The Death of Human Interaction

“I never met a man who was less interested in the living. Sometimes I think that’s the trouble with the world: too many people in high places who are stone-cold dead (68).” These wise words spoken by Marvin Breed bare an uncomfortable message. Underlying this criticism of Felix Hoenikker’s character is a warning of mankind’s technological capacity for mass destruction. Though it appears Vonnegut was referring to mass destruction in the sense of a nuclear holocaust of sorts, I also believe this mass destruction could be figuratively interpreted as a socio-cultural destruction—a death of human interaction, a loss of interest in “the living.”

Exhibit A: Felix Hoenikker (duh). He is a perfect example of how excessive science and technology can destroy human relations. He allowed his entire life, both professional and private, to revolve around science experiments. Rather than love and cherish his family, he dedicated every ounce of his being to his laboratory work. Felix’s neglected children seemed fairly unharmed at first, but considering that their desperate attempts to find happiness led to the destruction of the entire world, it is safe to say that they were far from okay. The search for happiness is perhaps the most universal of human endeavors and a noble goal, but these people failed to realize that happiness is found in people, in human relationships—not in exploiting Ice-9 for all it’s worth. When you think about it, at the end of the day the Hoenikkers had nothing real to live for and hold onto, their lives had no meaning. If only Felix cared more about “the living”… But while it is fairly easy to point the accusatory finger at Felix Hoenikker and reproach him for being too invested in science and technology, I cannot help but wonder…are we any different?

Exhibit B: us (yikes). Cat’s Cradle was written well before the Internet took over the planet, yet many of its themes have resonance with today’s technological developments. Our generation has witnessed an ever-increasing pace of scientific advancement, especially with the creation of Facebook, Twitter, and MySpace. Social networking is a great tool for connecting with people from all different walks of life, sharing thoughts and ideas, keeping in touch with family members, catching up with old acquaintances or just simply as a means of self expression. There is, however, a dangerous downside to social networking which is becoming more predominant by the day. Unfortunately, these very same tools that we use to socially network and communicate with each other have rapidly torn down and deteriorated our social skills when we find ourselves physically face-to-face with each other. The media plays a big part in promoting this. In fact, I remember seeing a wireless telephone commercial where a couple sitting at a dinner table was sending text messages to each other. The man says, “Did you just break up with me in a text message?” The woman not only affirms his question but also points out that with her new phone plan she can break up with him via e-mail as well as with a phone call. The man is aghast. The fact that companies are now advertising face-to-face human interaction as unnecessary makes me question how far we are willing to let this go.

Science and technology have evolved into a revered institution of truth and knowledge. And most of us treat such advancements as dogma without questioning whether it is all necessarily beneficial and for the good of all. I am as guilty as everyone else. Sure, I love facebook-stalking people and updating my status as much as anyone else, but at what cost? Cat’s Cradle ridicules this by emphasizing that sheer human stupidity is not only alive and well, but also ignorant of its consequences. Maybe we all need to learn a lesson from Felix and pay a little more attention to “the living.”

I Don't Want to Kill the Cat if it Kills Me

They say, “Curiosity killed the cat.”

The witty reply, “But satisfaction brought it back."

I suppose, but what if there’s no damn cat?

In theory, the idea of knowing the truth, the ultimate truth (whatever that implies) is extremely appealing. Isn’t it what we long to discover in hopes that the answer to man’s greatest question would make our existences feel more substantial?

Science, interestingly, turns many of those philosophical musings from asking with the intent of a “why” to that of a “how.”

And now, I present an anecdote: Schrödinger's cat and then some

My high school had a brilliant, brilliant idea to have ninth graders study a semester of physics and a semester of chemistry before picking one to study for a yearlong in tenth grade. In theory, once again, it was an appealing idea. We would be exposed to a cornucopia of knowledge and free to decide for ourselves (though freedom was limited to the two options). In reality, throwing a bunch of pre-teenagers who barely understand the phenomena of puberty into an introductory physics class was… stupid.

