Week 5--Fairy Tales, Scientific Stories, and Literary Ones

On Tuesday we talked of change and various examples of good and bad change, deciding that either way, it generally shapes us into better people. Few of us accept change with open arms, yet most of us praised it in our essays. Yes, theoretically it is beneficial -- it breaks up the monotony of life, but when it's your home that's breaking or your parents getting divorced, you aren't quite so willing to accept it. In this sense, our lives are stories and they are constantly changing, or being revised.

 Then we spoke of challenging the opinions of the majority. On what grounds can one do this? Who's to say what's right and what's wrong? This summary isn't right. But it isn't wrong, either. It's just biased because it's my interpretation of the events that transpired. This is my story. You can believe it if you want to. We believe what's convenient, what's useful. All stories are biased -- we believe what we choose to believe, not what we know to be true. What is truth for that matter?

This led us to conclude that we can ignore truth and reality when arguing stories.

From the post above me (Catrina), I'm surprised how different the discussions in each of our classes are! Not just in content but in mood and direction... where your class seemed to philisophically ponder the mysteries of life as a whole, my class immediately launched into probably the most heated, passionate discourse I'd ever seen there. Our Tuesday class started off debating the infantalizing effects of education-- Is classical education something constraining? Does it keep us from learning?

Half of us said "Yes, it is infantalizing" and half of us said "No, education is a responsibility". What I realize now as I write this is that we were pretty much divided along a line of age. The more mature students saw education as a privelage and a tool to make the world a better place, while the rest of us (myself included), fresh out of high school, were a bit more pessimistic. Education, we said, removes the consequences of screwing up. In school, if you confuse a formula or turn a paper in late, you correct your mistake (hopefully) the next time, no harm done but to your grade. In life, you get fired from your job or crash a plane or run into debt.

"Life," someone said, "is like Orgo lab."

"But life isn't as complicated as Orgo lab!" somebody else replied.

"How about raising children?"

On Thursday we finally moved onto Flatland, opening class BEFORE the professor arrived with some speculation on two-dimensional sexuality. On a more serious notre, when she finally did get there, we reflected on the previous class's discussion with the question "Do we have responsibility for what we say in the world of education?" We rapidly segued into the merits of being politically correct and to sensitivity to others' feelings; hence we entered some choppy seas right from the outset. Every opinion, the majority of us concluded, offends somebody, no matter how sensitive it may be. Perhaps the centerpiece of Thursday was trying to answer whether or not Flatland was a satire of Victorian classism/sexism, or rather just outright offensive.

A few people were obviously highly offended.

So assuming Flatland is a satire, does satire as an "art form" perpetuate bigotry? The general consensus was that it does, that it relieves tension about the ugly bits of our culture, allowing those ugly bits to continue. However, a few disagreed-- satire, well-crafted, is a means by which we point out the absurd reality of those ugly bits. There is a fine line, it seems, between real and funny. But who says something can't be both?

So is Flatland a farce? We never decided. Those who said it was remained staunchly in that opinion, and those who said it wasn't did the same.

Also in question was the value of evangelism and enlightenment, a theme which we extracted from the highly religious overtones of Flatland. Is religious belief a result of first-hand enlightenment? Is it right to then impose that belief on others? And how effective is this? The mood turned slightly existential: "Is knowledge of the other side something that disconnects you and makes you unhappy with your own world?"

The one element uniting our discussion with Catrina's discussion was the comparison of Flatland to Galileo. Mr. Square, we decided, was Galileo, imprisoned for his discovery of another story which redefined the second dimension.

The only thing I could think about when reading this book was a video I watched last year in my history class. It goes through all ten dimensions and explains/somewhat illustrates them. I had to watch it a few times to feel as though I "got" it, and I could still probably use a few more viewings. Anyway, the url is http://youtube.com/watch?v=qU1fixMAObI if anyone is interested in watching it. If that doesn't work, just search youtube for The Tenth Dimension.

