Postman & Collins, an Academic Study: Progress in the New Millennium

Below is written my essay. Contrived in a twisted mind, perfected for the motal coil. Read on if you can handle it...

Postman & Collins, an Academic Study: Progress in the New Millennium

By Christopher Mark Vanderwall-Brown

December 9, 2009

“Western Progress” is a misconstrued mirage, propagated by the altruistic actions of sentient beings, desiring for a superior world; without active participation by individual citizens within their respective civilizations, this “Social Progress” will falter, failing miserably in its perceived objective to better social welfare and the human condition, pushing human civilization back into the cradles of time, as it has done so often throughout history; the themes of Postman’s epic work are played out within the poem of Collins, which illustrates a future crammed, not with luminous perfections, higher ideals and a generally better life for the individual, but, instead, familiar human qualities, clothed in simply tailored human faults and draped in the illusive perception of “dependence upon the society to solve the individual crisis”.

To this end, I endeavor within this placid prose, punctuated for conciseness, to illuminate the dark recesses of the conjoined works of Neil Postman, his magnum opus, Building a Bridge to the 18th Century: How the Past Can Improve our Future and former United States Poet Laureate, Billy Collins, who specific work “To a Stranger Born in Some Distant Country Hundreds of Years from Now” acts as a sarcastic parody and illuminating beacon into the tarnished hearts of American and Global Culture, a warning to us all that putting too much faith in “Progress” will lead to our eventual downfall, or at least, getting us hit with a good chunk of wet egg.

Neil Postman, a late professor, Paulette Goddard Chair of Media Ecology, and Chair of the Department of Culture and Communication at New York University, was an inspiring American author, a media theorist and a well regarded, and might I add, amusing, critic of modern western culture. The body of Postman’s work can be found slanting a vast range of topics, including: technology, the “post-modern, epistemic relativist”, education, the media, modern political activity and arguing for a return to the ideals of 18th century Europe, to which his final work so eloquently decrees.

The purpose of his last work, seem clearly his last and best attempt at teaching citizens of America his theories on how to better society, how it actually works and what is necessary to take with us into the new millennium. How we may create a transcendental narrative for a future beyond our imagination.

“What are we to make of this? There are many possibilities. Among them are the strange and fanciful dreams that seem always to accompany the onset of a new millennium. Some believe a new age signals the Second Coming of Christ, some believe it signals the end of everything, and in between the varieties of delusion are legion. The possibility that strikes me as most plausible is more mundane. And it has happened before, with or without the coming of a new millennium. I refer to the confusion that accompanies the absence of a narrative to give organization and meaning to our world—a story of transcendence and mythic power. Nothing can be clearer than that we require a story to explain to ourselves why we are here and what our future is to be, and many other things, including where authority resides. I am not writing this book to document the loss of narrative. I have done that already, as have others in books better than mine. Besides, I have no intention of writing still another depressing book about the breakdown of the human spirit. But it may be said here that when people do not have a satisfactory narrative to generate a sense of purpose and continuity, a kind of psychic disorientation takes hold, followed by a frantic search for something to believe in or, probably worse, a resigned conclusion that there is nothing to find. The devil-believers reclaim a fragment of the great narrative of Genesis. The alien-believers ask for deliverance from green-gray creatures whose physics has overcome the speed of light. The deconstructionists keep confusion at bay by writing books in which they tell us that there is nothing to write books about. There is even one group who seeks meaning in the ingenuity of technological innovation. I refer to those who, looking ahead, see a field of wonders encapsulated in the phrase “the information superhighway.” They are information junkies, have no interest in narratives of the past, give little thought to the question of purpose. To the poet who asks, “Where is the loom to weave it all into fabric?,” they reply that none is needed. To the poet who asks, “What gods do you serve?,” they reply, “Those which make information accessible in great volume, at instantaneous speed, and in diverse forms.” Such people have no hesitation in speaking of building a bridge to the new century. But to the question “What will we carry across the bridge?” they answer, “What else but high-definition TV, virtual reality, e-mail, the Internet, cellular phones, and all the rest that digital technology has produced?”

These, then, are the hollow men Eliot spoke of. They are, in a sense, no different from the alien-and devil-believers in that they have found a story that will keep them going for a while, but not for long. And, in a way, they are no different from those academics who find temporary amusement and professional advancement in having no story at all. I am not writing my book for these people. I write for those who are still searching for a way to confront the future, a way that faces reality as it is, that is connected to a humane tradition, that provides sane authority and meaningful purpose. I include myself among such people.” (Postman 9-10)

Postman’s theory is simple; that human dependence on “progress” to solve its problems is flawed reasoning and that “progress” only occurs because of human involvement. When the “human factor” is removed, society returns once again to the past where it comes from, as it did after Rome, and likely so will again, at least as long as human beings lose their narratives and neglect the importance of being human. He calls the dependence on future generations to save the present.