We couldn’t understand most of the principles without later suffering from a headache and whatever watered down physics we learned simply wasn’t retained (fall/winter/spring/summer break amnesia).

Perhaps, the only thing I vividly remember from ninth grade physics was my professor, a kind woman who was new to teaching. Prior to standing before a class and trying to get them to stay awake, she was a physicist (and her husband was a researcher for NASA, isn’t that such a lovely match?)

She saw the world with all of its forces; we didn’t.

One day, during lab, she introduced to us the Cat.

In retrospect, everything seems to be related to cats (and I’m allergic).

“The cat,” she said with gusto, “is simultaneously alive and dead!”

She was faced with blank stares.

“But even if it didn’t die because of the poison or radiation, then would it die out of hunger or suffocation?”

“It’s… theoretical.”

“So theoretical cats don’t die?”

“It’s alive AND dead.”

“But…it’s a cat…in a box…”

By the time class ended, we stuffed the cat back into its box and buried the box alongside other academic jumble until the thought receded.

The semester ended and I concluded: that was awful. At least whatever we learn next will be better in comparison.

I was wrong. Chemistry was a mind-rapist, and I was left with the only option of regurgitating the textbook heavy enough to use as a weapon to get decent grades.

Trying to remember the different bonds and how atoms were attracted to each other (in a non-romantic way) was hard enough but trying to balance equations and calculate the amount of molecules in a theoretical drop of such and such made me flinch with fear.

I don’t doubt that science can create and manipulate properties of the unthinkable or that we can discover more than we do and should know, but science, at times, makes me feel hollow.

Am I nothing more than a mass of molecules, which in turn are masses of atoms, which then are masses of subatomic particles? Is the body nothing more than a system that one day will cease to function?

Isn’t it unsettling to think that your prefrontal cortex is responsible for determining your personality, when we think it’s something we have shaped with our life experiences? Shouldn’t we be able to define our own existences?

Why is it that so much in life is predetermined?

FATE and SCIENCE...

...sometimes, I don’t see much difference between the two, and while I don’t want to live a life of ignorance and half-truths, I would much rather stumble blindly in search of a “why?” than be blinded by the answer to a “how?”

A figment of human imagination

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=4740178&page=1

This news piece dates back to 2008. It talks about an anthropological idea, which argues that humans are the only species to practice religion because they have the “brain architecture to imagine” and to unify with groups on the basis of a common belief. The author of the idea uses the term “transcendental social” to describe this social phenomena. He claims, "What the transcendental social requires is the ability to live very largely in the imagination.”

Is religion really just a figment of human imagination (a foma that keeps you “brave and kind and healthy and happy?”), rather than a path to discovering the greater truth? I guess that’s the ultimate question and the discussion might never sum up to a satisfactory conclusion. However, the point I wanted to make is, for something that’s believed to be a “figment of human imagination,” religion is extremely real. To me, that says a lot about the potency of human imagination.

In Cat’s Cradle, human imagination is presented as something both inevitable and detrimental to humanity. On one hand, it shows an entire nation held together by the ideals of Bokononism, a religion that preaches the power of pretense. No one in San Lorenzo is openly Bokononist but every San Lorenzan is actually tied together by a transcendental thread of Bokononism. This make-believe religion based on a make-believe hero holds the nation together and it’s actually the only reason the wretched land is able to stay strong despite its miseries. The ideals of Bokononism might be “shameless lies” to Bokonon himself but to San Lorenzans, they’re something very real because they live their lives by those ideals. This idea is very true to real life as well. Humanity is actually at the mercy of human imagination itself, in the form of socio-political theories, economic models, fiction… religion?

On the other hand, we also see that San Lorezo’s religion and it’s supposed savior, together with the apocalyptic particle ice-nice, becomes the cause of its demise. Towards the beginning of the book, ice-nine is presented as an idea that was just built in Hoenecker’s mind. A figment of his imagination, just a flow of thoughts. By the end of the book, this flow of thoughts materializes and leaves the earth frozen in time. Similarly, Bokononism, still true to its principles, provides thousands of thousands of San Lorenzans the ultimate escape from reality, slaughtering them all.

