Prompted by The Invention of Morel

The main character of The Invention of Morel chooses the wrong spot to be what seems like every time he tries to hide. His inability to fully process decision beyond what's convenient at the moment reveals that in order to make good decisions, some insight must be had. In moments of panic, he hides. What does this say about humans? I think that his actions comment on how human interpretation of situations when in fear are absolutely contradicting to the normal reaction which is to manipulate the environment until it is desirable. But, again, when in fear, behavior is completely changed. The reality of the example form the book is that no place would be safe for the character since the environment around him is created by himself.  He is not safe because he is not allowing himself to be. Also, safety is a subjective emotion anyway and on top of that choice, having  the choice of having a subjective reality makes the concept that he regrets where he hides every time very complex and perplexing. 

"How much more advanced they were than we!" - page 22 of the Invention of Morel

In order to believe this quote, the whole concept of what is advanced needs to be fully challenged. Factually, with time humans become more advanced, making discoveries allowing us to create and understand things that prior generations could not. This quote is in reference to cavemen's ability to light fires without matches. This comments on technology in a way that does not believe that advancement is inherently good. If matches didn't exist, the character would be practiced at rubbing two sticks together, benefiting him in is desperate situation. It is so interesting that this quote is in the reading for this class because it is completely opposite to what I thought was a ubiquitous message coming from everything discussed and addressed in class. That message being that technology is expanding reality, which is good. However, slightly, tweaked, this message still applies if it is simplified to say that technology is simply changing reality. 

"Enduring discomfort, even risking their lives, in attempt to be original." - page 24

The need to be original has become a hopeless endeavor that humans as robots need to learn to abandon. Why is it so difficult to accept a group mentality about everything? Individuality and the strive for it are desired because it is written in our genes and imprinted in our minds through societal views stating that individuality is needed to feel freedom. This is the reason that it is so difficult to deny and resist originality. The question then brought up regards the fact that every human is undeniably unique because they have had a truly unique experience. Though no action has been original, the combination of life experiences sets every human apart from one another. This truth is irrelevant. Though each person has had their own custom experience, it is not relevant because, as robots, humans desire the same things and feel the same emotions. If an emotion is felt, is it the same for each person? What if a different event prompts the same emotion? Is it the same experience to feel that emotion? Unlike the self, I think that emotions need to be addressed as elemental and constant. Sadness over death and spilled juice is the same emotion. We are unique in our combination of experiences, which is true simultaneously with the fact that it doesn't matter. Under the latter view, the thought that an emotion is tangible and unchanging despite its source is supported. We are already robots, but are not able to succumb to this fact because of our need for individuality. However, does our denial change anything? If we do not identify as robots, does that mean we are not? If the answer is no, the idea that we make our own realities cannot be justified and I support the latter, especially in the context of all of the texts we're discussing. The only way to be able to make both ideas work together is to differentiate between reality and personal reality. We make our own realities as individuals, but there is a collective truth that is present despite what individuals believe. If people ever do abandon uniqueness and succumb to group mentality, this will still be true, only simplified, for fewer interpretation will be taken on reality. 

The main character's opinion of the woman he loves supports my argument that the self is not constant. On one page, he hates the girl who watches the sunset. Then he loves and desires for her again. Then he wants to see her more than he can handle. But basic indecision does not prove the point that the main character can because of his reality. It is his irrationality and our knowledge as readers that he believes everything that he feels so whole heartedly and deeply that allows us to feel safe in the assumption that he is truly and freely himself. One can trust that he does not lie because his reality is wild enough that the truth is all that he can handle, no matter how unreal the truth is. Assuming this allows the reader to draw the conclusion that his feelings are directly from the self and that the inconsistency in his emotions reflect the state of the self. Defined as "personal interest" or "a person's nature", self is obviously not constant. The character's personal interest is changing all the time, deciding to abandon hope, then deciding to be proactive and back again. All of these act in on basic self-interest which is personal happiness and benefit, but when assessed more specifically, nothing is constant except for the self's inability to remain unvarying.