The justification for this is that “Progress” is an illusion, created by a series of historical events; formed first by a perception society came to during the Enlightenment, which was a great time of social and scientific achievement. The “progress” witnessed by society, began, starting in the late 18th century, to convince society that it was on a never-ending road to improvement. By 1900, men and women spoke of a future limited only by limits of our imagination. “By the eighteenth century, the idea that history itself was moving inexorably toward a more peaceful, intelligent, and commodious life for mankind was widely held. Both David Hume and Adam Smith argued that there existed a self-generating impulse of rising expectations that must lead to a society of continuous improvement. Bernard Mandeville argued that the ‘private vices’ of envy and pride are, in fact, ‘public virtues’ in that they stimulate industry and invention, and Hume wrote that the ‘pleasures of luxury and the profit of commerce roused men from their indolence,’ leading them to advances in their various enterprises.” (Postman, 28) He then continues by illustrating that while these ideas may be valid in a society of active involvement, the events of modern society are reversing the trend, and the dependence upon others to solve personal crises will eventually lead to another dark age in civilization, if not a complete reboot of the system.

Collins on the other hand is writing a poem as a letter to the future, he writes it also to his present. The persona is Collins himself, although sarcastically noted. The poem is a retort to critics who say he is like Mary Oliver, who he quotes as “I write poems for a stranger who will be born in some distant country hundreds of years from now.” This seeming censure of his critics at first seems like a merry stroll through the park, but after further contemplation serious questions begin to arise. While it may be true that Collins does not write to the future, it is apparent that he is writing to his present and to the future in what becomes as deeply philosophic as Eliot or Frost. When he uses the metaphor to ask the future if they, “O stranger of the future!/O inconceivable being!/whatever the shape of your house,/however you scoot from place to place,/ no matter how strange and colorless the clothes you may wear/ I bet nobody there likes a wet dog either./I bet everybody in your pub,/even the children, pushes her away.” (Collins, 89)

The discussion Collins has about this “wet dog”, is interesting as it appears to be a metaphor for the problems in society. The dog typifies the human suffering and the plagues of human experience as society futilely looks to the future for salvation. We are flawed and no matter how great we perceive ourselves, according to Collins, we possess faults. However, when Collins looks to the future he seems to do so in a warm and perky tone. Illustrating to me, that, even if the future is flawed, this is not a bad thing, as when people look back, it will be as we do into the past, some things we don’t like, but overall, we see ourselves in them. To this Collins speaks.

But how may you ask does the fallacy noted by Postman and the “wet dog” of Collins relate? If you think of some of the most popular science fiction movies of the past 40 years I think you will see the correlation. Postman warns us that our personal involvement is necessary to make change; we need a real narrative and the active involvement in government and society to bring about a better future. Collins argues that with the current attitudes, the “future will save us” mentality, society will end up in the same place it always does, brushing out wet dogs under the blanket, ignoring they are there, our problems, and when the problem comes to pet us, ask for assistance in the cold and rain, we push them away, as easy as it is, we detest wet dogs (problems). And to that Collins looks on with some sense of relish, as he knows that the arrogant ones will not make a better tomorrow, simply a different one, and even then, those of the future will look back and see our world no different than theirs, the flaws making us human.

Interestingly, the two authors give us some good advice. Specifically, when we look to the future we have two outcomes: Sameness or Improvement. Society like those dystopian futures can be terrible and different. Everyone, as it does today, will have the haves and the have nots, society will be clambered by restrictive governments, bloody wars and utter destruction. Our other possibility is the improved idea, the getting off your butt and doing something future, the Star Wars and Star Trek ideal. It may not be a perfect world, but it looks better. Postman and Collins give us this twofold theme in one, that if we propagate our future with effort, education and knowledge, a narrative for the future built upon our past and present, we can have a future, not too different from our present, but better, otherwise we may yet cast ourselves into the eternal fires of humanity’s darker side, and leave an encrusted, fiery chard hole where civilization once stood.

Works Cited

Collins, Billy. "To a Stranger Born in Some Distant Country Hundreds of Years from Now." Sailing alone around the room new and selected poems. New York: Random House, 2001. 89-89. Print.

Postman, Neil. Building a Bridge to the 18th Century: How the Past Can Improve Our Future. New York: Vintage Books, 1999. Print.

What is Divine Engineering?

Why is it called "Divine Engineering"?

