But To What Purpose? 103
Islands in the Clickstream
But To What Purpose?
A scientist writes that the way we humans evolved as hunter-gatherers is how we are still built. Another writes about the "intelligence of vision," noting that seeing takes up nearly half our brain and generates the structure of the world we take for granted. Another struggles to imagine how alien species might interpret our civilization, discovering as he does some of the presuppositions of our perceptual field.
We bring our built-in apparatus for seeing and perceiving to the world on a computer monitor, where we build a simulation in its image. Because that simulated space is fresh, we can still see the roadwork, but the infrastructure of the digital world is becoming as invisible as the infrastructure of literacy and speech. Chips are disappearing into every aspect of our lives - communication, transportation, physical environments, clothing, and - ultimately - ourselves.
The imaginary gardens on my monitor often seem more real than the trees in my back yard. Most of the time I don't even notice the real trees. We don't yet live in the world constructed by computers that way, but we will. The world created and disclosed by computing is becoming an essential dimension of who we believe ourselves to be. And who, therefore, we are.
Most of us who love online life remember the first time we tumbled into the rabbit hole, falling headlong into a domain as magical as Alice's underground. I remember downloading the first browser around ten o'clock at night. When I next looked up it was four in the morning. That knowledge engine rearranged data into forms that coupled effortlessly with my perceptual apparatus. It was a world of digital symbols filled with projections of my self as it moved among them, thinking it was leaving the room and extending itself "out there." The exploration was really, of course, inside the consensual space we agree to hallucinate together.
What is it about this domain that compels such a response? What seduces us to stay up all night, fooling around for hours as we build communal worlds or play with these symbols, using them as levers to turn gears in the "real" world?
The nexus between nested levels of symbolic reality and the field of human subjectivity, the extensible domain of human consciousness, haunts me. It is the point at which consciousness connects with any or all of those levels, which unfold like a pop-up book or - perhaps - spiral up like a fractal, open-ended, evolving, and free. From sub-atomic particles to machine language to top-level symbolic constructions called "culture," they fold into one another like steps in an Escher stairway, creating a world we half-create, as Wordsworth said, and half-perceive. And then believe.
This week I spoke with Joe McMoneagle, a "remote viewer" for many years in military intelligence programs. Called a "natural" by observers because of the detail of his best "hits," McMoneagle engaged in a disciplined kind of clairvoyance using structured protocols. (Remote viewing is the ability to be present in our consciousness to events or places at which we are not physically present).
McMoneagle discovered that the world is not what he thought it was. He had to reinvent continuously the images he used as maps of reality as his psychic adventures exploded the consensual reality he had been taught to believe.
The images of the world we internalize from life online also become obsolete each time we turn off the computer.
McMoneagle's exploration of the deeper levels of consciousness was like learning to dive. We are unaware of the ocean until we hear about it or see pictures of a reef. Then we go to the coast and look down into the water. Arriving at the land/water interface is crucial: we learn firsthand that oceans are real, find guides to teach us the rules, and practice.
When we dive for the first time, we're astonished. We learn to go deeper, stay longer, deal with real dangers. After a while, we're as comfortable under water as on land, and when we speak of the "world," we mean life under water as well as on land.
Symbols are like face plates on our masks, invisible themselves but enabling us to see. Symbol-making and symbol-using constitutes the technology of consciousness as tool-using constitutes the technology of a culture. Human physiology is a kind of technology too, as invisible as language, defining the way we evolved to gather and hunt.
Online life changes what we mean by "reality." McMoneagle has difficulty talking about "reality" with people who have not experienced what he has. He has to build a modular interface that somehow connects both his experience and the experience of someone who has never gone diving. In the same way, building a computer interface that lets ordinary users couple with the many levels of the digital world is more than "usability." It is participation in a revolutionary act of mutual transformation.
Computer codes are languages, mental artifacts, and modular units of shared perceptual worlds, all at the same time. McMoneagle's description of exploring the deeper waters of consciousness is a template for learning how to move with clear intentionality among the nested levels of symbols that fold into one another in the digital world. Remote viewing is a function of the intentionality of the viewer, not the so-called "physical" world. Nor is a computer network fully defined by chips, switches or code; the network is defined above all by the intentionality of the users.
It is easy to lose ourselves in the act of building simulations that our brains think are real and forget that intentionality animates the network like a ghost in the machine. Inside the domain of human consciousness - and we are always inside - we are bow, arrow and target. We define ourselves as a spectrum of possibilities, choose one, and do it. The symbols we think we use as tools disappear, the nested levels built of those symbols collapse, and we see in that moment our responsibility for what we are building instead of pretending we're merely technicians or just along for the ride.
Richard Thieme speaks, writes, and consults on the human dimension of technology and work. Columns and other writings are archived at www.thiemeworks.com
The point (Score:1)
And for that, I really enjoyed it... it's always going to be benificial to do a 180 and take a look at yourself and how your consciousness percieves the world, and then relate any new insights there back to the world in which you operate(which is computers/net for many of us).
It was refreshing and dead-on target for many of us. Maybe the problem is that many of those who don't agree aren't able to abstract themselves from reality? But if you're one of those you can't tell, as this article hints at.
Jer
NETFUTURE (Score:2)
If you want to read an excellent newsletter about the affect of technology on our world, our communities, and ourselves, I highly recommend Steve Talbott's NETFUTURE. It is available on the web at:
http://www.ora.com/peop le/staff/stevet/netfuture/index.html [ora.com]
NETFUTURE addresses topics such as computers in education, the notion that technology brings us all closer together, and the belief that technology helps us to live easier lives. (I'm sure Steve would have a field day with slashdot). IMO, Steve often goes off into environmentalists fantasy land. I get the impression he thinks we would all be better off if we tossed away our tools and went back to being hunter/gatherers. Plus he incorrectly views any experience related to the natural world as somehow more "authentic" than others. Nevertheless, I consider this an excellent resource. It makes you think about technology and computers in ways that you might not have done before. It is an excellent antidote to the Negroponte's of the world.
