Google's Dress Standard

When talking in class about Google's ninth statement on what they 'know to be true', it raised some thoughts on how much society plays a part in group mantras. We discussed the example of Church on Wednesday and how there is a commonly recognized but unwritten dress code. Church goers usually dress in their "sunday best". We went into discussion about how more modern churches are doing away with the formal attire and are promoting and accepting a comfortable look. My thoughts in class went to other religions, in other countries. It is obviously a cultural thing, dressing up for church in the U.S. and I think that this reflects the societal ideals that we hold. Being dressed up for church represents two things: that we believe that we should like nice when going to worship, not for our sake but out of respect for whichever god, and also that, since church is a very social setting, a community, not just a place of worship, we want to look nice in the eyes of our fellow members. I tried to think of other religions that promote being dressed up when going to worship. Buddhism and Hinduism don't mind what you wear, Islam only requires females to cover their hair, I'm not sure about Judaism...? The point though, is that this is not just a religious thing; it's a sociocultural thing. Americans want to keep up appearances, with the cars we drive, the clothes we wear, bags we use, etc. It's a cultural shift that churches in the U.S. are changing their dress standards. It's more of a cultural reflection, that Google encourages comfy clothes and not suits in its offices. This shift may be representative of the idea that we need to be less materialistic and caring about others opinions of us. Google is stating the point that looks don't mind - brainpower does. The only place this might not fly is in Europe...haha.

iPad

There are so many apps, especially on iPads, that is marketed towards children. The market population seems to be geared towards younger and younger people. There are app books, comics, games, discovery apps, the list goes on and on. Commercials more often show children using iPads while their parents watch on approvingly. Sooo, is this a good thing? A bad thing? Maybe just a neutral thing? For years people have complained about how TV is bad for kids. So I'm sure that there are many adults out there saying that iPads are just as bad. I personally wouldn't put an expensive iPad in the hands of a youngin'.

It would be interesting to interview the makers/creators of apps for kids. See what their marketing strategy is and what they choose to use in iPad programs. What they choose to focus on, how they figure out what is important and/or a better seller. Do they peruse mom magazines? Classrooms?

Community

In class the other day, we discussed how tech gadgets, such as laptops, iPads, etc. can either create or destroy a sense of community. The focus was on iPads and how individuals can customize them while simultaneously becoming part of a community. i.e. sharing photos, uploading religious texts, partaking in chat rooms and commenting on sites. By assuming that technology can either help or hinder the sense of community, we first need to think about what community is. It's easy enough to pinpoint the neighborhood we come from, the schools we've attended, sports teams or music ensembles we belong to but TV, internet, SMS, and cellphones are based on a broader sense of community. A pertinent article is "Imagined Communities" by Benedict Anderson. In his article, he discuses the idea of nationalism and nation. He argues that media has propagated this idea of a massive community, regardless of physical distance or contact. Community in a national sense is something in our imagination - we haven't met every single fellow American and we never will. The same goes for online communities. Gamers create friendships with one another through the game but rarely ever meet in person. Alumni pages on facebook are united through a sense of having lived and studied in the same academic community but they don't all know each other. This sense of community is imagined through shared interests and experiences. We readily buy into the "imagined community" because it is something that serves us, gives us a sense of comradery. * Side note * I noticed that, when going on to Netflix's webpage, that all the depictions are of people on Apple products. A lady watching Netflix on her Mac, a boy watching it on an iPhone, and a girl and her dad watching it on their iPad. Does anyone know why this is?

I was working on an essay in the library the other day and was using google for a variety of things. I used dictionary.com to look up some words and synonyms, I used google to look up Chicago style citation, and to look up some literary references, and I also used pandora to listen to music while I worked. Then I thought, geez, what did people do before the internet and especially google? Well, I guess they used real dictionaries, listened to a radio and probably had a better memory for citations and books.