Vonnegut shows how human “brain architecture” can transform any idea into something concrete. And to have over 6 billion brains equipped with this architecture is nothing short of overwhelming. It’s essentially a weapon that could protect humanity or destroy it. Human imagination itself is at the mercy of human stupidity.

Purpose

There was always a stone angel there, waiting for the day. What day that was didn’t really matter. All days had blended within each other as the wait continued. The sun rose and set in a slow, fluid motion that only indicated that another day had passed. Anything else that came beyond that meaning was insignificant. The surroundings served as no use for its journey through existence within the world. It had a purposed that chiseled it out of stone.

Many days had already passed. Those days joined together to make months, years, and decades. Maybe something even beyond that. Memory wasn’t the kindest in keeping track of the days. There had been too many. Even the time that separated the moment from the time where everything froze over with brilliant, pale colors seem to be so far away. Then again, it could have simply been an hour ago.

The blue and white ice had covered the land as far as one could see in any direction. There was something delicate about the scenery, yet at the same time there was a harsh edge to it. It gave a covering to the world that reeked of death. There was nothing that seemed alive underneath it all. If someone had been around, they would have said it was depressing. Maybe someone already had. The angel had no way of knowing.

There was much that people had expected the angel to know. When there had been life, humans had guessed away at the story and meaning that the stone possessed. Even when one of the owners revealed the story, there were still the guesses. The name carved into the base, having not yet worn away from the strains of time, did nothing to the curiosity that weaved stories. But they were all guesses in the end. It was nothing really beyond guesses.

Life did once stumble pass the stone angel at one point. It had been sometime after the odd ice-like substance had taken over. There had been a rigid point to the movements. It dragged against the surface of the ground with a sort of uneasiness. Whether there had been lies or truths upon the man’s lips was forgotten. But there had been some sort of words. They were whispered into the air, tainted with death and a form of life beyond his own. The man had proceeded to collapse in front of the stone angel. His eyes were upon the name carved into the base before the blue and white ice captured him with death.

The man probably had a reason for being there with the angel. Probably. His death was not the one it was supposed to mark with its presence, covered in a gloss of ice. There was someone else in a land beyond that the carver had worked for. There was a meaning in the grander scheme of things. Whether it was a lie or truth, there was a purpose.

However, until the time came for its purpose, he would have to do.

(Author's Note: This is in reference to Vonnagut's Cat's Cradle with the stone angel.)

Morality

Philosophy is such an interesting study, the investigation of truths and study of the being. My teacher, professor Werner for those who are familiar with him, conducts class in the best way possible. He wanders in, puts his cane down on the table, turns off all the lights and puts down all the shades. In darkness we watch the projected screen as the notes are displayed, 35 peers and me sit in the science center auditorium and just listen. He teaches us the important figures in philosophy and their views of life, which can be long, and not always the most entertaining. However he always drops that line, for example “there are no such things as intentions”. It blows everybody’s minds, and then we discuss, are there intentions? Are out intentions legitimate? Are they predictable as you age?
The reason I elaborate on my philosophy class is because there are times when I could see our Truth Lies and Lit class sitting in that same auditorium, trying to figure out the relationship between religion and science in Vonnegut’s Cat’s Cradle. I see in my head Professor Schwartz dropping that line, manipulating until somebody has the urge to disagree. I personally have a difficult time connecting science and religion into one central theme. I think that Vonnegut used Bokononism and the discovery ice-nine as fictional tools to spur our thoughts, and make the reader consider in the real world what is real about science and religion? What is moral about them?

Deception and Dehumanization

Reading about America's reaction to the death of Osama Bin Laden reminded me of how some Americans reacted to dropping the atomic bomb and achieving "victory" over the "evil Japs" to end World War II. Of course, celebration of the bomb was not ubiquitous the way celebration of Bin Laden's death was, but the parallels are there: a so-called enemy to American security was defeated and a strong sense of nationalistic pride permeated the atmosphere. In both cases, people tended to forget that their supposed victories were accomplished through the loss of human life, and one could even say that Americans willingly deceived themselves into perceiving that the event was purely a good thing. In this sense, we can compare American celebrators to San Lorenzan Bokononists in their choosing to be happy rather than facing a bleaker, more gruesome truth.