Well, as Shakespeare put it, "Would a rose smell a sweet, if by any other name?". I know that doesn't answer your question, but it does pose the point, why is it called something. It is because humans have the convention to name things. The physical properties are independent of the name, but the name to humans has meaning. So then why did I pick such a peculiar name for a blog? Simple.

"GOD".

I hope that answers your question.

Now that we have been given the answer, let's use those deductive reasoning abilities to express why that is.

Simply, my pastor had a sermon not to far back called "Call and Response" where he spoke on finding your calling.

I won't break down the sermon here, but the gist was it broke down three things we can do to help understand what our calling is. I looked back at my life and strangely enough my calling, is a lot like a divine engineer. It's really strange. So, seeing this new turn in my life, finding what I believe is an adept description of my calling, I've decided to call my blog that and see where the light guides me.

I hope everyone will enjoy the ride. ^_^'

Now you may be wondering what specifically is "Divine Engineering", well, from what I can see from my personal experience, the basic description of an engineer is one who finds solutions to problems in society, more specifically, by taking theories and applying them to produce actually functioning technologies, systems and institutions. Other forms may be produced.

I admit engineering in recent times has moved away from the original term, where to "engineer" something, was " to arrange, manage, or carry through by skillful or artful contrivance." One might say that to be an engineer in the scientific or physical fields would be the modern notion of an engineer. However, physical engineering is not the only forms. We could have a social engineer, like Jefferson, Adams, and Wilson. People who we might define as Statesmen. People who took the ideas of others and put them into practice by creating a system/institution whereby something was created to solve a problem. e.g. government, or democratic republic.

Another type of engineer, might be a spiritual engineer, one who takes the spiritual theories of one and creates an active, functioning religion from it. A set of beliefs and an organization by which those beliefs may be disseminated. I admit this is tad controversial, but by my definition, people such as Peter and Paul, or the early Buddhists engineered their religions from the teachings of theorists. Jesus or Buddha, regardless of your personal beliefs were a form of spiritual philosopher/scientist. They were the enlightened ones of their age, thought deep thoughts and made great strives. (I admit, I believe Jesus was real, alive and the Christ, but for the purposes of this discussion, I don't think we need to look at that aspect, regardless of my personal views, nor taking anything away from the respected individuals.)

Finally, from what I could witness in my mind, there exists, artistic engineering. Moreover, the engineering of the theories practices and applications of art and the finding of solutions to artistic problems is its own kind of engineering. Michelangelo and Leonardo Da Vinci were their own engineers. Da Vinci in his own way (a little bit of the physical engineer and artistic). When they went about finding, using physical theoretical means (geometry and representation of physical existence) to express the world as it appeared to them or "is", they constructed new forms of artistic expression, but also the structure or systematization that was evident behind the creation.

I don't think engineering is merely creating something, but instead, creating something from a specific set of theories. In this way, Michelangelo and Da Vinci were both artistic scientist and engineers, for they created new theories and built creations based upon those theories. In the case of Da Vinci, he used his new artistic theories to make a system whereby it became possible to design the helicopter, glider, military weapons. All of these stemmed from Da Vinci's mind, but were unable to be expressed physically until he created the system, engineered the system, whereby these ideas could be expressed or transposed from his mind.

I suspect at some point I will receive a torrent of letters by offended and estranged members of the scientific community who consider my definitions arbitrary and demeaning to their life's work. I'm sorry to those who feel offended, but as this is (at least upon writing) a free nation, and because I am an engineering major, who considers himself a bit of a historian and philosopher, and because of my family's history of producing a vast assortment of engineers, I believe I have some idea what engineering is and what it isn't. Moreover, this is merely an opinion. I do not try to offer an argument for believing what I think, I only show this so you have an understanding about what I believe. Which I suspect entails the personal justification or reason for me believing my own views, but for the purposes of this article, I shall not be forming a rigorous argument, as I am too tired.

Now, as to defining the still undefined term "Divine Engineering".

It appears to me that all of these "fields" require an underlining branch. Sort of how solid state engineering resides within the domain of electrical, electronics and computer engineering. I use divine engineering as a umbrella term to mean all branches of engineering. And to be a divine engineer is more the person who is divinely inspired to find solutions to problems wherever they present themselves. My divine inspiration is to lead a life governed by problem solving in an engineering mindset. To help people whenever I can, to use good reasoning and help make society a better place. To as Dr. Dudley put it, "Assist in God's Rescue Service on Earth." He may have said "Plan" but I suspect either works. I don't edge a bold tone and claim to be "making" or "creating" anything, I'm simply doing as the Lord directs. So, as a calling, mine appears to be "the universal application of engineering and the specific mindset associated therein to solve problems where they arise as God directs and whatever resources man has available."

