The Cities

Asthe book continues it is evident how the cities have nothing to do with eachother, they are completely isolated and non relatable. Yet there is one way thecities con be interconnected. Human characteristics, if not humans themselvesare explained in every city. Calvino can describe a city with humancharacteristics like greed, memories, organization, patterns or can describethem through the persons that Marco Polo meets in his traveling: tempting,artistic, dreamful, and resourceful.

Themost confusing aspect of the book is the narration. It varies from first personto second person. Obvious that first person narrates form the point of view ofMarco Polo, yet the second person is hard to comprehend. Is Marco Polo talkingto the readers, or to Kublai Khan? Are the readers as important to be addressedby Marco Polo, or is it a simple dialogue between both characters.

Diomira: In Spanish the word means important women in the village. Polomentions the arrival to Diomira happens in September, spring time, meaningbirth the revival after winter. “From a terrace a woman’s voice cries ooh!, isthat he feels envy toward those who now believe they have once before lived anevening identical to this and who think they were happy, that time” (PG. 7).The joy a mother feels at birth, and the simplicity of a child coming to life,is compared to the elaborated description of the city, Diomira’s architectonicfeatures and decorations. The memory of birth.

Isidora:  Saint Isidora is Christiannun, one of the earliest fools of Christ. It is worth mentioning that Calvinowas a great devotee of the church. Isidora is a city of dreams, one that grabsyou and does not let you go. Contrary to Diomira, the architectonic features ofthis city are angelical like heaven, and the people are the ones that createthe atrocities in Isidora. It was a city that anybody would dream of, “old mensit and watch the young go by; he is seated in a row with them. Desires arealready memories.” (PG.8). Nothing is done to change what happens here.

Dorothea: This city is full of patterns and numbers which are a vitalpart to the organization of it. “Four aluminum towers...seven gates…four greencanals...nine quarters...three hundred houses…seven hundred chimneys.”(PG.9)Due to the strict regimen of the city everybody collaborates with each other,through lending, borrowing or gifting. An industrially developed city whichwould be the desire an covet of any one.

Zaira: Is a city that can be interpreted as a river. By Marco Polo’sfirst descriptions of it “arcades’ curves, and zinc scales that covered theroof” (PG.10), but more than the physical aspects of this city is whatconstructed it and what we can see now. The city tells a story as the path leftby the river does. The problem is what gave shape to the city in the beginningdetermines most of what happens today in Zaira. The lines of the river arewritten in the hard drive of Zaira’s history, its memories.

Anastasia: This city is kind of an oasis; Polo tells us you will find itafter three days of enduring travel through the desert. Full of minerals itgives us the idea one can be resurrected in that place. Yet it is also thegarden of eve, and an apple. Knowing how wounded up you will be when you arrivehere; you will be received with commodities. These commodities will later turninto temptations, which will drag you down turning the city a living hell. “Foreight hours a day you work…your labor which gives form to desire takes fromdesire its form, and you believe you are enjoying Anastasia wholly when you areonly its slave” (PG. 12)

   

Number Play

A strange and fantastic book, Invisible Cities, by the superb Italo Calvino is a dialogue between its only two characters: Kublai Khan and Marco Polo, the latter narrates the stories of the invisible cities to the first. In fact the book lacks any sort of plot line or beginning. Meaning you can actually read the book in which ever order you like and achieve a comprehensible story with different meanings each. 

In the prologue of the "first chapter" if it could be called so, Calvino sets us as part of the book, by referring to us as emperors conquering various territories. "In the lives of emperors there is a moment which follows pride...obscure kings that beseech our army’s protection...it is the desperate moment when we discover that this empire, which had seemed to us the sum of all wonders, is an endless, formless ruin.” (PG. 5) Marco Polo will try to dialogue with us the whole book, implant his talks with Khan as information in our head.   

Through a cautious close reading we preformed in class we were able to understand the meaning of this prologue and the whole set up of the book. Calvino as said before gives us the prestige of emperors, with many territories. The emperors being us and the land we take over being the knowledge there is out there. The problem is “that the triumph over enemy sovereigns has made us the heirs of their long undoing” (PG.5), the land you just acquired has already been known by another person yet they did not use it wisely. Upon that, the emperor that has just been kicked out in a few years will forget his land. And while you expand and “win” more knowledge you would leave the other things behind. Not having the time to appreciate each territory correctly.