I had a very difficult time reading this book only because I can't really imagine living in a two-dimentional world. The fact that I couldn't mentally get past this was somewhat of a hindrance to me reading it, because I like to picture what's occuring in a story as I read it. Although, it goes the other way too -- I wouldn't be able to read a story involving the fourth, fifth, et cetera dimensions because I wouldn't be able to comprehend anything beyond what I know.

So the art of summarizing our discussions in class resembles summarizing the meaning of life. Our conversations spanned from the to and fro of the reality of reality to the perception of science. We didn't really talk very much about the revision of stories, but more about what the books we read meant to us. Tuesdays discussion resembled last weeks in the topic of Galileo. DId we like or dislike him, and did that matter because of what he did for science and the world.

A lot of students had the same general idea of revision of stories, it happens and we generally like it. But when we got the revised story of Flatland (revised in that it revises our previous thoughts of the world) it confused most of us. The compreshension factor of dimensions, the universe, and other worlds ate up most of our class time. The explanation/story/possibility of different dimensions in close proximity to us opens our mind a little bit further. DO we want to believe in this possibility and be dissatisfied the rest of our lives, or live contentedly in our own familiar world. Basically, it comes down to what story do we want to believe?

I took Flatland to be a satire: Abbot's overhashing of the female role in society, the narrator's disdain for the purely emotional nature of the women, and the switched shape symbolism of the sexes gave me a few cues. And yet I found myself increasingly frustrated with every mention of a logicless woman and their quick tempers.

This is mostly because the world we live in is so similar. I am a chemistry major, considering a math minor. I am in no way a purely emotional figure, nor is my brain necessarily wired to feel more than think as opposed to a man's brain, which is supposedely made to think more than to feel. It's utter (excuse my language) crap. Whomever conducted that study needed to make it clear that a woman's brain, while different from a male brain, does not always follow the observed pattern. Women can think more logically than emotionally- more analytically than comparitively.

I get science. Much better than I understand, say, comparitive literature. I'd rather write a lab report than a book report, I'd prefer to find the tangent plane to a surface than discuss the elements of a writer's tone that show a poem is about platonic love.

I'd rather sit in a lab and be respected for my findings, rather than sit in a lab and be respected for trying to overcome my nature.

I have to agree with Ashton, that I was kind of offended and irritated that the book seemed so sexist, and we were reading it at a women's college!  But it wasn't until I realized that it was first published in 1884, and read that the A. Square didn't really believe in the degradation of women, that I began to fully enjoy the original insight that Abbott gave into his story.  In fact, after reading the book, I was amazed at how many correlations it had with Brecht's Galileo!  Clearly there are parallels here, such as:

1.) Both Galileo and A. Square fight against the main power of the time (the Catholic Church, and the government of Flatland)  to try and persuade people of the truth, but to little success at the beginning.

2.) In the beginning of the play, Galileo tries to teach Andrea (the newer generation) his ideas, because children seem to be much more open minded.  The same is with A. Square, his first attempt at teaching the Gospel of the Third Dimension is to his Grandson.  Fresh blood, whose mind hasn't been confined to the standards and morals of society yet.  I think this small action speaks a lot about the characters, and proves that they want to lay the foundation of these new ideas with youngsters who can bring about a new era.

There are  Many other parallels but I just thought these two were particularly important to recognize.  Any other parallels that are really important?

The world of flatland created is a Victorian society. In the two dimensional world, the different people, whom are polygons with different number of sides, were born into their classes. The social classes are based on how many sides they born with.

They are powerless to change the class statuses for the rest of their life. The higher power controls everything, and the sons of higher power, many-sides polygons, are the only ones that can evolve as many as fifty or more sides each generation. The sons of the lower class, triangles (represent workers), are at the bottom of the hierarchy. And they are only capable of evolving one and a half of a degree more each generation. Since circles are perceived as the perfect shape in the two-dimensional world. The goal is to get as many sides as possible, to get as close to a circle as possible. Thus the society is built to oppress the lower class, and serve the best interests of the higher class, by making it impossible for lower class to move up the social ladder forever. Women are of a separated category. They are only lines from the one dimensional world, therefore, they are incapable of any activity of the two dimensional world, therefore, they have no right in the two dimensional world, a world of men. They are also perceived as harmful.