I think you'll find NETFUTURE far more stimulating than Islands in the Clickstream. (Though to be fair, I guess I should give the IC person more time to win me over. And yes, I know that I am not detailing my criticisms).
I dunno... (Score:2)
Maybe that was the whole point. Maybe I just don't see why this is such a revelation. Maybe it's just because I've been living on the water my whole life, and can't understand the epiphany of someone who's seeing the digital ocean for the first time...
Life that is really isolated.. with holograms (Score:1)
Egads, that was bad! (Score:1)
"That knowledge engine rearranged data into forms that coupled effortlessly with my perceptual apparatus."
Heh.
Before the part about "remote viewing", I was merely unimpressed by the verbose and overly dramatic writing. After, I was laughing too hard to read. Where do we find these people?
Apologies for the duplicate post... (Score:1)
Bloody browser. Sigh.
ivory tower syndrome (Score:1)
I don't think this writing is hard to understand because it's academic in style (it's not) -- it's hard to understand because there's nothing there to understand.
Theime is just spinning his/her wheels (like Katz, but more glib), merely postponing the reader's realization of the obvious: (s)he has nothing to say.
In that respect, this article does resemble some of the worst academic writing.
Remote viewing (Score:2)
If I wanted Art Bell, I'd go to his site.
close-minded (Score:1)
You do have a point when you say that if people don't like it, they can just not read them. Particularly with the new preferences stuff Rob has added (Go Rob!). But this is a writting style that just does *not* fit the majority of the slashdot readers.
Marcus
Spirtual experience? I think not. (Score:1)
it's sometimes fun to use the "virtual world" analogy, no matter HOW technical you are...
Ow, my brain hurts. (Score:1)
However after a short while I gave up on trying to extract some worthwhile meaning from his words...
"The images of the world we internalize from life online also become obsolete each time we turn off the computer."
Is this profound or profoundly stupid ?
It's a common trick to give an impression of intelligence by talking incomprehensibly. If other people cannot understand you then you must be more intelligent than they
On Feynman's maxim though "never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity" I think it more likely that the author is either incapable of expressing himself clearly or doesn't have anything tangible to express. Personally I blame the fact that children are no longer beaten or humiliated when they produce sub-standard English - I must be getting old.
Shysters in my clickstream (Score:1)
(Anyone can write bollocks. Perl is more useful.)
For chrissakes, how much longer do we have to entertain these old school charlatans?? If I have to read one more clueless protozoan hack struggling to get an angle on what is, in the end, just a stream of bits, albeit a bloody useful one, I will hurl.
And actually, I won't have to read it on Slashdot because Richard's joining Katz in the killfile, but it offends me that anyone offers these pretentious bozos pagespace. I for one am not consensual to sharing my space, perceived or otherwise, with this vacuous prattling.
Medium is the Message? (Score:2)
I noticed that you never did explain how McMoneagle's claims carried any any relevance as psychic abilities are not even remotely supported by the evidence unless in his case the medium was the message. You also didn't develop the Hunter/Gatherer theme, and it tended to distract from the SCUBA boy analogy, unless of course you were refering to perl divers who hunt the oysters and gather them. The C and land metaphor was particularly appropriate however. Your contention that symbols form the "faceplate" of our perception suggests the idea that some sort of codified symbolic system might be waranted for all sorts of purposes. Something that perhaps even beginners could appreciate. It would be like a set of instructions for perception. :)
--------------------------
with apologies to Douglas Hofstadter et al.
Remote Viewing? (Score:2)
I have to say, though, I disagree with this whole remote viewing thread as well. It undermines the credibility of the article, and even that of the author himself. Remote viewing is pure superstition, and it disturbs me that my nation's government is wasting money on it. (Then again, the Pentagon wastes money on much more extravagant things like multi-billion-dollar killing machines.) The closest anyone will ever come to the goal of remote viewing uses not the pseudo-mystical "protocols" of mental "deep-sea diving", which vanish whenever you try to analyse or verify them scientifically, but the wells-specified and very real protocols of the MBONE. Peace, --Q
Beer recipe: free! #Source
Cold pints: $2 #Product
Do it! ;-) (Score:2)
Now *that* i'd like to see -- the "postmodern chatter generator."
I've also been contemplating a flyer for a "postmodern potluck" -- nobody brings food, but we perform a "social construction of munchies."
simple and clear writing (Score:2)
And frankly, anyone who connects more with the virtual world than the "real" world scares me. I mean, get out a lithe! Take a walk, go hiking, go to a museum, etc.
Much worse than Katz!!! (Score:1)
Phasers on Zorch! (Score:1)
OK. I'm stupid. What did he say?
Writing Style (Score:1)
I liked it. (Score:2)
As far as "remote viewing" etc., you are just repeating what advocates of paranormal have been saying for centuries. Don't tell us that our minds are closed, show us the evidence.
"I don't believe in psychics, 'cause you have to make an appointment"
map!=territory, perception!=reality, yeah, so? (Score:1)
Interesting writing, and the Joe McMoneagle example was unique, but it left me going, "so what is your POINT?"
We can work in other perceptual spaces besides terrestrial-visual. The new Japanese game that uses directional audio w/ no visual is an interesting example. We have the power to create entirely new spaces, too. Was that the point of the article?
Heck-- spirituality can be a kind of perceptual space, as can work w/ the subconscious.
Looks like I gotta write some sort of feature just to straighten y'all out.
Life that is really isolated.. with holograms (Score:1)
Life that is really isolated.. with holograms (Score:1)
tripe (Score:1)
there are 3 kinds of people:
* those who can count
Sigh... (Score:1)
Seriously, remote viewing? Sorry, but this guy diffinately isn't my cup of [caffine-laced-beverage-of-choice]. I actually read Katz, and in general enjoy his work, but this guy just became my first entry in ye ol' killfile.
