Beyond The Holy Circle 112
The Net, it turns out, isn't a single revolution, but a series of social revolutions, with a lot in common. Together, they suggest that the Enlightenment never really ended, just took a breather until the Digital Age.
One of the most dramatic legacies of Enlightenment philosophers was their shocking, often brave challenge to Orthodoxy, especially that of organized religions like Christianity, and to the power of the existing monarchies that ruled the world. The Puritans and Anglicans, along with the Jesuits and other elements of the Catholic and Protestant churches, engaged the philosophers - rationalists, scientists, technologists: the nerds and geeks of their time -- in ferocious battles about faith and reason.
Describing the confrontation between Christianity and the Enlightenment - a debate that would be almost unthinkable in modern-day America, where religion has become a sacrosanct subject, (few mainstream politicians, journalists or political figures would dream of openly challenging it's underpinnings) -- the philosopher Edward Gibbon wrote about the need to reach one's own conclusions about the world "beyond The Holy Circle."
That is, to think beyond the dictates of Christianity, which was at the time the dominant philosophical and ideological force in the West.
When I wrote in a column last week that many of the goals of the Enlightenment - secularism, humanity, freedom from arbitrary power, freedom of speech, freedom of trade, freedom to realize one's talent's, freedom of aesthetic response, freedom of moral men and women to make their own way in the world - were similar to emerging values of many of the people - especially the younger ones -- building and shaping the Internet, I got a radically different response than I received even a few years ago when I raised the idea on a different website.
The idea that there were, in fact, shared values on the diverse, quarrelsome and idiosyncratic Net, and that these values were driving immense changes in society seemed reasonable to people, even logical.
More than 500 people e-mailed me in the day or so after this last column - many more since. They were writing from universities, Web development and software companies, and at least 10 countries, including India, England, New Zealand, Canada, Mexico and Argentina.
The idea of linking the Enlightenment to the Internet touched a chord. "That's a very interesting idea, "e-mailed Jude from Stanford. "The Net seems such a chaotic mess to me, and we spend so much time playing with our toys and our games that it's easy to miss that there really are core values, and they are widely shared. We're obviously very different people, many of us, but in a way a lot of us involved in building the Net as opposed to using the Net are trying to do the same thing, even though we can hardly ever come together and talk about it. And it's significant."
Ivan, a programmer, agreed that a core value on the Net and the Web was freedom. "I feel as if this is all really about gaining more freedom, and taking responsibility for myself, my technology, the information I get and share. All the time, I hear people I work with talking about their good or bad technology. It's theirs - they made it and they use it the way they wish. I know from my own college reading that this is very definitely an Enlightenment idea, although I never thought about it that way."
Shauna, a self- described "hip female-with-a-kid geek," wrote from a working mothers website that the values of the Enlightenment - independence, empowerment - were the core values of her site, and her life, much of which is spent online. Adrian, a Linux programmer from Seattle told me the same thing at a book signing there. "I really connected with that idea," he said. "It's why I spent so much time learning Linux. It's about freedom and autonomy."
After I quoted Immanuel Kant's suggested Enlightenment motto "Sapere Aude," (Dare to Know), I began getting e-mail from at least a dozen people adopting it as a quote on their e-mail sigs.
Christianity is no longer the predominant philosophical force as it was during the Enlightenment. (In our time, corporatism is the nemesis of the individual.) America's founders separated Church and State, and other religions - Judaism, the Muslim - have become powerful in their own right.
In the past few years, a series of radical social and technological movements emanating from the Net and the Web have challenged conventional orthodoxy in its 20th century incarnation.
There is, of course, still a Holy Circle, and it has, at least until recently, dominated our social, political and cultural agenda. It still advances a collection of dogmatic ideas about politics, religion, sexuality, the form of government, morality and the control of information. Liberalism has a fixed dogma, and so does conservatism. The politically correct on the left and the moral purists on the right both constantly seek to control speech and curb free expression. Moral guardians dictate "appropriate" behavior. Corporations have extremely powerful notions about the flow of money and products, ideas that are ratified into law and enforced by government regulation.