The society of the two dimensional world also takes comfort in being the highest dimension, looking down on the lower dimension. They are unable to see the higher dimensions. If they are sighs said other wise, they oppress it to ensure the security and comfort of being the highest. This is also true for the lower dimensions and the higher dimensions as well. The sphere in the three dimensional world are incapable of accepting the fact that there may be a fourth dimensions.

Flatland used the mathematical idea of different dimensions to describe a world of narrowed view of human, and the social problem of classes. The author has brought the readers into a different dimension, a dimension of the math/science approach to view the social problem of the world. It’s fresh and captivating, and the message seems even clearer then the normal approach. This is an example of it’s really hard to see the truth when you are directly in it. All the ideas about truth that we have are only ideas that build upon our own understanding, understanding that build on own perception of world, not the understanding of truth itself. It just a lot easier to see what the mountain really looks like when you are not on it.

 

 Galileo and Square are comparable.  They have the icky outcome in common.  Both Square and Galileo are challenged and are forced to give up their views.  The consequences of telling their new discoveries are bizarre.  However, the motives of telling people their views are a bit different from each other.  Square is a humble professional, and is driven by his own curiosity, whereas Galileo is a selfish scientist who wants to be famous and to be remembered. 

In Flatland, I found interesting that social structures are applied to the shape (angle, length of sides, and number of sides).  The author didn't change the cliche:  the higher class it is, the more of whatever they have than others. 

As far as the illustrations here and there in the book, I would like to say they pleased me so much.  Psychologically, they comforted me who was frequently baffled at too abstract explanations about different dimensions.  I realized how visual person I was.  I desperately wished this book had been a comic book until I went through the first chapter.  However, I became grateful for the fact that I was granted an opportunity to struggle. 

 

This book was a bit difficult for me to get into, but once I did I found it to be extremely facinating. Truely, I am still absorbing all it had to say, but I have a few things I find to be very noteworthy.

The similarities between Flatland and Galileo are undeniable, almost to the point where I would say that this is simply Abbott's revision, rather than Brecht's, of the story of Galileo. Though obviously a much more abstract interpretation, Flatland portrays many of the same ideas.

I think that a lot of my fellow collegues have already noted the depressingly vivid degradation of women in Flatland, and I would just like to point out that Virginia in Brecht's Galileo is also portrayed as dull, unintelligent, and over emotional. Also, the whole premise of one scientific thinger seeking truth against the beliefs of the whole society he lives in is a quality that A.Square and Galileo share, except that A.Square is shown the way by the outside force which is the Sphere and is, at first, reluctant to believe these changes in perception himself, where as Galileo discovers the discrepency between common belief and the true orbit of the planets on his own, and immediately attmepts to spread the word.

In both accounts, the people of power are convinced that if such knowledge were to made known and accepted as true, the whole structure of their current society would crumble and perhaps break in to chaos - a chaos in which the individuals once held to their pre-destined social status would possibly be able to think for themselves and break out of there lowly conditions.

On of the most interesting sections of Flatland for me, I think, was the part about the Point which had no demention, no concept of anything other than himself. He is "One and All, being Nothing really" (75) I am still trying to figure out what exactly I make of this, but in some ways I see it as a statement against religion...though I'm not sure. Where he then goes on to say, "Yet make mark of his perfect self-contentment, and hence learn this lessonm that to be self-contented is to be vile and ignorant, and to aspire is better than to be blindly and impotantly happy and ignorant." (75) Well, I suppose it is to do with more than religion, but any blind following, whether that be religion or government or anything else. It is interesting that when A. Square speaks to Point, Point simply believes that it is was his own thoughts that he heard, and accepts them as his own...

Anyway, this is getting a bit long winded, this was a very interesting book and I am curious to see what others have to say about it in class, as I myself am still contemplating the many levels explored.