Calvino also plays with the way his book is assembled. It was previously mentioned that you could read this book any way you liked to. Calvino is offering you the knowledge, the book. After the information is given to you it is your call on how you interpret it. There will be a different outcome from each path taken, and each person will receive a different message.

 Each of the fifty-five cities described in the book have a number. The way Calvino organized the book, the first chapter is the only one in which the chapter begins with the number one. Then continuously the number increases and then decreases back to one again and there are no number fives which are included in every chapter there forward(1,2,1,3,2,1,4,3,2,1). From the second chapter up to chapter eight all the chapters will begin with the number five and descend to number one (5,4,3,2,1). Number nine has a different pattern it decreases in an inverse way than chapter one did. Starting at five and finally reaching five again (5,4,3,2,5,4,3,5,4,5) strangely never having a one. I still have no comprehension of what role this number play plays in the book.

Lastly this book as I skim through it before I begin to read it, it seems as short stories of different cities, that might have nothing to do with each other. That we will have to see.    

Always Cooperate

In class today we exemplified the Prisoner’s Dilemma game, as Dawkins explains in his book. More than just a game of trust, he uses it to explain genes selfishness and attitude to betray other for their success. The game shows us how betrayal if the competitor is loyal is great. But if both betray each other they will slowly fail. Below a diagram that explains the dilemma and how we played it in class will be explained further on. In Dawkins way of playing the game, if both persons cooperate they will win three points. If one cooperates and the other defects, the later will win five points, whilst the one that chose to cooperate will not win points. If both chose to defect they will only win one point each.

With genes the rules vary a little bit. Some genes develop to be cheats which means they are able to govern around the suckers. Without receiving anything in return the suckers will work for the cheats just to survive. If the both decide to neglect each other non will develop and succeed as the strongest species. Lastly if both genes chose to cooperate with each other success! They will both fight for survival but if helping each other ensure the success of both alleles.

In class rough feelings emerged due to the game. When humans play it they have the power to choose to betray someone. If they did so the other person might not like the decision. It was also a disadvantage for those that were not chosen to play the game, because even though if you played you might lose some points at one point in the game. No one ended up losing points from their grade; instead the two that played received a better score. It was played the following way in class: if you won you would win 0.5 points into your grade over a four, if tied defecting both would lose 0.01 points, if you lost you would lose 0.1 points and if you both tied cooperating both would win 0.3 points.

After reading Dawkins solutions for the game, and the classes feelings towards it, it was obvious that if you always cooperated it would be the best for your grade. Not only that but as well with genes and everything you can “prisoner dilemma”.

Humans

We tend to forget humans are also animals, our behaviors are the same as those of your dog or a wild lion. The book describes different gene attitudes: selfishness an survival being the two most important. When talking about them he posts the example of a flock of certain animals on the hunt. One will always be aware of the dangers, but insist on only saving themselves if the predator appears. Most interestingly it will try to reduce their chances of getting caught by trying to evade the edges of the flock. This reminded me of the trip to La Guajira. When time came to choose your chinchorros (traditional Colombian hammocks), everyone would run into the rancheria and get one of the center hammocks. Everybody hated the edges, they were scary for us. Yet this leads plus back to gene behavior of survival and selfishness. If anything were to happen the persons in the corners are more prone to danger than those in the middle. Pure animal instinct.

To prove even more how selfish genes are Dawkins talks about the "cave theory". Before the author even explained this I was wondering how animals like the birds would fit Ito his theory that your own life is more important than the flock, well the bird will sing to alert danger. The cave theory maps out why animals that live in communities tend to alert the rest when danger is near. Due to what the book is about we can predict genes are not generous and courteous and alert for others benefits. Instead they do so to protect themselves once again. If one creature spots the predator he could hide in the grass and act as if nothing was happening. But, " any one of them [the flock] could attract the hawk's attention and then the whole flock is peril." (PG. 169)

I wonder then with all the respect and passion I have for helping others and social service : why do humans do it? Is it cause we have a higher gene conscious that leads us to feeling pity, or did society only invent service to balance everybody. It is not in our genes we are designed for survival.

Understanding Biology

Finally have I gotten a hint of comprehension of my last eight months in biology. Dawkins narrates genes it's reproduction and basically my tenth grade curriculum in an interesting and bizarre way. Chapter three states Darwin's obvious idea of evolution: fighting for survival. Dawkins adds that at a fundamental view it is all the same, the same fundamental chemistry. The only difference is how every gene develops differently to suit the need of the creature.