Today, this Orthodoxy is shaped by smaller, if deeply entrenched institutions - journalism, politics, academe, powerful companies. All have expressed fear, resentment and concern over the rise of the Internet, even as they increasingly seek in different ways to curb, control or exploit it. Especially frightening to them is the freedom, power, money and influence beginning to flow away from them and towards the millions of people using computers to connect to one another.
Journalists complain that the sanctity of facts can't be protected in so open and de-centralized an environment. Many of these journalists and the politicians they work so closely with openly deride and fear a culture in which the public can express itself instantly and accurately, and in defiance of them - Washington journalists and politicians are the literal embodiment of the Holy Circle -- as it did so successfully all last year.
The clergy sermonizes about protecting dogma and faith in a world in which the young have access to all the information in the world, including heresy. Parents seek to filter and block ideas they consider dangerous (even though there's usually little evidence that they really are) or can't control.
Although journalism and politics are preoccupied by their own curious notions of morality and their irrational and disconnected political agenda, the Internet is especially enlightening to millions of people who set their own agendas and worry about their own individual issues, just as the Enlightenment philosophers hoped would happen in their time. Only they didn't have the connective technology to spread their ideas far beyond their own quarrelsome communities.
Blinded by a sluggish media and political culture, society has been slow to grasp the implications of the revolutionary, techno-drive movements spawned here. The Mp3.com already stands, along with the TV zapper, as one of technology's most political and significant creations. The idea of the Mp3 has, in only a matter of months, forced one of the richest businesses in the world - the music industry -- to reconsider the very ways in which music is contracted, recorded, distributed and sold.
E-trading has hit Wall Street like a bomb, de-centralizing the trading industry overnight and opening up capitalism and stock trading to millions of new customers in their homes and offices.
The open source and free software movements have, for the first time in modern history, reversed the trend towards control of information away from a handful of increasingly powerful and predatory companies who have been profiting from it, and back towards millions of individuals. New messaging systems like ICQ chat and Hotlines are transforming communications, sparking countless personal and corporate conversations out of sight and beyond the consciousness of the Holy Circle.
The list is growing all the time. And it's impressive.
Across the board, this new technology is liberating millions of people, in wave after wave of experimentation and change.
"The battlefields of history are strewn with unintended consequences," wrote Peter Gay in his book The Enlightenment. Hardly any of the very dramatic and evolutionary changes listed above were anticipated. But many of them speak directly to Enlightenment ideals -- above all, to freedom in different forms.
If Immanuel Kant preached that the Enlightenment was about the idea of daring to know, he also understand that many people wouldn't want to know. Thus the tension sparked by periods like his and ours. He was mesmerized by the possibilities of his time - especially by the new freedom to share ideas openly and creatively - but skeptical about how this freedom might be used. He and many of his colleagues considered the Enlightenment to be a dismal failure. They couldn't have imagined that some of their most dazzling, if indirect, achievements - the American and French Revolutions, and even the Internet - were still to come.
"If some ask," Kant wrote, "are we living in an enlightened age today? ,the answer would be, No." But, he added, "we are living in an Age of Enlightenment."
Kant might have asked the same question in the age of Kosovo and Monica Lewinsky. Online, many grasp that they're witnessing both a transformation and a revolution. Yet it's hard to look at our own culture or the one beyond - or to try and talk about ideas civilly and openly online -- and really believe we're living an enlightened time.
In Kant's world, the Holy Circle and many of the people it influenced, resisted these new freedoms, and many of the ideas that flowed from them. "People talk a lot about Enlightenment and ask for more light," Georg Lichtenberg wrote, "But my God, what good is all that light, if people either have no eyes, or if those who do have eyes, resolutely keep them shut?"
In our online world, we break down powerful walls as if they were made of tissue, taking what we want and saying what we please, asserting our freedom and demanding choices.
There were dozens of Enlightenment philosophers, but one of the most compelling - and useful today -- was David Hume. Hume, wrote one biographer, followed his thinking where it led him. He was willing to live with uncertainty, incomplete explanations, and without complaint. He was a cheerful Stoic, courageous and determined.