Life goes on.
Spirtual experience? I think not. (Score:1)
Gordon
Phasers on Zorch! (Score:1)
But still, as we are wont to do with all guest authors, Set Phasers to Zorch, aim for their warp drive and/or genitalia! Kill Kill Kill!
I think if we as a group could channel this paranoid reactionism to anyone outside, truly destructive forces would be created. I'm still not sure where this egotism comes from. Perhaps its related to the late night coding binges, the nights on IRC until 2 leaving us unprepared for how the big blue room works. Maybe it has something to do with trying to view our fellow big blue room inhabitants as an algorithm, a bug to be fixed, or a microprocessor ticking away at hundreds of MHz. Or it could come from being able to solve problems no one else can (I can't count on one hand the number of times in the past month that I've single-handedly "saved the day" around here), thereby further inflating the egos. Or maybe the false sense of happiness and satisfaction given by the warm cupful by the wonderful Gift from the Heavens (coffee, of course) makes us feel superior to others.
These, I suppose, are the defining features of our culture, our community. Intelligence, technical knowledge, caffeine, inflated egos. (It's difficult to talk about how big one's ego is without feeling big-headed. "My head is bigger than yours," etc. I fall into the same pattern as everyone else. I'm not proud of my ego, but I acknowledge its existance) So maybe instead of setting phasers to Bar-B-Que, next time we should consider optimizing our paradigms for maximized value-added processes while maintaining an adaptive role in... (ad infinitum-- this phrase brought to you by the Random Buzzword Generator). Thinking in terms of the common user might help us a bit.
Gosh, I'm rambling. That's the worst. rambling and rambling and I've had 3 cups of coffee already this morning, but its still not helping me stay awake.
I'm glad its friday.
NETFUTURE (Score:1)
It's provocative in the good sense of the word, provoking thought rather than heat and light.
Talbott cottoned on to Katz rather sooner than some people around here, too -- see Netfuture #61.
You lost me right... here. (Score:1)
Right about here is where I tuned out:
Jeepers, all this from staying up until 4 in the morning? I suppose, "I found something interesting," would be too simple, eh? I get much the same effect from reading a good murder mystery. No need for projecting symbols of myself, hallucinating, or losing my grip on the division between fantasy and reality.
The inspiration for this piece may have been a good one, but the author needs to cut down on the pompous verbiage.
Hanlon's Razor (Score:1)
--
G. Bateson's "Steps to an Ecology of Mind" (Score:1)
Bateson backs his arguments with data.
Bateson did years of clinical research in schizophrenia before he began to formulate his theories of information and information processing. And while he makes the leap from intraorganism processing, and applies his postulates to supraorganismic information processing, he deftly avoids the mental vacuousness of postmodernist rambling and wishy-washiness.
Bateson is not only a joy to read, but has pertinent observations about the way information flows through our world and through our perceptions. He never uses such lame crutches as using psychic phenomena as evidence, using his own observations as unrefutable empirical evidence, or relying on circular arguments to support his basic premises.
Bateson is easily one of the greatest minds of the century. The gentleman who wrote this article will just be another has-been the moment another "digital prophet" grabs the limelight for a moment. He may be occaisonally ressurected as a footnote in the rare undergrad's paper, but only to pad it with quotes so vague and unreasoned they could mean anything.
Post-modernism (Score:2)
Online culture? Great! Bring it on!
But what does that have to do with supposed psychic powers? If you want to talk about the visual cortex, write a piece detailing how different personality types configure their window managers.
If you want to write a piece about how (dis)connected we are online, show me some numbers and stats about online time, depression, speed of thought, the way people who type at others all day speak differently, if we shop differently, etc.
I'm not interested in reading the ramblings of some self-proclaimed guru who (along with every other self-proclaimed guru) has suddenly "discovered" that there are a lot of people sharing ideas over electronic networks.
Personally, this is the last post from this author that I'm going to read. Are there any researchers/thinkers/etc who can write articles with some real, verifiable data so we can draw some conclusions and have a discussion? Does anyone know where these resources are on the net?
Much worse than Katz!!! (Score:1)
--
Remote viewing (Score:1)
Meaningless Drivel (Score:1)
Meaningless Drivel (Score:1)
"But To What Purpose?" indeed. (Score:1)
In defence of academia (Score:1)
People can write post-modern-sounding gibberish and it will get published, quite possibly in a rigorously reviewed and respected academic journal.
Good writing is clear, concise, and to the point. I agree with you on that. The problem is that our institutions of higher education don't teach people this.
- deb
OK, I'll compromise (Score:1)
- deb
ivory tower syndrome (Score:4)
Academic writing styles do not (at all) translate well into the real world. After being immersed in academia for 5 years, however, it took me a long while to unlearn what I had learned.
Ah...an analogy: academic writing is like deliberately obfuscated code. It does what it's supposed to do, but very few are going to read it, and even fewer are going to learn from it.
I'm out of practice when it comes to reading academic writing: this article actually hurt my head. I would recommend (highly) that Thieme work on loosening up his style and vocabulary if he wants slashdotters to read/understand his articles.
note: I am not saying that slashdotters are dumb (as I said, this thing hurt my head, too). It's just that you have to have a lot of practice in order to successfully wade through and understand highly academic writing like this. It also takes way too much concentration, which I, for one, am not willing to devote to a linux-related news site.
- deb
I liked it... (Score:2)
Thanks for pointing this one out to us....and the flames found in response are worthy of study in themselves.
Big Words != Deep Thoughts (Score:1)
Nice article idea, but... (Score:2)
This isn't to say it's bad writing. I don't like the style, but a lot of people don't like mine. Just needs work to get past what my history professors call the So What Factor.
