understanding the internet
July 13th 2007 15:29
I think understanding the inernet is vital to being a meaningful part of any society in 5 years time. What deas it mean 'to understand the internet'? well its a crude way of putting it, but you get what I mean generally, what it's all about, what logic and values underly it, what's going on between people over it, etc.
-[Okay, I'm going to institute some new language here. Et Cetera literally means and the rest. Which is taken less literally to mean and so on. But we can take it even more broadly to mean 'you know what I mean'. So rather than having written the 2nd and 3rd sentence above, I could have phrased the first, using this broader usage of etc, as: "I think it is vital to: understand the internet, etc - in order to be a meaning ful part in any society in 5 years time. By etc I would mean meaning of the next two sentences, thus not having to write them.]-
Now, it really concerns me that the people in charge now simply don't understand the internet, etc. They just don't have a clue. They try to understand it and describe it in totally inadequate ways, trying to use metaphors of physical concrete cases from the past. But the internet is new. It is an actually novel thing. It's a bit of living proof of extropy. And it can't be understood in any other context other than it's own. So those who don't understand it, simply won't understand it, can't learn to understand it, cannot form an understanding of it based on any of their previous experience in "the world". This is their problem, they always look down on the internet. They think it is a phenomenon, an artefact, or a machine, an entity, something with an identity. But it ain't. For example, they might talk about it sometimes as a market place. This has a very literal meaning, this metaphor is based on a concrete reality. We are actually able to think quite abstractly about "market places", nonetheless, no matter how much some corporate guru thinks he understands the market place that he thinks is the internet, he will never master that "market place". He can never wrangle it, because he is not looking reality in the face, he has a faulty model. Those who attempt to conquer the market place of the internet will never succeed. I'm not saying loads of money won't be made on the internet, but it shall not be made by anyone who thinks they are makng money *from* the internet.
Let's put it this way. Image some time before they have societies on the city scale. The people then are no less smart than you or I, they have a no less full life, they have likes and dislakes and romance, religious belief, science-like cutting edge ideas, they have art especially the art of storytelling also music and visual art and dance. If you were there and you spoke the same language, you could have a coherent conversation with the people just the same as talking to anyone now, they're people through and through. So let's imagine this conversation about this new thing which is happening called society, which you conduct with them.
Well, your first problem would be that you are concerned that they won't really understand what society is all about. You wouldn't want them to think of it as an artefact or an entity. It's more of a framework you'd explain. Don't think of it as a physical place but more a way of arranging people and connecting them. Don't think of you as getting things from society, you'll get stuff from other people, just how you do now, only society will arrange you in such a way as to make that interpersonal relation easier.
Everything in the world is a me-you interaction. Everything. Even things which seem to be about collectives of people such as nationalism/countries/empires /societys/tribes/etc. These all boil down to 1-1 relations between individual people. So then what are these collective things? what are these concepts? Because say economics for example seems to be about interaction between groups, politics especially seems to be this, so does war. Wrong. These are all characterised and dependent on 1-1 personal relations. They are simply means and methods of arranging people in ways which create greater effects out of these 1-1 relations. You could say it puts people into patterns. It doesn't control what they do, it gives them the ability to do what they do.
Now back to the internet. That's quite obviously what it is, just a way of arranging interactions between individuals. So for example, something like bit torrent, that is a piece of software which simply allows people to interact in terms of sharing stuff with each other. We know that deep down people just want to share and give others what they can. That's always buried deep in there any time we try to make a formal understanding of what morality is. But why don't we do it all the time? If that's good then why don't we do it? The answer is simple, we would if there was no cost to ourselves. If there is no cost to us at all, none what so ever, we would give absolutely everything we have to give to absolutely everyone else. But if there is a cost, say for example with material possessions if we give it away then we no longer have it, and that's a pretty big cost to us. But what if you could give away your things but you still keep it, say for example because it's a file on your computer and you gave it away but you still have it. Then you would be glad to give it away. Then there are other costs to consider, loss of your own time, you definitely don't want to waste all this time on it, you could be out getting what things for yourself. But that is precisely solved in bit torrent, you only need to pay attention to it when you want to download something, it doesn't take any of your time or energy or thoughts when it comes to giving, you simply allow others to take in exchange for the right to take from anyone. And remember take does not mean to dispossess them of it in this case remember. All you have to do is swear to the freedom of others and they swear to your freedom in return. Genius.
Nietzsche, Nietzsche, Nietzsche, you curious and clever little boy. I always had the feeling you were the smartest guy ever to get it wrong, and to be seem so darn right about it. Didn't he always seem right? Well I just worked you out old buddy. You were right to wander about the ubermensche. But your mistake was to hold the ubermensche as your love and 'the masses' as your hate. Tssk tssk, this seems like an obvious dichotomy. But it's flawed. It seems like the ubermensche is the opposite of the masses. But you could not predict exactly what the ubermensche would be, how it would form. We now know that the ubermensche shall be born out of the masses, it shall be driven by the masses, it shall be the masses, everyone shall be the masses and the label will become meaningless, there will just be people, no different categories of people, no masses and thinkers, or employer and employee, nor producer and consumer. There will just be people, all on the same level, all an equal and insiginifant part of humanity, but this is the greatest significance possible. To some it may seem as the least significance possible. But that is to understand the world while standig on your head.
Dammit! that was such a ramble! shit, and I had such a good point to start off with and now where am I? tangentville, population: 1 (me). Readership: 0. Even miswanderlust stopped posting comments, she was cool. Alright, there's the stream of consciousness version. Maybe I'll write/right a coherent post about understanding the internet.