Hume's writing was marked by straightforwardness and modesty and, perhaps more than any other philosopher of his movement, he preached the ideals of an enlightened age. His writing provides inspiration for the frayed and sometimes befuddled pilgrims navigating this one.
Since God is silent, Hume wrote, man is his own master: he must live in a disenchanted world, submit everything to criticism, and make his own way.
You can e-mail me at jonkatz@slashdot.org
This one does. (Score:1)
You're British. You see things differently than we do.
Now, try looking at the world from the eyes of an African native. Is there "enlightenment" for them? No. There's more of the same warfare with newer weapons.
How about China? Massive "enlightenment"? Sure. Just try to make a stand for self determinisation. Remember the pro-democracy forces?
How about ANY third world country. How is the Internet or the 'Web helping the average citizen?
It isn't.
The Internet and the 'Web are just concentrating more power in the hands of the few who can grasp it.
Bill Gates will be worth more than the GNP of Britain within a year or so.
Meanwhile, Ethiopians are still dieing. Ethnic cleansing is still happening. People live without reliable food or water.
And an Internet linkage is going to improve their life?
Yes, this is a wonderous revolution. It will extend the age of enlightenment and bring spirtual peace to all.
To all that control the power already.
Katz is another self obsessed American with no clue as to what conditions the rest of the world lives in.
Hey, Katz, "dare to know".
Take your book signing on the road. Hit Mexico. Check out the new freedoms and the environmental impact of no boarders.
Then check out Africa.
Then hit China.
Then hit Tibet.
Keep going until you UNDERSTAND the conditions that most of the world toils under.
Then you will see how shallow and meaningless "enlightenment" is.
He's not joking. He believes it. (Score:1)
Of course the TV remote is one of technology's most political and significant creations.
Right along side the printing press and the telephone and the various forms of physical travel.
In the end... (Score:1)
It is from the prospect of fulfilling this solemn personal duty that the seed of open source is given an immense power, which in turn naturally frightens those who would otherwise enslave us, if they have not already done so. My hope is that the roots of oss philosophy can grow, taking hold in open source generation of power (linux driven fusion boxes serving small independent communities), then open source and user-choice practices of agriculture, medicine and education. (The true surrender of fictitious political power began with our surrender of our right to create new currency as we create new wealth. (Instead "we" borrow our new currency from the fed as we create new physical wealth.) The subsequent centralization (anonymization?) of financial (corporatization?) control over production of food and power, and distribution of medecine and education was at that point foreseeable.)
I suspect that those who love the prospect of freedom, and those who have surrendered to the most natural and powerful duty an enlightened human being can ever hope to fulfill (of thankfullness and stewardship, agape), all realize the dimension of the battle we are in. My take is that, If we lose this one, every living and breathing thing will be given a number,
and its right to live will be controlled by, and its flesh will be food for, usurers. I don't know why, but I have the feeling we are just now seeing the leading or etheric edge of a very big storm, and in the coming years those who love the prospect of freedom, or of fulfilling their personal sense of duty to their predecessors and successors, are going to need examples of courage and sacrifice, and faith in moral growth, and physical stamina than any at any time in history, including that of the black american male in emerging from slavery by chains. Those of us who think that oss is leading only to a foobar war are mistaken. Eventually, a paradigm struggle this large must lead to physical struggle on the ground.
Did anyone see the photos from Kosovo where barefoot families were trying to escape over jagged mountain tops, dragging their breating grandmothers through the snow on a sack cloth. Does anyone see the Trail of Tears of the American Indian? The idea from the article, attributed to Kant, that some people don't care is mistaken. On that point, I hope my response is not taken as directed at your input.
Reason or Rhetoric? (Score:2)
Burroughs all rolled into one.
Much like drug addicts, internet users "tune in, turn on, and drop out" from all human contact in order get high on the "rush" of the internet experience, while people like Katz claim the internet as a tool of "enlightenment", and anyone still "stuck" within the mainstream culture just don't get it(The internet is so groovy and far out man!)
Jon talks about "Shauna," and "her life, much of which is spent online." A life spent online is not a real life, but a just a facade of a life. Katz has said that "a central issue for our time" is "figuring out how to live, trying to forge a life of balance, purpose and meaning." In no way is a life online "a life of balance", anymore than the communal life of the sixties drug culture was a "balanced" life. Neither the internet nor drugs is going to lead to any kind of "enlightenment".