This is also comparable to the end of the novel, when John/Jonah is left with Newt and the Crosbys. Although they face the end of the world and may be the last humans left on earth, they survive with relative contentment instead of wallowing in the tragic reality of their situation. The reason they do this is neither religious nor nationalistic; it is simply the only way to cope with life. Yet this is the essence of Bokononism: deception by choice for the purpose of survival. In Bokononism, such foma are considered "harmless", but in real life a culture of deception and ignorance can have serious consequences for humanity. For example, by celebrating the assassination of Osama Bin Laden, we forget that even our cruelest enemies are as human as we are, and instead of respecting all life and life itself, we respect only our life. And of course, the less we respect all life, the closer we come to ending the world, as the dropping of the atomic bomb shows us.

On bin Laden's Death

The death of Osama bin Laden’s death was greeted by a massive number of tweets, updates, and news bulletins. The news spread rapidly as confirmation was received that the death had occurred. I distinctively remember feeling mixed emotions; on the one hand, I was glad that this human being would never have a chance to end anyone’s life. However, just as we have experienced already in this class, there is so much more to a story than the truth. Although bin Laden was a murderer, he was still a member of the human community, a member that reminds us of the interconnectivity of humanity. With his death, although we might not grieve because of the actions he took to end so many lives, a part of us must acknowledge that he was human along with us.

Relating this interconnectivity to Cat’s Cradle, we can see that the idea of being tied to other humans is essential. For instance, the karass serves as a connection between two humans who are both working on the same “team.” It is important to note that Jonah doesn’t even personally know Dr. Hoenikker, yet still considers him a part of his karass. Therefore, this indicates that connections with individuals of humanity do not even need to be personal. These connections merely illustrate that so much is happening between spirits of individuals. For Bokononists, the only thing that they really hold secret is their fellow man. While we may not openly sob for the death of bin Laden, it would behoove us to understand the darker picture of man.

"A history of human stupidity"

Throughout Cat’s Cradle, Vonnegut often comments on the stupidity of man. When the narrator is at the research lab with Dr. Breed, he describes an unpleasant woman who “hated people who thought too much.” The narrator comments that “she struck [him] as an appropriate representative for all mankind.” (p. 33) During his speech, Ambassador Minton declares that “the stupidity and viciousness of all mankind” is what killed the “Hundred Martyrs to Democracy.” (p. 256) At the end of the novel, Bokonon references a desire to write “a history of human stupidity” (p. 287).
We have talked in class and on the blog about how science has brought about the means for the end of the world and how in the book Vonnegut does actually have it bring about the end of the world. However, was it entirely science’s fault that the world ended? Sure science allowed for the creation of “ice-nine,” but it took a whole load of stupidity for the ice to actually reach the water. Felix Hoenikker was stupid enough to keep it and leave it out in his kitchen. The Hoenikker children were stupid enough to keep it and then give it away for petty reasons. “Papa” Monzano stupidly abused it. The narrator and the Hoenikkers left it exposed instead of destroying it immediately. The silly, unnecessary air show ended with a plane flying into the cliff, which is what finally dropped the “ice-nine” into the water and caused an apocalypse.
It is true that spending all your time searching for the truth can be dangerous, but science only provides the means for destruction. I think Cat’s Cradle shows that the emotional side of humanity is what causes the actual misuse of science, using science to satisfy personal desires while ignoring the consequences.
We tend to think that advances in science mean that humanity as a whole is getting smarter, but is it really?

I No Longer Know

For me one of the most simultaneously intriguing and frustrating lines in Kurt Vonnegut’s Cat’s Cradle is when the secretary at Dr. Breed’s company describes her experience with Dr. Hoenikker. She tells John, “There was one where he bet I couldn’t tell him anything absolutely true. So I said to him, ‘God is love’.” To this Hoenikker replied, “What is God? What is love?” (page 55).