It's so easy now a days to look up anything and everything on google. It's taken for granted that it's such an efficient search engine. I had no idea that search bars used to be very minimal and biased in what results they would chose to show. I use google for everything and does it a great job in supplying a ridiculous amount of information. My parents still look up things in books and the dictionary. I just go to google. It's amazing to have such a resource at hand. As students, we obviously still use actual texts and articles. But where do we usually find them? On the interwebs! I studied in India for a few months and an internet connection was hard if impossible to find. No coffee shops had wifi, hardly any homes had internet. Also, India has more restrictions on their internet than American. Sooo we're pretty lucky! Although a lack of internet forced me to use a university library often and find resources through professors instead of the internet. Perhaps there is something to be said about the extent that we use and rely on the internet. But for the most part, I feel very grateful for google/internet!

A Zen Job

Jennifer Egan asked Steve if he was defying Buddhist philosophy "by making computers and other products that people coveted?" (Steve Jobs, 262). He talked of a state of enlightenment, where it is "important to avoid attachment to material objects. Our consumer desires are unhealthy...and to attain enlightenment you need to develop a life of nonattachment and nonmaterialism" (262).

So, how is Jobs mind at peace with Buddhist ideals while simultaneously creating a corporation of consumer goods? I really can't begin to assume answers to this. We haven't read enough about Steve's ideas on enlightenment or study deeply enough into Zen Buddhism. I'm sure he has/had the answers and could have argued well for himself.

To draw some basic parallels, one can see how Jobs at least strived for a disattachment to material goods. He lived in an average (if not slightly above average) home, with no security, no bodyguards. He wore the same thing every day. He had no clutter of furniture or objects in the home. And he could be very unattached to people. Although I doubt that this is what Buddhismn meant by leading a life of nonattachment.
His products exude simplicity but they are still products that make a profit. And Jobs strictly controls the functions of his products. He is very attached to his products and inventions. To anyone, his spiritual choices and career choices seem like a mighty conundrum.

Before I get myself all confused and in a tizzy, I want to focus on part of Suzuki's lecture. Not this Suzuki;

but this Suzuki; . (I couldn't resist, sorry).

Shunryu Suzuki, a teacher of Zen Buddhism who immigrated to San Francisco, talks about noise versus sound, during one of his recorded lessons. I couldn't help but picturing Jobs in the Apple office, listening to various employees and staff members while listening to Suzuki describe 'noise'. "Noise is something more objective, something which will...bother you" and "sound is something real, that comes out of your practice".
Jobs must have thought that most people around him emitted 'noise', annoying, useless babel. He sought out those individuals that could emit 'sound', something more practiced, more worthwhile.


When Shunryu speaks of the bluejay becoming part of you, something that is in your mind, we can think of people with ideas that Jobs likes, that he is seeking, that perhaps are already in his mind. Those people are not disturbing him but are 'reading' to him. You can only be read to if you are receptive the sound that is being emitted, to what people are saying. Those select people are sound amidst noise, in Jobs' world.

This idea of sound vs noise also plays into Jobs' obsession with simplicity and perfection. Why waste time, breath and thought on something that is not very worthwhile? He would say we should strive for something more meaningful, which is seen in Buddhism.
It is difficult to try to understand Steve's ties to Buddhism but I hope that the example I stated (created?) can open up the floor to more discussions about the meaning of Buddhism when translated to a materialistic, capitalistic world.

Common Observation

The story I am about to share has already by experienced and observed by many already. We can either share this experience together or you can just skip this post.

The other day, my roommate and I had a friend over and we were hanging out, chatting, sitting in our living room area. A lull occurred in the conversation and my roommate and I both looked up to see that each of us was engrossed in our smartphones. Claire was looking through pictures, I was online on pinterest and Will was...actually I don't know what Will was doing. But it was on his phone.

Claire was the first to make a comment, something along the lines of, "ha wow instead of talking to each other we're all on our phones". And we all just kind of...laughed. Laughed it off is better to say.
So I can take two things from this: one, it is no longer surprising. To see a bunch of young adults hanging out but interacting with their phones instead of each other and two, that it now a common, given circumstance.
Is this such a bad thing? What would we do during those lulls without our phones? We would still sit quietly. But maybe that develops better conversational skills in people. Forces them into that situation where they have to think of something to talk about or ask. Or perhaps it allows us to be more comfortable with one another. To accept those lulls and be comfortable in comrade-able silence. (Is that a word?).
It's hard to remember back to a time where we didn't have our phone. And I think most authors are correct in saying that our phones have become extensions of ourselves. Marshall McLuhan states this in his article, The Medium is the Message. A good reference for this class if you have any spare reading time on your hands.