Get back on it! (Score:2)
I don't mind somebody talking about remote viewing in a Slashdot article, because I trust Slashdot readers to be bright enough to take this sort of thing with a grain of salt. And like a good Stephen King story, it can be entertaining even when clearly recognized as fiction.
My disappointment is not with the mention of remote viewing, but the content of the article. The guy starts talking about consensual reality, which sounds like it ought to be an interesting and illuminating topic. He introduces a character alleged to have some kind of non-trivial insight on the topic. Do we ever find out anything about this insight? No. Are we offered any try-this-at-home experiment that might give us some tiny glimpse into this world of insight? No. The only thing we get is essentially, "the remote viewer had to rethink his views about reality, and it was a pain". Similar to a graduation speech, and about as un-helpful.
For people who spend time online and worry about losing their connection to reality, I'll make a real live useful suggestion: get a dog. You'll have to walk it every day, outdoors, and see real trees. Dogs don't truck in symbolism, and they demand a certain percentage of your attention. They will periodically remind you of your biological roots.
"But To What Purpose?" indeed. (Score:3)
But this tastes of a well thumbed dictionary, and pseudo-intelligentia posturing as content.
The article makes a good point, but it could have been summed up in a single sentence, and more clearly at that.
"Explaining a computer-lifestyle to someone who doesn't know, is like explaining colors to a blind person."
No faceplated divers, no spook-clairvoyants, no unnecessary verbiage and no over-inflated hyperbolic metaphor.
Really, do we need this drivvel?
I've written my share of English papers and critical essays. I know the amount of BS required for a B.S. This was a weekly writing assignment in a junior college.
I check in briefly but frequently from work. I look for "news for nerds - stuff that matters". This article was "posturing by an academic - stuff that's fluffy".
Highest recommendation for NETFUTURE (Score:1)
Meaningless Drivel (Score:1)
And the title of that episode was a (rather inane)
reference to Shakespere's MacBeth:
Is this a dagger which I see before me,
The handle toward my hand? Come, let me clutch thee.
I have thee not, and yet I see thee still.
Art thou not, fatal vision, sensible
To feeling as to sight? or art thou but
A dagger of the mind, a false creation,
Proceeding from the heat-oppressed brain?
I see thee yet, in form as palpable
As this which now I draw.
Thou marshall'st me the way that I was going;
And such an instrument I was to use.
Mine eyes are made the fools o' the other senses,
Or else worth all the rest; I see thee still,
And on thy blade and dudgeon gouts of blood,
Which was not so before. There's no such thing:
It is the bloody business which informs
Thus to mine eyes. Now o'er the one halfworld
Nature seems dead, and wicked dreams abuse
The curtain'd sleep; witchcraft celebrates
Pale Hecate's offerings, and wither'd murder,
Alarum'd by his sentinel, the wolf,
Whose howl's his watch, thus with his stealthy pace.
With Tarquin's ravishing strides, towards his design
Moves like a ghost. Thou sure and firm-set earth,
Hear not my steps, which way they walk, for fear
Thy very stones prate of my whereabout,
And take the present horror from the time,
Which now suits with it. Whiles I threat, he lives:
Words to the heat of deeds too cold breath gives.
Now, compare and contrast this passage with the
recurrent motifs of Richard Thieme's article.
/. needs an editorial section. (Score:2)
So why doesn't
There could be a slashbox for editorials and of course the editorials could be disabled by those adverse to the idea.
I dunno, its just a thought.
Castaneda / Remote Viewing (Score:1)
By the way, didn't Castaneda later admit that his entire story was fabricated?
Writing Style (Score:1)
It is a straightforward essay, and should therefore read easily, even though it deals with an abstract (though not technical) subject.
There were too many complex sentence structures (call me stupid) which were tedious to read and added nothing in their complexity. Next time, write your article, then go back and cull all the pointless drivel from it. (Luckily I'd say this is not the whole article.)
You never know, us readers might like it then
I liked it. (Score:1)
Okay, aside from the old SNL reference, I do think his writing holds up much better than Katz's, and while I usually do attempt to slog through what Katz has to say I'll make Thieme a regular part of my reading.
And I thought this was fascinating. I'm skeptical about a lot of things, but those of you who completely discount remote viewing and the idea of alternate "reality" are doing yourselves a disfavor.
In defence of academia (Score:1)
In any case, anyone who has studied higher mathematics should know that to master the language and technique of an advanced discipline takes time and effort, the same is true of postmodernism philosophy and related other humanities.
If academics cut down every complex idea to a soundbite then they would be politicians.
A new low (Score:2)
articles on slashdot, astrology, mysticism,
sub-structualism and general verbiage.
"The imaginary gardens on my monitor often seem more real than the trees in my back yard. Most of the time I don't even notice the real trees."
"The nexus between nested levels of symbolic reality and the field of human subjectivity, the extensible domain of human consciousness, haunts me"
These sentences suggests more about the writer than it discusses the nominal topic, if we take reality as a mirror of cyberspace then we fall into the same conceit as the 19th century German professors who believed the real world was a mere reflection of the Mind. Moreover it mystifies the actual connection between cyberspace and the real world, that cyberspace is created, managed and controlled by capital (and its subsiduary, higher education). The "symbolic reality" so produced is not a neutral field for the exercise of human subjectivity but tends to level and attack difference and choice. And in doing it perpetuates and biologises capitalism, that Intel uses slave labour is a good illustration of this, perhaps along with the trees the writer doesn't deign to notice the poor race of Morlocks toiling so he can have his "symbolic reality".
So dumb.... (Score:1)
This is the first atricle of Richard's I've read, so I'm not going to say someting as extreme as "No more Richard!" (as opposed to Katz), but these meaningless articles of fluff are really beginning to get on my nerves.