Throughout the entire novel Vonnegut forces his reader into a spinning vortex to distort the perspective of the reader. He allows the reader just enough solidarity to follow the text while simultaneously depriving him of any stability in which to obtain a comfortable perspective. The reader, however, cannot complain because what else could he expect of an author who teases, before the book even begins, “Nothing in this book is true.”

This statement serves as a sort of cruel warning, confusing the reader about what it refers to and how the writer views the definition of truth. Vonnegut’s novel serves as a commentary on the perspective of truth, especially through the interaction between the secretary and Dr. Hoenikker, which is why the exchange is so at once intriguing and frustrating. The secretary, like so many other characters in the novel, is simply trying to understand something that cannot be solved. Hoenikker might as well be asking the secretary “What is truth”, which is what the reader struggles to ascertain. Vonnegut purposely includes this in the novel to emphasize the foolishness of man, an expansive theme on which he focuses the entire novel. The characters in the novel are constantly trying to ascertain the purpose of something, but never succeeding.

You would think that Vonnegut’s emphasis on this idea would deter me from making the same mistakes as the characters; however, it does not. I wonder now, more than ever, “What is truth”. I try to think of an idea that is absolutely true, but fall short of doing so. I realize that anything that I view as being true is not necessarily held in the same esteem by anyone else. I have also begun to second-guess the stories I tell. I realize that to me, they are all true. I relate the story as I saw it, from my point of view, including details which I deem important. But is this story true? I consider now how another participant may have viewed the occurrence and acknowledge that his story would undoubtedly be slightly different from mine. But how different? What details would change? Would my ‘hero’ be his ‘villain’, and his ‘hero’ be my ‘villain’? “Where does the truth lie?” I guess the only answer to that is, ‘I no longer know’.

Hamilton's educational goals...

In the interest of full disclosure (aka transparency), I thought you all might like to read something I wrote for Hamilton's website. It pertains to the educational goals of the college, and I use our class as a model. (Plus, I open with a quote from one of you!)

I'd love to hear your comments (hint hint).

Four Days a Week

I feel like I take this class four days a week. On Tuesdays and Thursdays I discuss literature and themes that we pull out from the works we read. Then, on Wednesdays and Fridays, I discuss how humans interact with the world and society in my sociology class Self in Society. When signing up for these two classes, I thought they would be somewhat different-one would focus on literature (which I considered to be false) and the other on reality. However, the two have scarily laced together.

When our class discussed the episode of Supernatural and argued over free will, I was reading an essay by philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre on existentialism, which is the ultimate philosophy behind free will. Sartre argues that humans are defined by their actions-what we choose to do builds our character. My biggest problem with Sartre’s argument is that he seems to disregard social circumstances that condition how humans behave and think. We briefly discussed these conditionings in class (i.e. wearing clothes and showing up on time for class).

Sure enough, a few weeks later, I read Erving Goffman’s essay “On Facework,” which further delves into social conditioning and how the most minute interactions, such as smiling when greeting someone, has been instructed to us. Reading through the essay, I kept returning to our discussion that all people are characters who are playing certain roles. Goffman writes: “Universal human nature is not a very human thing. By acquiring it, the person becomes a kind of construct, built up not from inner psychic propensities but from moral rules that are impressed upon him from without” (45). This idea detracts from people’s humaneness and free will and implies that we are somewhat “created” by social standards.

The quote above also reminded me of man’s search for purpose in Vonnegut’s Cat’s Cradle. In the novel, people decide that there should be a meaning to life, therefore creating what has become an “universal human nature.” So is that truly human nature? Yet again, I am confronted with another blurry line between truth and lie that I had been so certain was true. Have you lost track of which class I am referring to? Because I sure have.