Mr. Katz is slowly beginning to believe that he is a modern day Kant or Hume. You can sense the rising tide of demagoguery when he says something like: "After I quoted Immanuel Kant's suggested Enlightenment motto...at least a dozen people adopt[ed] it as a quote on their e-mail sigs." Or this absolutely ridiculous statement: "The Mp3.com
already stands, along with the TV zapper, as one of technology's most political and significant creations." You're joking right?
Katz claims that "Across the board, this new technology is liberating millions of people,
in wave after wave of experimentation and change." Well, just go to any American ghetto and ask how "liberated" the internet has made them. Just substitue "new technology" with "psychedelic drugs" and the message is the same: "If we just use our awesome powers of reason we can become our own Gods."
Okay, when are they handing out the kool-aid?
Tis an ill wind that blows no minds (Score:1)
Bullshit makes the flowers grow,
And that is beautiful
Hail Eris! All Hail Discordia! (Score:1)
One of my personal mottos goes:
"Out of the Chaos of Today come solutions for Tomorrow"
Thus She is the Fount of Creativity.
Information Theory tells us the more Chaos there is in a system, the more information there is in it.
Thus she is the Lady of Knowledge.
Hail Eris! All Hail Disccordia! KALLISTI!
Her Humble Servant,
Farrell McGovern
Reason or Rhetoric? (Score:1)
Jon talks about "Shauna," and "her life, much of which is spent online." A life spent online is not a real life, but a just a facade of a life.
What does this mean? Someone can only truly interact with a physical presence? What about invalids or shut ins, people with disfiguring diseases, or people who are otherwise socially unnacceptable? These people now have a means to communicate on a truly level playing field.
Well, just go to any American ghetto and ask how "liberated" the internet has made them
I have, I've actually worked at clients where they were building online internet communities for public housing. Cable companies have provided cable modem access for these people at $10 per month(I only wish I had that)and volunteers maintain the online communities.
Mr. Katz is slowly beginning to believe that he is a modern day Kant or Hume.
He may think that, but no one who has studied Kant, Hume and Berkely would think so. He's just a commentator, not a philosopher. Drop the cynicism.
Sapere Aude (Score:1)
The subject itself is more important than its packaging. People who will truly learn, understand and absorb will realize this. They will search for the sites and groups which can feed their spiritual/intellectual searches, rather than look for eye candy. Those who will get distracted by the flashy banners, hand-fed news and wanton wenches are likely not going to be interested in enlightenment in any case.
You cannot reach them all, and I think the ones that have to work for their enlightenment are the ones that will truly change the world, as well as their own souls. By slogging through the muck, we give ourselves a basis for comparison. A foundation of conviction in our ideals, as we have examined the other possibilities.
The Holy Circle (Score:3)
Hi.
I was sent your piece "Beyond the Holy Circle" (slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/03/28/154238), by a friend. Your suggestion that the "wall-busting net" has enormous and almost certainly unpredictable consequences is a useful and fruitful one.
However your effort to construct a philosophy of history, traced back into the Enlightenment, suffers from a lack of historical perspective on the Enlightenment. Your characterization of it as a struggle between rationalist "geeks" and proponents of "orthodoxy," although certainly entertaining and guaranteed to be an effective rabble rouser in certain circles, is largely misleading. To characterize the enlightenment as a manichean struggle between the forces of rationalist science and superstitious orthodoxy is simply to misread the historical record, and to misread it badly. Only Galileo, in the five hundred years between the high middle ages and modernity, fits that paradigm. Much scientific and mathematical progress was made in the Enlightenment by orthodox Christians. Prominent Anglicans, Calvinists, and Jesuits were among the most significant enlightened scientific thinkers. Issac Newton, the very model of enlightened rationality for both Kant and Hume, abandoned his mathematical and scientific studies to concentrate on unpacking the mysteries of the book of Revelation; he was an orthodox Christian. Pascal, whose work in the mathematics that led to the science of the enlightenment is only overshadowed by Newton's, was an orthodox Christian whose theological works are still studied. Leibnitz, with Newton the inventor of calculus, sought to demonstrate the existence of God philosophically. The philosophical tradition flowing from Descartes, widely held to be the father of Enlightened rationality, is rooted in high medieval scholasticism. The rise of Reformed theology was a critical component in the development of the scientific method; indeed it is in puritan England and Reformed Holland that much of the work of the Enlightenment went on. Bacon and Mendel were both orthodox Christians. If you have spent any time reading the enlightened orthodox Christians, e.g. Jonathan Edwards, you would know that they are as concerned for rationality, conceived in an Enlightenment model, as were the enlightened deists and atheists.