The social structure within Flatland seems to present a very constricting and pessimistic look at an individual’s ability to become something greater than what he or she was born into. The common masses’ hope that they could rise above their circumstances, like those few common people who eventually got accepted into a higher rank, was needed to keep them content so that those in power would not have to fear an uprising. But of course such a thing is a very rare occurrence, so most people, the author seemed to be suggesting, were sustained by nothing more than a delusion. Also, a person’s class was determined by their physical characteristics at birth, which inherently made one more intelligent the more angles one had. It was only through successive generations that isosceles triangles could gradually grow into equilateral and reach a higher social status. I wonder what the meaning of this is, since it seems to have nothing to do with our picture of how an entire species evolves at once, not parts of it evolving while there were already parts in that more highly evolved state. Also, the strange thing is that evolution in Flatland seems to be an inevitable thing that just happens in an automatic, already determined pattern, and one does not seem to control one’s own evolution.  Flatland presents a picture in which nature allows people to be happy within their own minds, but it does so by designing them so that their brains are not capable of comprehending the world. So basically, it sees society members as biological machines whose limitations are innately set- and that they may be happy but their happiness is the fulfillment of automatic processes that keeps them in their place; they cannot hope to comprehend the universe or master it, as we human beings like to believe we can.

      The view of women here is very strange. Women have power, but their power comes from their ability to hide, and they are straight lines, utterly dimensionless. They have no intelligence, but they do have emotion, such as the hot fury that drives them to unwittingly kill their husbands and children. I guess it reminds me of how in some cultures today women are restricted from showing themselves and cannot go out without a male, etc, customs which are also based on fear of the woman, just as in Flatland they fear women just based on the fact that they are women and they fear that women will also be driven out of control.  

“Though the crowded years go by, this nigh on seventy-year-old-tale shows no sign of age. It remains as spry as ever, a timeless classic of perennial fascination that seems to have been written for today. Like all great art, it defies the tyrant Time.” (Abbott iv)

 

As I read Flatlands, I contemplated the meaning of this passage. Is it a positive or negative that it “seems to have been written for today?” And if this is the case, have we come very far over the last seventy years as a society? Did the students, the women of Bryn Mawr sit around the table discussing the consequences of the words put on paper in Flatlands seventy years ago? And if so, what conclusions did they arrive at? Are we, as women, suppose to be merely straight lines, moving in just the right way as to not upset or “instill” fear into the opposite sex? Does this fear not lie within them to begin with?

 

My brain has been swimming since last meeting….I keep thinking about the consequences of our words…something I heard in class on Tuesday…and while we are students we do not have consequences for our words/   Hmmmm…..I know for me, there are consequences for my thoughts, what I say, and my actions. And it is my responsibility as a woman who has many sisters in countries around the world who are killed, mutilated, raped, or tortured, only because they are a woman, to understand that it is my RESPONSIBILTY to take my education seriously. I do not only go to college for myself, but for my children and for the millions of women around the world who will never have the opportunity to do so.  I personally do not feel as though there is no responsibility being a student…quite the opposite. I could leave my work at work. I take my college career seriously and it is with me day and night. I do not just leave it the end of the work day. I, also, being a Bryn Mawr student, take the honor code very seriously….one other reason to think about the consequences of our words and actions.

 

I hope not to offend but needed to share my experience.

Elisa

In "Flatland" the main purpose is to try to expand your thinking. We live in a world that we think is the only way we cannot imagine a world that has another dimension. It is always hard to imagine the world as something different from our perception of it, even if it isn't as drastic as a new dimension. Even if someone views a situation in a different way it is sometimes hard to accept because we are so set in our ways. It is difficult to abandon your ideas of the way of life and your surroundings and pick up something completely new. This makes people feel really uncomfortable because they like to think that they are right and the way they see the world is the way everyone sees the world. With "Flatland" Square is introduced to many different worlds that have no concept of the other worlds and no way to understand them. What I believe this book is saying is that you have to be patient when explaining a different view of the world but also be open to new ideas and theories because otherwise we will be stuck as a single point only listening to ourselves and not taking any input from anyone else, we will be living below our potential.