The trees are real, but is Thieme? (Score:3)
Contrary to some posts, this was not a content-free article. So, rather than critiquing the over-academic writing style, I'm going to try to respond to the content.
We bring our built-in apparatus for seeing and perceiving to the world on a computer monitor, where we build a simulation in its image.
Stating The Obvious #1: "Look, ma, I can use my eyes and brain to look at a computer screen!"
Bogus Claim #1: What I see on the computer monitor makes up a "world."
No, Richard, what you see on the computer monitor is little glowing dots of colored phosphors. When you're using a computer, these dots are lit up in particular patterns by computer programs. When you're using a program known as a "web browser", those patterns are determined by the HTML code and graphics files stored on or generated by a computer somewhere, created by the web site designer.
That's a pretty narrow "world" there.
Chips are disappearing into every aspect of our lives - communication, transportation, physical environments, clothing, and - ultimately - ourselves.
Stating The Obvious #2: "Look, ma, there are a lot more embedded CPUs out there these days!"
Bogus Claim #2: I know the future, and it holds biochips.
"Ultimately"? Where does he get this prophetic knowledge?
This is nothing other than technological determinism. "What can be built, shall be built." Says who? If biochips happen, it will be because people first choose to research the technology, then implement it, then use it.
The imaginary gardens on my monitor often seem more real than the trees in my back yard. Most of the time I don't even notice the real trees.
This speaks volumes about Richard Thieme, but the trees in his backyard remain real regardless of whether or not he chooses to believe in them.
I suggest quite seriously that Mr. Thieme get up from his computer, walk into his back yard, and beat his head against the trunk of one of those trees, to refresh his mind on the reality of the natural world.
I will accept his claim of the "reality" of his imaginary gardens when he can serve me a tasty, nourishing, imaginary-garden-grown tomato from them.
We don't yet live in the world constructed by computers that way, but we will.
More technological determinism.
It's also patently false. None of us are going to live in any other world than the world we live in. Even Mr. Thieme, unless he figures out that tomato-growing trick, and how to relieve himself virtually in cyberspace.
Now, we may spend more and more of our time living in the world staring into computer monitors. This might be a good or a bad thing, and is certainly worth discussing rather than assuming. But it will not be a world "constructed by computers," it will be the world that has tomatoes and toilets in it, and it will be the world that either (1) just happened to coagulate out of a nebula about 4.5 billion years ago, or (2) was created by God, depending on which origin story you subscribe to.
The world created and disclosed by computing is becoming an essential dimension of who we believe ourselves to be. And who, therefore, we are.
Translation: Theime believes the internet is becoming an essential part of who he is. And he thinks that, because he believes it, it is so.
Of course, this overlooks the possibility that Theime might be mistaken about what is essential, or that it might be possible to be wrong about ourselves. Now, for a (hypothetical) new-agey, middle-aged journalist/writer this shouldn't be surprising. From a Christian priest, this is not quite blasphemy, but is definately apostasy. The essential dimension of who we are is found in our relationship with God, not in our relationship with a myriad of web pages. Either he's forgotten what he learned in seminary, or he should ask for his money back.
Most of us who love online life remember the first time we tumbled into the rabbit hole, falling headlong into a domain as magical as Alice's underground. I remember downloading the first browser around ten o'clock at night. When I next looked up it was four in the morning.
Stating The Obvious #3: "Look, the internet is an addictive time-waster!"
Yes, I loose track of time too when I'm surfing the internet or just this close to getting a program to work. Maybe I'm just dull, but I fail to see a cosmic significance in this fact.
That knowledge engine rearranged data into forms that coupled effortlessly with my perceptual apparatus. It was a world of digital symbols filled with projections of my self as it moved among them, thinking it was leaving the room and extending itself "out there." The exploration was really, of course, inside the consensual space we agree to hallucinate together.
Methinks he doth read Neuromancer too much.
I hate to break this to him, but a book is a collection of digital symbols that "couples effortlessly with the perceptual apparatus," and allows me to leave the room and extend myself "out there."
What is it about this domain that compels such a response? What seduces us to stay up all night, fooling around for hours as we build communal worlds or play with these symbols, using them as levers to turn gears in the "real" world?
Last I checked, while there is that hot tub [hamjudo.com] in Ypsilanti, Michigan connected to the Web, there are very few levers turning gears in the "real" (why quoted?) world. Unless you mean psychological hot buttons that can be pushed. It seems quite a stretch to call email, Usenet postings, /. comments, or even a personal website "levers to turn gears."
(Levers don't turn gears anyway, gears or pulleys turn gears ...)
McMoneagle discovered that the world is not what he thought it was. He had to reinvent continuously the images he used as maps of reality as his psychic adventures exploded the consensual reality he had been taught to believe.
Statement Of The (Hopefully) Obvious #4: "The map is not the territory."
Anyone who is continually learning, who is growing in life, experiences the same "remapping" of reality as McMoneagle. Our maps get exploded as we learn that Mommy and Daddy aren't perfect, that there is no Santa Claus, that there are otherwise normal-seeming folks who believe in supply-side economics, etc.
What does this have to do with being online? Sure, this process can happen while you're logged on. It also happens when you're not, if you're living with your eyes open and your mind and spirit engaged.
The images of the world we internalize from life online also become obsolete each time we turn off the computer.
Horsefeathers.
Sure, it's theoretically possible for the entire look, feel, and content of the Web to change between now and the next time I log in. I understand the physicists also claim it's theoretically possible for all of the atoms of the chair I'm sittin in to tunnel Somewhere Else and for me to fall through it to the floor. I'm not worried much about either possibility.
Why? Well, why does every major browser have a bookmark feature? Could it be that there's enough stability in this online "world" that "landmarks" don't become obsolete every time?
I notice that Slashdot looks pretty much the same every time I visit, except for this week with Rob making so many changes. Even so, I expect (and am generally right) to find an article on "Changes to Slashdot" when the look and feel changes, to clue everyone in.