Further, Hume's philosophical and moral convictions were not drawn from his enlightened epistemology; if drawn from anywhere, it was the classical stoic tradition of ancient Rome and Greece that underlay his anthropology and ethics (as he himself states). While his epistemology, if logically thought out, results in the destruction of any postive rational knowledge at all (Cf. the Essay on Human Understanding) and so of the possibility of any true enlightenment. It was precisely because Kant feared that Hume's critiques would destroy the possiblity of rational knowledge that he wrote the "Critique of Pure Reason." And with the collapse of the claim that Euclidean geometry represented the necessary modalities of human mathematical reasoning, Kant's effort fell as well.
The stoic moral position has a long and noble history. And it has much to commend it. But it was not created by the Enlightement. And although there were noble Enlightenment stoics, e.g. Gibbon, Hume, there were others, e.g. Rousseau or Berkeley who adopted very unstoic positions, Rousseau who developed a modern notion of false consciousness and Berkeley who developed an Enlightenment epistemology very like Hume's to validate an orthodox Christian posture.
How the invention of the pc and the growth of the web will transform the human condition remains to be seen. It seems clear that we are only beginning to grasp some of the parameters of those changes. But to seek to validate those changes by false and misleading appropriations of the western tradition cannnot help us understand the changes; it can only make it more difficult for us to understand what is really going on.
Sincerely,
George Kuykendall
George Kuykendall
Industri-Matematik International
Suite 201, 5 Greentree Center
Marlton, NJ 08053
Ph. (609) 797-3382
Fax (609) 797-6660
Reason or Rhetoric? (Score:1)
He's a journalist. A more accurate analogy would be that he's trying to be like one of the countless 60's writers who used the drug culture as subject matter, like Tom Wolfe or a pre-gonzo Hunter Thompson.
And, aside from the items that I could nit-pick, it was a darn good essay (again); Maynard and Amphigory's top-level comments pre-empted any need for me to really add anything other than a slightly-tempered thumbs-up.
--
I'm not sure if you're joking (Score:1)
Right along side the printing press and the telephone and the various forms of physical travel.
The zapper, and the mentality it represents, is crucially important. It has led to short attention-spans becoming the inexorable norm, which, in turn, has led to a culture in which not only has style triumphed over substance, but flash, trash, and shock has triumphed over style. When you consider how much of US politics and culture is virally transmitted via the airwaves, a further dumbing-down of the transmission content (to appease the Zapper Mentality) is a serious issue. An issue on the "decline-and-fall" level, something we'll see in a postmortem or two, should we live that long.
Stone Cold said so...
--
Only half a load (Score:1)
While I agree that certain companies like MS and ADM are scary, they're subject to the same laws that you and I are. The corporation is manned by human beings -- not androids and what have you. Do you honestly believe that these humans are that evil? That they can keep this conspiracy intact and secret?
Corporations are subject to a different set of laws than you or me. On top of that, they can use their money to decide or even write the laws under which they operate. Congress has passed cable bills and broadcasting bills that have had a great deal of input from the corporations that would be governed by the legislation. There were stories in 1995 of lobbyists writing various pieces of legislation in various House committees, though the stories vanished from the media shortly thereafter. Conspiracy is a way of life in politics; we can't all be flies on the wall, especially when hearings, cocktail parties, fundraiser-gatherings, and 18 holes at Congressional are closed to the voting public.
