Why Technology isn't a Metaphor for Memories

Here's a link to the TED Talk: https://www.ted.com/talks/raghava_kk_what_s_your_200_year_plan

Raghava KK is an artist who makes 200-year plans with his wife every few years to better understand himself and the importance of creativity.  His grandfather indirectly influenced him to do it when he saw his first movie in the Indian theaters and fell in love with Mae West.  Raghava's twin brother Keshava changed his name to Kaesava, and his son from Rehan to Raehan.  So his brother started his legacy of name-changing to preserve memories, and Raghava began to create his own future.  He and his wife Netra decided to make a plan that would affect people beyond their actual lives.  They determined that 200 years was the time where their lives and legacies would extend to affect their descendants' lives.

Raghava and Netra have started their legacies by first expelling themselves of childhood fears--like Raghava's fear of his mother-in-law.  They have also created digital legacies, where they put their memories and Raghava's art on social media sites.  But, Raghava clarified that "technology is not a metaphor for memory," because everyone picks and chooses what snippets of memory to put into the technological world; the brain is unreliable because it influences creations of memories that show one's positive aspects in their own perspective.  Technology is not a metaphor because it stems from the brain, an organ that filters out some truth.

Raghava started his painting career by visualizing his first art exhibition and making his vision come true by inviting a famous actress there.  He sees time as moving forward towards him, with him in relative control of avoiding bad things and embracing good things.  Netra made him sit on a history class she taught, because he thought history was a waste of time--only a way to look into the past and not make a future.  His views changed when he went into the class and created art using history, created a future as he would like it using his heritage and personal stories.  He says that the 200-year plans are not for someone to do in the future, but rather a way to manipulate his attitude in the present.  In the end, he explains that education is a wonderful tool for all, but creativity surpasses it in usefulness because it leads people to define themselves outside of how education tells them to be, and in turn helps them mold what they become.

The purpose of this talk was to encourage people to take charge of their lives by becoming aware of their potential impact and utilizing their creative qualities.  Raghava is himself an artist, which adds a certain credibility in his views of art affecting life.  The ethos is subtle, but he frequently mentions his personal experience as a painter and how he expresses his views of time in them, influencing the audience' belief of his expertise.  This overall makes his argument more convincing and worthy of thought because he is a successful professional.  A bias is created, however, because of his position as an artist.  He uses his career/passion as a lens for how he thinks of the world and consequently of the importance of creativity.  He says, " It [education] really teaches us who we are, and helps us contextualize ourselves in the world, but it's really my creativity that's taught me that I can be much more than what my education told me I am."  His entire argument is centered on his view as an artist.    The quote contends to not only how his identity shapes his views, but how everyone's opinions are founded in their passions and experiences.  Raghava has more quality nuggets of argument however--more concentrated at the end.  He is persuasive in that he structures his argument by giving personal stories and applying them to his reasoning; pathos melds to aid in ethos.  His anecdotal style of speech evokes an emotion of hope.  For example, when he speaks of his wife's history class, he takes on a tone of fascination: "She started by giving students primary source documents from India, Pakistan, from Britain, and I said, 'Wow.' Then she asked them to separate fact from bias. I said, 'Wow,' again. Then she said, 'Choose your facts and biases and create an image of your own story of dignity.'"  Raghava utilizes the story, and "wow" and "dignity" as positively connoted words, to give the audience a sense of hope.  His explanation of how history can combine with creative thought to create something new expresses the amount of untapped capabilities people have to make their futures.  This is the most important persuasive tool Rhagava uses--his credibility lends some assurance, but mainly his use of pathos and structure helps the audience regard him as a human being with positive values.  Though he is biased in his reasoning because of his work, Raghava explains that all people can utilize creativity, making his artistic viewpoint much more inclusive.  In this way, it is seen that Raghava uses mainly ethos and pathos to give his audience insight on how they can harness their lives.

Double Murder...er, Indemnity

1.  In film noir, many of the male leads are weak, frustrated men. While you are watching Double Indemnity, make a mental note of Walter Neff’s characteristics. What kind of man is he? What is his relationship like with women?

Walter Neff in Double Indemnity is portrayed as an astute, good-working man.  His boss says that he has a big heart, and he is a war hero.  He is tall, has strong facial features--everything implies his strength and manliness.  However, the first view of him is in the dark, hurriedly looking around his office and then sitting down, beginning to confess his crime to his boss.  This gives the audience the duality of his personality, like seen in Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.  He is both smart, honest, and and trustworthy, as well as unsure, nervous, and exposed.

Neff introduces Phyllis in a way that the audience immediately sees her as a manipulative person.  He describes the sickly sweet smell of honeysuckle as one of murder, explicitly revealing Phyllis' murderous desires, but only fully exposing its entire meaning when the audience sees him kill her at that house.  He is already caught in her black-widow's web when he meets her, her flirtatiously inviting him in in her bath towel, and him going in.  They flirt at first, but when Phyllis mentions life insurance, he quickly discerns that she could kill her husband and get his money.  He intelligently leaves, then negates his actions by meeting her again.  He is superficially strong in his stances, but with a beautiful woman, his tenacity crumbles.  Kissing her and calling her "baby" after two days of seeing her further implies that he is gullible, too entranced to realize the facade of a seemingly innocent woman.  He then uses his intelligence and the trust he has at his work to kill Phyllis' husband in an elaborate plan with the intent of double indemnity.  His positive traits are diverted to do negative actions; he transforms from Jekyll to Hyde.

Neff, however, feels extreme remorse after he kills the husband.  When seeing someone walking on a street towards him, he realizes that he can't hear the man's footsteps.  This could be an allusion to Macbeth, for Macbeth can't say "Amen" after killing King Duncan.  In Double Indemnity, the effect is the same in that it shows Neff's guilt and heightened nerves, but does not have any religious implication.

In his post-murder state, he feels relaxed around genuinely innocent Lola.  This offers the insight that Neff, in his Dr. Jekyll, or true, self, has a moral compass when it comes to women.  However, this does not in the least deny the weakness that he has in the presence of a conniving woman and how his irrevocable actions are so easily spawned.  Even in the end, Neff, after killing Phyllis, tries to make sure that Lola can be happy with her cheating boyfriend Nino Zachetti, but also tries to save himself.  He is frank with his boss, Keyes, but asks him to give him time to escape.  Had he reverted back to an honest, responsible man, and not a weak, hiding one, and he would completely give himself up.  Is he still attempting to be a masculine figure? Yes--his ever-smoking state proves this at the end as he lays on the ground, defeated, and tries to take a smoke.  However, instead of easily lighting his own match, his boss does it for him.  The end result is clear: people who do not fall into the foolish trap of deceit and murder will prevail.  Those who do end up on the train, "straight down the line."