This is not a new point, not a new argument, not something unheard of. I would be interested to hear what other people have to say, to see how many people consider this a big deal or not a big deal. A sign of declining social interaction or would be fiddling around with something during this lulls anyhow? Technological or not.

Mr. Jobs

Steve Jobs' commencement speech at Stanford was pretty good, I'll give him that. At first when he said he wanted to share three stories about himself...well that's just it, it's about himself. Seems a little egotistical. But I admire the fact that he shared those stories in a way that was accessible to his audience. And what better way to connect with people than through narrative?

I agree with Jamie's point in class today, that Mr. Jobs did not seem to be advocating the idea of dropping out of college but merely stating that he himself did not need it. There are people out there who benefit from college and there are those that benefit from going straight into the working sphere. And I think he definitely realizes this. It was interesting to hear shouts and applause when he said he dropped out of Reed...obviously those students were graduates and had no way of dropping out since it was commencement. Perhaps they too can appreciate the fact that school is not for everyone.

What hit home the most was Jobs' point about connecting the dots. It's something you can't do ahead of time, it happens when looking back. And in order to get the lines that you want you need to find and do what you love, what interests you. Obviously this is a luxury - not everyone can afford to take the time to find their passion or even pursue it, if it proves to be not lucrative. But as a liberal arts student graduating at the end of this term, I take his words to heart. He says don't settle, find your satisfaction. This has been my personal motto for years. Satisfaction has to be one of the hardest feelings to achieve, but it's the highest (so of course it's going to be hard). It's so easy to settle for that job you managed to find in a recovering economy and in the class of one of the highest percentage of graduates. It's tough but I think Steve's point is that, once you do find it, you can live. You will live. That's all it takes. (Roughly speaking).
So I enjoy that Steve dropped out and attended classes that interested him. No restrictions from general ed requirements. Because in an ideal situation, that's all that matters. Your education. And in line with tech logos, it's personal. It's exactly that, your education. Not what your school plans out for you, or what your parents want you to take, what your friend's are taking, what will land you the best internship, etc. Learn because you love to learn. That's why Steve Jobs became such a genius. He wasn't shy of learning and seeking out opportunities to learn.

When thinking about a technological advancement that has helped me on a daily basis, I initially wanted to jump to text messaging. But after some thought, I've decided that texting can be as hindering and annoying as it can be useful. So my mind wandered to other options. Email. And specifically emailing on a smartphone. That is an advancement that is helpful to a wide range of users, students, professors, business men and women, families, bosses, far away friends, etc.

Email has been around for a awhile, since the late '60's (correct me if I'm wrong) but emailing from a phone is still a relatively new concept. Obviously people below the age of 12 might not need to send or check emails on a high tech phone but, for the rest of us, this is something we do multiple times a day. I'm going to take a moment to work on my sales skills but bear with me: Think about it. Don't you have that moment almost once a day where you think, "Oh *#!#, I forgot to tell so-and-so to do this!" or "Crap. My assignment is late." Then you whip out your phone, pull up browser, shoot a quick email and BAM. It's taken care of. And it is in no way annoying, like text messages. Emails are much calmer. We don't expect immediate responses. We don't read too much into email lingo. And who uses emoticons? Maybe if you're emailing your mom. Do you want to be alerted if you receive new emails? That's fine, your phone can do that for you. If you would rather not be bothered and check it on your own time, that's fine too.
Beautiful. A wonderful union between phone and email. Working harmoniously together.
Let's divorce texting.

On a personal note, I was unable to use my computer for the first few days back at school. I had to take it to  someone savvier than I to download new anti-virus software and get stuff up and running. I also came down with an outrageously high fever and the flu. I was lying in bed with no computer (my roommate forgot her power cord back in Chi-town), sickly, wondering how I was going to let my professors know, then *epiphany!* I used my new iPhone to email them. And it really saved my butt that day.
So thank you, person who made it possible to log on to our email via our phones. I guess I should really be thanking the person who made internet on a phone possible. That's all you really need. Anyway, I appreciate it.