-[Okay, I'm going to institute some new language here. Et Cetera literally means and the rest. Which is taken less literally to mean and so on. But we can take it even more broadly to mean 'you know what I mean'. So rather than having written the 2nd and 3rd sentence above, I could have phrased the first, using this broader usage of etc, as: "I think it is vital to: understand the internet, etc - in order to be a meaning ful part in any society in 5 years time. By etc I would mean meaning of the next two sentences, thus not having to write them.]-
Now, it really concerns me that the people in charge now simply don't understand the internet, etc. They just don't have a clue. They try to understand it and describe it in totally inadequate ways, trying to use metaphors of physical concrete cases from the past. But the internet is new. It is an actually novel thing. It's a bit of living proof of extropy. And it can't be understood in any other context other than it's own. So those who don't understand it, simply won't understand it, can't learn to understand it, cannot form an understanding of it based on any of their previous experience in "the world". This is their problem, they always look down on the internet. They think it is a phenomenon, an artefact, or a machine, an entity, something with an identity. But it ain't. For example, they might talk about it sometimes as a market place. This has a very literal meaning, this metaphor is based on a concrete reality. We are actually able to think quite abstractly about "market places", nonetheless, no matter how much some corporate guru thinks he understands the market place that he thinks is the internet, he will never master that "market place". He can never wrangle it, because he is not looking reality in the face, he has a faulty model. Those who attempt to conquer the market place of the internet will never succeed. I'm not saying loads of money won't be made on the internet, but it shall not be made by anyone who thinks they are makng money *from* the internet.
Let's put it this way. Image some time before they have societies on the city scale. The people then are no less smart than you or I, they have a no less full life, they have likes and dislakes and romance, religious belief, science-like cutting edge ideas, they have art especially the art of storytelling also music and visual art and dance. If you were there and you spoke the same language, you could have a coherent conversation with the people just the same as talking to anyone now, they're people through and through. So let's imagine this conversation about this new thing which is happening called society, which you conduct with them.
Well, your first problem would be that you are concerned that they won't really understand what society is all about. You wouldn't want them to think of it as an artefact or an entity. It's more of a framework you'd explain. Don't think of it as a physical place but more a way of arranging people and connecting them. Don't think of you as getting things from society, you'll get stuff from other people, just how you do now, only society will arrange you in such a way as to make that interpersonal relation easier.
Everything in the world is a me-you interaction. Everything. Even things which seem to be about collectives of people such as nationalism/countries/empires /societys/tribes/etc. These all boil down to 1-1 relations between individual people. So then what are these collective things? what are these concepts? Because say economics for example seems to be about interaction between groups, politics especially seems to be this, so does war. Wrong. These are all characterised and dependent on 1-1 personal relations. They are simply means and methods of arranging people in ways which create greater effects out of these 1-1 relations. You could say it puts people into patterns. It doesn't control what they do, it gives them the ability to do what they do.
Now back to the internet. That's quite obviously what it is, just a way of arranging interactions between individuals. So for example, something like bit torrent, that is a piece of software which simply allows people to interact in terms of sharing stuff with each other. We know that deep down people just want to share and give others what they can. That's always buried deep in there any time we try to make a formal understanding of what morality is. But why don't we do it all the time? If that's good then why don't we do it? The answer is simple, we would if there was no cost to ourselves. If there is no cost to us at all, none what so ever, we would give absolutely everything we have to give to absolutely everyone else. But if there is a cost, say for example with material possessions if we give it away then we no longer have it, and that's a pretty big cost to us. But what if you could give away your things but you still keep it, say for example because it's a file on your computer and you gave it away but you still have it. Then you would be glad to give it away. Then there are other costs to consider, loss of your own time, you definitely don't want to waste all this time on it, you could be out getting what things for yourself. But that is precisely solved in bit torrent, you only need to pay attention to it when you want to download something, it doesn't take any of your time or energy or thoughts when it comes to giving, you simply allow others to take in exchange for the right to take from anyone. And remember take does not mean to dispossess them of it in this case remember. All you have to do is swear to the freedom of others and they swear to your freedom in return. Genius.
Nietzsche, Nietzsche, Nietzsche, you curious and clever little boy. I always had the feeling you were the smartest guy ever to get it wrong, and to be seem so darn right about it. Didn't he always seem right? Well I just worked you out old buddy. You were right to wander about the ubermensche. But your mistake was to hold the ubermensche as your love and 'the masses' as your hate. Tssk tssk, this seems like an obvious dichotomy. But it's flawed. It seems like the ubermensche is the opposite of the masses. But you could not predict exactly what the ubermensche would be, how it would form. We now know that the ubermensche shall be born out of the masses, it shall be driven by the masses, it shall be the masses, everyone shall be the masses and the label will become meaningless, there will just be people, no different categories of people, no masses and thinkers, or employer and employee, nor producer and consumer. There will just be people, all on the same level, all an equal and insiginifant part of humanity, but this is the greatest significance possible. To some it may seem as the least significance possible. But that is to understand the world while standig on your head.
Dammit! that was such a ramble! shit, and I had such a good point to start off with and now where am I? tangentville, population: 1 (me). Readership: 0. Even miswanderlust stopped posting comments, she was cool. Alright, there's the stream of consciousness version. Maybe I'll write/right a coherent post about understanding the internet.
| 25 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