If everything I saw online became obsolete the second I turned my computer off, I'd throw it (or at least the modem) into the dumpster immediately, and stop wasting my time.
McMoneagle has difficulty talking about "reality" with people who have not experienced what he has. He has to build a modular interface that somehow connects both his experience and the experience of someone who has never gone diving.
Statement Of The Obvious #5: "People who have different life experiences will experience a 'communications gap' that needs to be bridged."
In the same way, building a computer interface that lets ordinary users couple with the many levels of the digital world is more than "usability." It is participation in a revolutionary act of mutual transformation.
Yes, but transformation into what?
McMoneagle's description of exploring the deeper waters of consciousness is a template for learning how to move with clear intentionality among the nested levels of symbols that fold into one another in the digital world.
This is simply backwards.
The "digital world" is, in general, a simplification of the real world. Anyone who can move with "clear intentionality" offline should be able to do so online as well. And I don't see much "nested symbolism" online -- symbols are generally a single level of indirection, with a one-to-one correspondance to what they represent. Consider "icons" (a word ripped from its religious root and stripped of most of its meaning). "Icons" are simply pushbuttons with pictographs. Contrast this with religious icons, which do contain "nested levels of symbols that fold into one another."
I have yet to see anything online that begins to approach the "exploring the deeper waters of consciousness" and "nested levels of symbolism" that is inherent in the Christian liturgy. Something that Thieme claims to have passing familiary with. I suspect the same is true of other human, offline systems of symbols that exist, but I'll leave it to those more familiar with those traditions to make the comparisons.
Remote viewing is a function of the intentionality of the viewer, not the so-called "physical" world. Nor is a computer network fully defined by chips, switches or code; the network is defined above all by the intentionality of the users.
If McMoneagle is more than a crank or deluded, then his remote viewing, though directed by "intentionality," must eventually ground itself in something outside of his intention. Otherwise, what's he viewing besides his own imagination?
Same thing with a network. First, the technological infrastructure must be there, and second, there must be real content out there, put into place by real people, or else all I am doing as a user of the network, no matter what my "intentionality," is staring at my navel. Or perhaps some other part of my anatomy.
We define ourselves as a spectrum of possibilities, choose one, and do it. The symbols we think we use as tools disappear, the nested levels built of those symbols collapse, and we see in that moment our responsibility for what we are building instead of pretending we're merely technicians or just along for the ride.
Up to the last paragraph, the iron determinism of technological advance and of a "new reality" has been trumpeted, and now all of a sudden we are supposed to see our "responsibility"?
This is nothing more than the television broadcasters' defense of "TV shows are crap because the public demands crap," dressed up in academic language and techno-mysticism and applied to the Internet.
Sorry, I'm neither impressed nor overcome with an longing to leave the real world for the virtual. In fact, planting a real garden sounds even better right now. And I'm even more eager for Sunday to get here -- it's Palm Sunday, and the nested levels of symbols are wonderful.
I dunno... (Score:1)
I should be going to work, but...
This is SO much the point that I have to make a note of it. I agree with many of the other comments that this author writes overblown and intentionally obfuscated text, probably because they were trained that way.
However.
We who inhabit
We who grew up with or have always been part of this ocean don't understand. Some people who don't recognize this tend to make fun of or 'flame' people who are finding our 'world' for the first time. (Laughing at the 'yokels'...) To jump back, I found that when I looked into the eyes of that farmboy from Oklahoma, and saw the awe there, that I never looked at the ocean the same again. I put myself in his place for a moment, and saw the ocean with his eyes, and gained a little piece of that epiphany for myself.
We need to do that more often.
Yes, this particular author is wordy, and needs to re-read (if they ever read originally!) Strunk and White's Elements of Style, and Katz can be equally overblown, but there's a kernel of value to both of them. They provide us with an opportunity to gain a little piece of the mind-blowing experience of finding our world for the first time. It'll never be life-changing like it is for them for us, at least not with the online world, but we can get a little feeling of what it's like from them.
Sometimes, just sometimes, there's an overlooked (or assumed to us) fact in what they say that makes us nod. "Right, yeah, that's a pretty core concept. I've always known that, but I've never put it into words myself..." we think. This isn't to be sneered at, even if you have to wade through pages of purple prose to get to that point. Certainly, a better author would be able to get to the point quicker. (Clearly, based on this comment, I am not said better author!
In summary, I intensely dislike the writing style, but there ARE nuggets of gold insight lying in those purple passages.
Cyberfox!
I thought this was actually very good... (Score:1)
It should, IMO. I would love to see more philosophical (or at least partially so) pieces here, but this article gave an appearance of being deep without actually offering any substance. It's entire point was 'online world is formed by participants', but that was stated in the very beginning as the topic to be explored (and IMO it is a very interesting topic); however, the writer then simply spent all that time recombining one phrase over an over, just repeating the same idea, never actually examining anything deeper than the apparent surface meaning of it.
That article was the pseudo-philosophical version of 'fluff' that we see about technology in non-techie publications. Plus, I despised the apparently seriously intended reference to the 'remote viewing' (but that's just a minor point).
--
Let's be a little more objective, shall we? (Score:2)
Unfortunately, the author did not target his audience very well. Slashdot readers have little tolerance for verbose, flamboyant pseudoprose (to coin a term). We generally view it as a waste of time. Give me something concrete and meaningful!
Indeed. The consensual nature of online world is a very interesting topic, but the writer's style was terrible -- excessive use of unnecessarily complicated words and structures, compounded by lack of cohesion to the article. This is almost as hard to read as Kant, but at least Kant could write a coherent page without losing those persevering enough to actually follow his wording...
--
Oh come off it! (Score:2)
It should be noted that I am a Computer Science major, and a very technical person. But I purposely try to broaden my mental horizons, and I find it's a very rewarding experience.
ivory tower syndrome (Score:1)
Oh good! I'm glad it's not only me... Man, that was a tough read!
