From: Erin (macavity11@yahoo.com)
Date: Sat Oct 08 2005 - 17:52:20 BST
Arlo,
I wasn't ever suggesting technology solved our
problems. I was commenting on the attitude towards
technology...which is why I put the ZMM quotes about
technological hopelessness.
Pirsig seems to me to be exploring the attitude of
'technology being the problem' .
Maybe this is something though...does an expectation
for technology to solve your problems lead to
technological hopelessness?
For example that "the failure of technology" seems
analogous to saying the axe failed when it was used to
kill a person and succeeded when use to cut up some
logs.
When I said I came to peace with technology after
reading ZMM I was suggesting technology had solved my
problems...it was more of an attitude adjustment. I
still had the same problems but not longer felt
comfortable blaming technology for them.
Erin
--- Arlo Bensinger <ajb102@psu.edu> wrote:
> [Arlo jumps in]
> Erin, if I understand Khaled correctly, he's not
> saying that the technology
> of Internet chatting is inferior to face-to-face per
> se, but that the
> technology of the Internet has not significantly
> improved the dialogue
> (bringing us closer together, making us more
> empathetic/sympathetic). We
> have a wider audience than ever before
> (potentially), we have tons of bells
> and whistles, and yet the conversation is really not
> much better than the
> conversations being had 50, 200, 500 years ago.
>
> I will agree, however, that the potential of the
> Internet *is* significant
> in offering global participation, inter-cultural
> discourse, improved
> perspectives, and access to multiple views on
> information and greater
> access to information. But, what we see when we look
> at actual Internet use
> (and many have) are primarily "closed-circuit"
> information networks,
> dominated by uniperspectives and mono-cultural
> interactions. Independence
> of information has been seriously eroded by "big
> media" interests (now,
> this is becoming increasingly true in the
> "blogosphere" as well). In short,
> we don't have the global, multiperspectival, open
> dialogue that we could,
> instead we fall back on old habits of closed,
> uniperspectival, closed
> dialogues that are the norm off the Internet.
> Indeed, the fracturing of
> media and dialogic networks means that most people
> interact soley with
> "like minded" people (or those who are "near
> minded"), and never engage
> opposition (real opposition) in discourse. (Or, when
> we do engage
> opposition (just like in "real life") the exchanges
> tend to be monologic
> soliloqueys bounced back and forth, and not real
> dialogic, mutually
> negotiated sympathetic exchanges.)
>
> The Internet has enable the MOQ group to connect
> despite miles (and oceans)
> inbetween. And that is good. But is our
> participation any different,
> really, from what it would be were we able to meet
> in a bookstore once a
> month? I'm not saying there are not advantages, and
> things we should be
> grateful for, but in terms of actually improving the
> dialogue, the Internet
> has not proven to be the panacea many hoped.
>
> Just my morning two cents...
>
> Arlo
>
>
> At 01:28 AM 10/7/2005, you wrote:
>
> >I just don't get the failure of technology/chatting
> at
> >the water cooler is precious sentiment especially
> if
> >all the social bonding of this failure of
> technology
> >is being done over the internet.
> >
> >Is a discussion on the internet automatically lower
> >quality than a discussion at the water cooler to
> you?
> >I just didn't get your post... In another post I
> >changed the thread to technology to explore the
> issue.
> >
> >
> >Erin
> >
> >
> >
> > As for the quality of life
> > > as a whole, and I mean
> > > the social aspect of us humans getting together
> to
> > > break bread, share a
> > > drink and sing a song, things have gone
> backward.
> > >
> > > That's why to this day, the most precious
> moments
> > > spent in an office, are
> > > around the water cooler.
> > >
> > > take care
> > >
> > > Khaled
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >--- khaled Alkotob <khaledsa@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Erin <macavity11@yahoo.com> writes:
> > > > You are writing this to an INTERNET discussion
> > > group.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Erin
> > > >
> > > Writing what?
> > >
> > >
> > > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> > > Mail Archives:
> > > Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
> > > http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> > > Nov '02 Onward -
> > >
>
>http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> > > MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the
> > > instructions at:
> > > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> >Mail Archives:
> >Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
> http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> >Nov '02 Onward -
>
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> >MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
> >
> >To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the
> instructions at:
> >http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
> http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
>
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the
> instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Oct 08 2005 - 19:08:17 BST