So, Paul
should I take it that I need not read Castells because the book is $60 and
1300 pages? This seems to have been where that thread was left dangling. If
so, does that also mean that I need not worry about relating the positive
sides of Internet sociotechnology to what Castells says about the global
effects of the concentration of informational capital?
I have never intended to say that the Internet cannot ever be used for good
purpose -- although I am beginning to fear strongly that the FULL effect of
the Net will be less than beneficial. And, to be honest, it does not sit
well with me when I hear US voices rejoice in "simple effect of its
globalization of culture". The personal (and regional) costs for THAT
globalisation cuts much too close to home with me.
Well, it IS both for worse and for better that I would not be who I am or
where I am without the Net, but let me dwell with the "magical" side of
scholarly networking for a moment. I really appreciated both of the Martins
contributing their "testimony" of our meetings. In this sense I have really
lived the Internet saga: I knew almost nobody on the XLCHC in a RL context
when I got on, in late 93. Had the address through a third-hand contact!
Spent some months as a daunted lurker before Eugene (yes, the same Eugene)
midwifed me through backstage contacts into becoming a confident
contributor. I was a grad student then, writing my dissertation in English.
The Xlists became my breathing hole, and I got to know and trust many of
its regulars... Well, I cannot chronichle it all here, but it wasn't until
the winter 97-98 in San Diego and then in Aarhus in the summer of 98 that I
got to meet the X-community in bulk, so to speak (only driplets before
that). WONDERFUL: all these people interested in talking about the same
stuff as I!!!!
So I can flash an ID as an enthusiast, too. It is just that I have become
more and more afraid of my own tendencies to look only at the enchantments
and not at the dangers approaching "from behind" while I gaze raptly in one
direction.
Now, I must be careful as I go on to pick up the snippet on "the paradox of
our time" that you posted, Paul, so that I don't get a lecture on "might"
and "subjunctives" -- I am quite convinced that M.O. thinks it a small
matter against what he gets to cope with in Brussels, but I'm like
Andersen's princess. I get vicariously hurt when Martin's sunny description
of how our project group got together the first time -- what I read as an
attempt to furnish a short contribution to a multi-faceted picture of what
we as researchers do with and through the Net -- is met with a lecture and
a pointing out that
At 08.02 -0800 0-01-20, Paul Dillon scrobe:
>The question of whether in fact you met on the internet was never raised.
in the posting that Martin had responded to. Plus a followup that asks the
very thing that, to my mind, Martin had already tried to describe. This is
the sort of communicative technique that scared me off from posting to the
couple of other mailinglists I visited before I found the XLCHC. Now, I
have of course learnt a lot since then.
So yes, I hear you hedging the attribution of the snip to a Columbine
student by writing it "allegedly" comes from such a source.
At 13.34 -0800 0-01-20, Paul Dillon scrobe:
>This is an interesting perspective on the growth of the middle class
>allegedly written by a student at Columbine HS.
And well is that, because this piece of text had been circulating on the
Net well before April 99 -- which is not to say that it has never passed
through the cut-and-pasting hands of some student at Columbine. It IS in
many Web places as well as in many different ways put in connection with
the Columbine shootings. It is also, where it is not tied to the specific
tragedy, presented alternately as a word of wisdom and as a "clean" joke.
Well, not so strange. Good preachers know how to wield humour in a way that
is to the taste of their congregation.
Now, this "paradox of our times" can be used for raising a number of
questions about the Net. For one thing the dissemination of this "stuff" is
a bit like a chain mail, although not quite as virulent, because it is not
affixed with an admonishmant to pass it on. People have to come up with the
idea themselves. And they do.
The various attributions -- most often anonymous, but also to a few named
persons, or to students or teachers at Columbine -- raise the question of
what to believe in on the Net. What is true and what isn't. How to learn
what to trust "out there"? And one could dredge up much worse stuff, of
course. I don't mean to be a panic monger, just that the Net poses new and
important challenges for parents, teachers and all who take a
responsibility for the next generation. Not least the kids themselves. All
of us.
But what is most interesting from my perspective is how this paradox pops
up in the most diverse places. Or perhaps they are not all that diverse: my
understanding of US culture is still too limited for judging that. Most
often, if you look at organizations rather than individuals, "paradox of
our time" appears on pages devoted to various churches: for example in a
collection of First Congregational Church Sermons
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/9544/sermons/sermon112998.html
(I haven't thried to estimate whether the Paradox is used mostly in
corrective sermons or not). It can also be found in lifestyle advising
about Emotional Intelligence, and there are traces of its use in
organizational consulting (for small businesses...) It seems to have been
on the "front page" of American Patriot Information
http://www.vaix.net/~api/ at one point -- and was indexed by Altavista, but
the API seem to change their decor now and then, it wasn't there anymore.
It is on pages for "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms" at
http://homes.acmecity.com/rosie/luck/279/index.html as "something to
ponder". On a couple of Web Boards it appears under the heading of "Fruits
of Democracy"
and on a board for Muslim youth with the preface "this was sent by an
American non-Muslim friend of mine. It's your typical liberal whining, but
it has a good deal of truth in it". Seems they like the paradox in all
corners?
Wondering how all these ends meet,
and how it agrees with your brand of Marxism, Paul
Eva
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 01 2000 - 01:02:39 PST