I struggled through a lot of it, re-read most, and still am not entirely sure of the author's point...
I'm sure it was a good one, but the style is so confrontational that I didn't get it.
--
- Sean
Thieme is a Perl Script! (Score:1)
That's it! Thieme is a Perl Script!
hehehehehehehe...............
--
- Sean
G. Bateson's "Steps to an Ecology of Mind" (Score:2)
It's a pity it is out of print. I hope this writer can get a hold of it in the Library or somewhere. It would be worth their while to read, and a fabulous followup to anything by McLuhan, like his Culture is Our Business (written with Barrington Nevitt).
That's my two cents. --dcm
/. needs an editorial section. (Score:1)
I like the normal articles and think the editorials would be better kept in a section by themselves. Articles like this are a dime a dozen on other sites I go to. I come to
I did this ten years ago as an undergrad. (Score:1)
Ho-hum. Ditch this guy, Taco, and keep Katz. At least he was interesting enough to start a good flame war.
Vote against Theime (Score:1)
Let's be a little more objective, shall we? (Score:1)
Mr. Thieme... feel free to try again. I will read it, but get some people to offer comments before you post it! Fire extinguishers are in short supply around this place.
One more thought... if I was on acid, reading this article would have been a really, REALLY good trip!
Let's be a little more objective, shall we? (Score:2)
Unfortunately, the author did not target his audience very well. Slashdot readers have little tolerance for verbose, flamboyant pseudoprose (to coin a term). We generally view it as a waste of time. Give me something concrete and meaningful!
As well, the author seemed to drift in and out of his topic, and reading the article felt like floating through a dream, one of those ones that you know you're dreaming, but can't seem to wake yourself out of.
Finally, I think the article could have used some more editing and planning. For instance, paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 seemed loosely connected, yet they are adjacent. It only served to confuse my understanding. Perhaps this is symbolic of how the online world works - sound bites from this and excerpts from that, all merged together, but I don't think it works well in this sense.
In summation, I think the author tried to write the article straight from his subconscious (perhaps to highlight his point?) but only a precious few authors can do this, and be effective at the same time -- for instance Steven King. There is hope for this author - practice makes perfect, and constructive criticism would probably be more helpful than "Egads, that was auful!"
Remote viewing (Score:1)
Bull.
He's using remote viewing as a direct example of the kind of mental processing people experience while online. I really wouldn't have chosen that example, but it *is* apt in several ways (described above in the article).
I liked it. (Score:1)
I'll try:
"Life inside a computer is beautiful, though cramped with all these wires and stuff."
I liked it... (Score:1)
That's funny. I was thinking it was the inverse. Metaphysics is one thing. Even if it does want to deal with "remote viewing" (I didn't even get that far). But fluffy, overblown, affective writing that pretends to say something but really says very little?
This was deep all right, and it's kind of funny how many people stepped in it.
Then you haven't read anything really good. (Score:2)
For a quick example of good writing check out the NY Review of Books: http://www.nybooks.com/nyrev/index.html
Not necessarily
Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing (Score:1)
What does the fact that our brain is mostly geared towards processing visual information has to do with symbolic reality? and both with computer networks? and with Castaneda-ish psychics?
Here we have a very muddled text, trying hard to pretend that something meaningful is being said. But it's no more than a collection of unrelated symbols and concepts floating in the void of the author's mind.
This piece comes as close to being a content-free text as I've seen for a long time.
Ugh.
Well, partly (Score:1)
And Castaneda did pay a great deal of attention to "alternate reality" which underlies and overlaps the common world. I think Don Juan was able to do his own "remote viewing" as well, but I might be mistaken. It all was fairly long ago...
Phasers on Zorch! (Score:1)
Behold a prime example of a content-free text!
In defence of academia (Score:1)
In any group of people, most are idiots.
The Thieme's article is *bad* writing and while you'll find a lot of it in academia it is not encouraged there. The problem is that in academia people are supposed to write and publish, even people who have nothing to say and/or cannot thing clearly. Thus you do meet your share of texts like the above. Their existence, and maybe even prevalency in some areas, doesn't make them good writing anyway and intellegent people recognize it.
It is hard to write well, and even harder to think clearly and then write well. Good writing can be complicated (and in fact has to be if it discusses interesting things), but is has to be *clear* and to the point. Generally obfuscated writing is a sign that the person doesn't know what he is talking about -- whether he is in academia or not.
OK, I'll compromise (Score:1)
AND
Rare people can write well
ERGO
Academia encourage people to write badly
But really, I agree that if someone cannot think and/or write well, the academic environment would encourage that person to write in a intentionally obfuscating, seemingly-meaningful-but-content-free fashion.
Don't get a dog, get a girl(boy)friend! (Score:2)
And she will periodically remind you of your biological roots in a much better way than any dog will ever be able to!
You *must* be kidding (Score:4)
Well, it has an abundance of fluff and bluster, but have you tried to extract any *meaning* out of this article? This is a collection of "deep" words strung together in meaningless sequences. The guy doesn't actually say anything!
I think that this article has the potential to impress technical people (especially if they feel somewhat "inferior" to the post-modern intellectuals of the world who can talk in so much more sophisticated words), but to anyone who has done research or serious thinking about symbols, representations, and, heck, even alternate states of consciousness -- this is pure content-free handwaving.
I myself (having a fair amount of humanities background) can write pages of text like this with very little effort. And more, I bet I can write a Perl script that will generate similar texts which, with very little editing, would be of comparable quality.
Missing the metaphor (Score:1)
This week I spoke with Joe McMoneagle, a "remote viewer" for many years in
military intelligence programs. Called a "natural" by observers because of the
detail of his best "hits," McMoneagle engaged in a disciplined kind of
clairvoyance using structured protocols. (Remote viewing is the ability to be
present in our consciousness to events or places at which we are not
physically present).
