spectrum both individuals could have what they wanted.

I do not believe in Utopia on earth. I am still undecided on Utopia as a concept. Gaining everything you desire, want, or need does not guarantee happiness. But this idea of Utopia, presented by humanity, is becoming obtainable by the inventions of humanity. The flaw is with the original concept, not necessarily the means to obtain it.