Referring back to the title, grateful I am to have read this book ( even more when finals are coming up). What many scientists describe as a double helix, Dawkins calls it an "immortal coil" (PG.22). The word double helix works as a visual aid, well the shape of DNA is exactly that. But the reference to an immortal coil gives the reader a better understanding of the usage and functioning of DNA. It is ever lasting, there is no way one can destroy or embed this helixes through human power.  

Nucleotides are said to be te building blocks by Dawkins. A, T, C, and G are no longer sodium-phosphate letters which I had no comprehension about whatsoever. Now they turned into the building blocks that hold together the immortal coil (PG.23). I begin to doubt the science teaching method, if it was only more visual and less theoretical. I understand it is impossible tu visualize an atom, even less DNA but with simple relations like this everything becomes easier to understand.

Relating to the whale story and the spindle cell we saw in class, Dawkins talks about how animals are taught. They have learned not to eat colored butterflies because of their toxins. They do not know that eating that butterfly will cause them death, because they looked into their eyes and felt the warning from the butterflies.

Mimicry: The close external resemblance of an animal or plant (or part of one) to another.

I can only conclude that this book is helping me succeed in biology.

Stable Replicator

In the second chapter of TheSelfish Gene, Dawkins tries to explain how simple things develop into thecomplex life of now days.  The rise ofthe “replicator” gives us an idea from where it all began and how genes simplysurvive because it is supposed to happen in that way. Dawkins expresses a pointabout survival of the fittest not such as Darwin’s. He states that genes simplyevolve because they do, there is no race to become better, it simply happens. Not being a survival of the fittest, instead of the stable. The genes that succeed the most fighting against viruses and are able to limit their errors during replication are the ones that will grow the stablest. So saying so humans are not the fightest because they have a moral responsality over the world and are incharge of protecting it, they are simply the stablest because their genes replicated succesfully more than any other.

The following are a list of words vital to the comprehensionof the second chapter of The Selfish Gene:

-        

            Survival of the stable: the gene that manage to reproduce themselves the stablest. Limiting errors and disfunction.

-         Replicator: the main breed in charge of replicating correctly their genes.

-         Competition: the process all genes go through against each other to succeed.

-         Errors

-         Survival machines

-         Longevity

-         Accuracy

       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene

The Ugly Truth

This weekend I (“had the pleasure of” terrible movie don't ever watch it) watched The Ugly Truth a chick-flick based around love and lust. What astonished me was the resemblance it had with Candide, it had nothing to do with the topic or how it was written. But instead both the movie and the book had similar approach over a controversial topic. This is the last blog I will write about Candide, not only because the book is over but because Voltaire has finally expressed his true reason towards writing this book. As in the movie, it runs all the time satirically mocking love through the eyes of a player how believes life if ever lived with love will suck, therefore promotes lust and it being the only way of living a happy life. When at the end of the movie he ends up falling in love with the other main character, I know how unexpected.

Candide has its similarities with the movie. Throughout the book, before the last page, there is only one part in the book in which Candide dares to defy his “all is for the best” life motto. But it was not for long as he corrects himself before the sentence is even over.

“What would Professor Pangloss say if he had seen how unsophisticated nature behaves? No doubt all is for the best, but I must say it is very cruel to have lost Lady Conégonde and to be skewered by the Oreillons.” (PG.71)

If a satire is written correctly there is no need to reveal your real point when writing. When finishing the novel there is no explaining to do, just reflection. The book has unraveled. Voltaire has mocked the world, its religion, its people all along you finally come to his conclusion:

“There is a chain of events in this best of all worlds…” “That’s true enough,” said Candide; “but we must go and work in the garden.” (PG. 144)

The ‘chain of events’ that happen in your life are suited for the best, and they fall into that order for a reason. Yet those are random and uncontrollable. The only way to make this your life and live it the fullest is by ‘working your garden’. Toiling through the hard situations, Voltaire emphasizes lastly that nature is not enough, nature affects everybody equally. If you ever want to succeed you need to risk it, to finally get the biscuit.

Might I add the book was in its self an odyssey. At the beginning it was hard to comprehend, the titles of each chapter were spoilers of what was to come and what through me off the most was the lame and monotone storyline. After comprehending satire, it becomes interesting and funny, to see once perspective of the beautiful life brought down by one guy and his clumsy characters in a book. Lastly when you reach the end you have changed your approach towards the book so many times, you never expect that one last change, that moral lesson. Learning something from those one hundred and some pages of mockery.