So , because of that, I think we can look at the future prospects of the world in a positive light and see a future bounded by positive, critical thinking, led by God's unending wisdom. Be it as myself in a relatively spiritual manner, or a traditional religious sense, I think we can agree that people generally try to make the world a better place when they are in a good mind and sense for themselves and others. My goal is to help, using whatever resources are available to me, help to procure that future.

Hopelessness in a "State of Denmark"

As futile as my present state appears, I believe its recent turn of events is the sign of my personal life's improving outlook. That delightful but not certain eventuality is the kind of altercation I've been praying for. It does not, however, spell the end to my family's incessantly destructive habits, nor will it spell any major adjustments in my parents' attitude toward me.

My father, a caring man at times, continues to bloviate and bluster in a wall vibrating and ear clasping volume. Just tonight, I had another altercation with madness. I had been doing my wash all week and apparently used all the bleach alternative, generic brand, while neglecting to remember to purchase a replacement box. An astute eye might take a second glance at that post, posing the query, “Why would a young man, nearing 23 years old, who is doing his own wash, through his own prerogative, encounter a harsh altercation for the mere use of a household cleaning product? Additionally, when the neglect was an honest mistake?” Sadly, I must agree with the analysis, it does leave open for speculation a vast assortment of reasoning, most of which would seem lacking in my situation. Sadly, the real reason that my father generally exchanges harsh words with me is fare more mundane: I do not meet his expectations and continually fail to measure up. I am a flawed individual, lacking at time moral integrity, and proliferate an exceptional strain of arrogance as a partial defense mechanism.

It is a sad sorted state of affairs I engender. I wish for once, we could exchange friendly words where the goal was to create a more positive outlook on life, but perhaps I'm asking too much of myself and him. We are blissfully ignorant mortals, transfixed upon the flaws of our brethren and not upon our own, twisted souls, gnarled by sin and the harsh quarters life dispenses.

When we are not hurling harsh terms about, we live a relatively mild and mundane life, one that transfixes between the extremes of natural and unnatural chaos and calamity, or the simple boredom that sets in between maelstroms. This short peace, is the only alleviation before another storm of overwhelming stress confronts our defenses.

But why am I complaining? I still possess my health, relatively speaking; my weight is a problem, but one that I hope to solve sooner rather than later. My youth, predictably in body is still with me, but I cannot say the same for mind. Age is a speculative and ambiguous term, because what kind of time are you talking about? Do we mean the age of my body, my life experiences, or my spiritual growth? If it's the first, yes I am young, two tends towards dust, while three is maturing but still immature.

Looking forward I guess my life harbors stressful memories of my past; injustices conspired and attributed, false claims made, and punishments dealt out to the deserving and innocent. All in a mere 22 year old skin. But what am I alluding to with all this talk of my past a present predicament? Simply I am tired, tired and restless, hoping for a better tomorrow, while still maintaining the present sucks.

That I surmise is where the joy of my life's turn of events arises. I have the chance at a better day, a better night, while all the while, practicing for my dreams. So what do you care? Hm...that is a difficult question, but I might simply ask, then why are you reading this? Perhaps you find meaning in other people's advice, perhaps you simply read to get a good laugh at a pompous inquiry. I cannot know your purpose or justification in reading this, only what I experience living my life and writing this literary expression.

So I come to another difficult quandary: Why do I lack the motivation to improve myself, my status and position. I seem to not lack the desire on a theoretical level, but in practical application I fail miserably. I want to do better, but lack the willingness to change. I have surmised much of my father's anger and frustration comes from that fact; he wants perfection, openly admitted it, yet knows fully that perfection does not exist. I guess he must be losing track of something. What I am not exactly sure, but whatever it may be, it is important to both his and my own personal growth and development.

All I really want to do is improve my lot in life by the sheer act of trying. Not unintelligent or unplanned action, but action maintaining spontaneity with the organizational proficiency I need. Where I can propel my life is beyond my sights for the moment, however, with a little effort and well placed spiritual guidance, I pray my life will be healed and impressed with the desire, determination and drive to get it done. I have the first, a partial second and entirely lack the third. That's the “get your lazy butt out the door” attribute.

I hope I can maintain my cool and focus to find a balanced perspective, where I can see my frailties while still forcing myself, with rigorous intent, to constant improvement. Where my life is headed, nor where I actually arise are beyond my scope of reasoning, but at least I can see and believe a better tomorrow is out there if only I straighten my tie, my weaknesses and get my life going in the direction God intended. I just got to pull my shoulders square, get my head out of my posterior and get with the divine program. Now if only I could find my membership card.