>>>>>>>
Note, he fully quotes all the terms that deserve it...
when this paragraph is taken in context with the rest of the article,
it's seen he isn't reporting on this "remote viewing" or even
trying to state its real, simply that reality is comprimised of
diffrent aspects for diffrent ppl.
Personally, I like his writing style... its more complex and substatial
than most popular writers, with deep twists of words that are actually
meaningful, instead of someone simply showing of the thesaurus thier
word processor.
NETFUTURE (Score:1)
obfuscation and then some (Score:1)
This stuff is so way-off -- more like the adolescent prosaic ramblings you expect to find in weekend editions of newspapers than the informed straightforward stuff Slashdot normally features.
"a domain as magical as Alice's underground"? Sure, computers are fun, but this is taking things a little too far. It goes from bad to worse after that.
This guy needs help.
He does mention remote viewing... (Score:1)
I've subscribed to his mailing list for awhile, he has valid observations that are usually researched.
In contrast with, you know, the anti-christ, Jon Katz.
Remote Viewing? (Score:1)
The ideas about net-reality are valid, but the "psycho-spiritual" junk about remote viewing is a bit out there.
K
I thought this was actually very good... (Score:1)
Spirtual experience? I think not. (Score:1)
and every one of those is a "symbol manipulating machine." The machine is indifferent to the content of the symbols it manipulates. We provide that content.
Life online has a spiritual dimension because of what we bring to it. Books are no more inherently spiritual than computers. Nor were writing tools.
One of the points made in this article is that it is what people bring to the entire enterprise of computing that animates the enterprise and determines where it will go. What I call intentionality. Every human endavor has a spiritual dimension, but when we are talking about complex symbol manipulating systems, there is no way it can NOT have a spiritual dimension.
The content of what is out there in cyberspace is what we project on it. That's why it's a "space" or field for perception. If programmers don't know that, they will project what is unconscious, including the way they invent computer languages and write code. If they become aware of it, they can make more intentional decisions about what to create. I think computer programs are like bookshelves that we don't even see, we just project the contents of ourselves onto them. But at one point, a guy named Bernays convinced architects to start including built-in bookshelves in new houses and apartments (he worked for the publishing industry at the time in PR (a term he invented)). Now when people enter rooms with bookshelves, they simply buy books and put them on. That's how projections work.
And that's why everything we project includes everything about us, including our spiritual dimensions.
Remote Viewing? (Score:1)
I am currently writing an article about remote viewing in relationship to military intelligence and competitive intelligence. I spoke at length with Joe McMonegale for that article but I also had access to the authors of the study (from the American Institutes for Research) that evaluated remote viewing for the CIA in 1995. I spoke with one of the three authors of the report in detail as well as reviewing all of the documents.
The ONE THING that everyone agreed on was that the remote viewing evaluated for the study - which was only the last few years of a many-year program, and not the best years of the program - provided results that were better than chance. I'll repeat that - the one thing both critics and advocates agreed on was that the results were statistically significant in a positive direction.
That does not mean there are not charlatans in current entrepreneurial remote viewing operations. But there are charlatans in every field. I have even met a programmer or two who did not know how to write elegant code.
There is a lot more to be said about RV but I'll save it for the article. It will appear in the Society for Competitive Intelligence Professional's Magazine.
Medium is the Message? (Score:1)
I am currently writing an article about remote viewing in relationship to military intelligence and competitive intelligence. I spoke at length with Joe McMonegale for that article but I also had access to the authors of the study (from the American Institutes for Research) that evaluated
remote viewing for the CIA in 1995. I spoke with one of the three authors of the report in detail as well as reviewing all of the documents.
The ONE THING that everyone agreed on was that the remote viewing evaluated for the study - which was only the last few years of a many-year program, and not the best years of the program - provided results thatwere better than chance. I'll repeat that - the one thing both critics and advocates agreed on was that the results were statistically significant in a positive direction.
That does not mean there are not charlatans in current entrepreneurial remote viewing operations. But there are charlatans in every field. I have
even met a programmer or two who did not know how to write elegant code.
There is a lot more to be said about RV but I'll save it for the article. It will appear in the Society for Competitive Intelligence Professional's Magazine.
close-minded (Score:1)
and btw... (Score:1)
Everyone has an opinion and has the right to voice it. But at least be respectful about it, and offer your reasonings for not liking something. Maybe offer some suggestions. But being so rude is just lame and childish. It's good to see at least some people here can appreciate others work or efforts.
An entire new take on script kiddies! (Score:1)
That remark was well worth reading! I realise that a link between interest in computers and interest in philosophy isn't new (I imagine from my non-technical viewpoint that the simple link is 'logic') but that was a definite double-take comment :)
I look forward to error messages of "Target does not exist -- except...(insert appropriate references here)" when getting things wrong at the prompt in the future!
Telsa, who suspects that she's managed to log herself out of her brand new account, since her last comment was from AC. Damn cookies.
I second the recommendation of NETFUTURE (Score:1)
-anthony
Not the best, but not bad (Score:1)
[Xenocide]
Derek Lewis
Owwww. My poor head hurts. (Score:1)
oogly boogly (Score:2)
moderate me baby!
'rath
Life that is really isolated.. with holograms (Score:1)
Definitely. The world is becoming more isolated by choice. People are locking themselves in their rooms and not coming out for days. Opting to communicate on IRC with digital girlfriends and boyfriends instead of going out into the "big room with no walls," these people are waiting for the day when they can just "jack in" to the "matrix" and live forever as a fantasy form.
Only in this day and age can this behavior be seen as glamorous. Hundreds of years ago, people with this mentality of wishing they lived in a dream world were committed. What's the difference between creating a dream world on a screen and creating a dream world in your mind?
Nothing.
--