Fence Sitting

I thought that when I finally got to the end of the book, I would have some idea of purpose. Throughout the text, Vonnegut keeps science and religion in a tangled web of dynamic tension. He never takes a definitive side on which one is “better.” In today’s world, its hard not to favor one over the other because there is such a fine line between the differences in view points of scientists’ vs religious advocates. I’m not saying you cant be a religious scientist. I am saying though that the two butt heads constantly. Some say that religion is holding progress in the sciences back and others say that religion is what keeps peace.

In the book, Vonnegut portrays the good and the exposes the bad in both areas. I just don’t understand why he didn’t chose a side. It doesn't make sense to my why he didn't argue from one side vs another. Im having trouble finding the purpose in his "fence sitting." In the very last paragraph he writes, “I would make a statue of myself, lying on my back, grinning horribly…” To me, this was putting science on a higher pedestal than religion because he used his man made scientific creation to end his own life (and possibly that of the worlds). But then, he acknowledges that there is a God by saying “…and thumbing my nose at You Know Who.” He even emphasizes it by putting capital letters at the beginning of the words. So maybe he is taking sciences side and the “You Know Who” was a jab at religion? I guess I will never know for sure.

Structure

A building is established upon a very sturdy and stable structure. That structure, after all, must support the entire weight of the building. A college class has a very organized and straightforward structure. The structure of the course is outlined for students on the first day, so students know exactly what to expect. A story contains a structure to provide the backbone to a plot. That structure ties together all the pieces of the tale, making the story cohesive and comprehensible. From these scenarios, we can recognize that the connotation of the word “structure” implies stability, organization and some kind of framework. Cat’s Cradle, by Kurt Vonnegut, defies all these preconceived notions of structure, rendering many elements of his story to seem unstable and capricious.

Vonnegut establishes numerous cases throughout Cat’s Cradle where the structure for a truth or object changes erratically. The most apparent example is the game of cat’s cradle, which is a reoccurring theme in the book. In this game, a piece of string provides a structure that gives the appearance of an object. However, a moment later, the structure can change and the very same string can create an illusion of an entirely different object. Thus, from cat’s cradle, we recognize a structure that frequently transforms. Another more literal scenario in Cat’s Cradle deals with the structure of water. Ever since elementary school, we have been taught that the melting point of water is always 32 degrees Fahrenheit. Science tells us the structure of water’s properties never varies. However, Felix Hoenikker is able to change the basic structure of water to have a melting point of 114.4 degrees Fahrenheit. Vonnegut’s ability to break down the structure that formed a previously accepted truth is certainly unsettling. Finally, the structure of Cat’s Cradle, itself, is unclear through to the last page of the book. First, we believe we are reading Vonnegut’s Cat’s Cradle, then we realize we might be reading a historical book, once intended to be titled, “The Day the World Ended”. About halfway through the novel, we begin to wonder whether we are actually reading the religious texts of the “Books of Bokonon”. By manipulating structures that we readers take to be inherently unchangeable, Vonnegut clearly rebels against the typical purpose of structure, which leaves us very unnerved while reading the book.

I feel as though Vonnegut chose to disrupt all the various structures of his book in order to further remove us from being able to distinguish fact from fiction in the story. While reading a typical story, we use the structure of the book and the concepts emanating from the book to place us in a certain setting for the story. For example, Vonnegut wrote about a world that appears to be normal; the concept of “water” acts as one of those elements that tells us we are on our normal planet Earth. When Vonnegut unveiled the “fact” that the melting point of water can be changed, we, as readers lost all our grounding for how to know what we should interpret as real and what we should interpret as fiction. We no longer know what to believe in the story.

As a result of Vonnegut’s unpredictable underlying structures, we are distrustful of every word and every concept that is written in Cat’s Cradle. I believe Vonnegut’s intentions were for us to apply this distrust beyond Cat’s Cradle and to other aspect of our lives. People are often too accepting, whether it is of a “wonderful scientific innovation”, a “newfound heaven-guaranteeing religion” or of people in general. We need to take a second look and question reality more, because the truths we have always found to be inherent in life may just be illusions.