These aren't androids; they are very real human beings acting in their own self-interests, whether it be senators acting to please their big-money donors, CEOs acting to do whatever it takes to make their companies more profitable, and so forth. They're human beings, not saints or angels, and often the interests of the country at large (and the world) don't fit into their equations.
--
More historical Background (Score:1)
To say that the Enlightenment freed people from "holy circles" is somewhat misleading.
For instance, the great protestant reformation followed the Enlightenment in Europe. Some of the main stars in this movement were breaking holy circles, are Martin Luther and William Tinsdale. Yet what did they do that was all so bad?
They provided information, per-se the Bible translated into there own languages so the lay-man can have the same access as the minister.
Hmmm, the Bible information? Maybe even information that created a whole protestant reformation?
Gallileo, Capernicus, Newton and others are guilty of this crime. Providing information.
Hmmm, looking at this I think I can sum up what has taken you so many words to mystify,
Information brings Enlightenment. Enlightenment empowers the common person who then breaks free from tyranny, whether that tyrrany be religious, economic, or political in nature.
I say information but I can also say 'truth', which sums your article up even better as, "You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free".
I take occation to much of what you say on the internet being a movement. It isn't a movement, it is a vehicle. Nothing more or less grand about it than other vehicles (books, oral tradition, etc...) only it is more powerful and capable. But still essentialy the same vehicle.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^
More incorrect historical Background (Score:1)
your right
I got cought up in the moment, and realized it later.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
The Truth is out there. (Score:1)
Soooo... the net is a giant shoestore? :-) (Sorry couldn't resist!)
Don't fear the Christians; just fear what they do. (Score:1)
There was a time and a place for religion, but that time has passed. People need to come to face with the reality that the here and now is what is important. Instead of thinking that a holy person can absolve them from sins, thus giving them the keys to the holy gate, people should strive to better themselves.
As many people that defend Christianity with all of their might forget the many times Christianity has gone out to binge the world of non-believers. The burning times (an attempt to destroy witches) and the inquisition (an attempt to wipe out the Jews and Muslims in Spain) are both prime examples of why I am weary of Christians, having attempted to destroy two things that make a part of me what I am today.
Luther? (Score:1)
More incorrect historical Background (Score:1)
Language Barrier (Score:1)
All of the communicae of the internet are based on words. Words are an awful medium for communication because they depend on a guess.
When I write this reply I'm guessing that whoever reads it will retrieve ideas from it that are similar to the ideas in my head which spawned the writing. But I have no way of ever finding out.
Kinda reminds you of the Invading Armies problem doesn't it?
Language Barrier (Score:1)
All of the communicae of the internet are based on words. Words are an awful medium for communication because they depend on a guess.
When I write this reply I'm guessing that whoever reads it will retrieve ideas from it that are similar to the ideas in my head which spawned the writing. But I have no way of ever finding out.
Kinda reminds you of the Invading Armies problem doesn't it?
Language Beauty (Score:1)
Information wants to be free (Score:1)
But is this modern enlightenment really akin to that of the 1700s? A great many users of the internet very rarely contribute, and very few sites have as much profile, or as much bandwidth, as those owned by traditional media corporations (New York Times, CNN, ZD-net). It's also going to get worse. Altavista has recently indicated that a site can pay for a higher profile in the search engine's database.
Scientific journals are ending their traditional print runs, in favour of "pay-for access" online publishing. In some university libraries, access to these data repositories, is restricted to students and faculty of the university, ending the university libray's role as a public depository.
There's also a problem of closed minds. Some people are taking the view that traditional media has nothing to offer, and are conducting research almost entirely on-line, even though in some fields, the amount of off-line information exceeds that of on-line information.
The first enlightenment was conducted in a era before copyright. In some ways, information did want to be free. The second internet "enlightenment" will be fettered by the concept of intellectual property.
The Truth is out there. (Score:1)
the truth will be revealed to you.
"The Net" is a place with out form where only peoples soles can touch.
Use The Net Luke.
Sapere Aude (Score:1)
CNN and ABC aren't likely to lose their grip on their viewers; they'll add a "dot com" to their names and continue to serve gullible masses the same junk they've dished out before.
I agree there will be changes, but I worry they won't be major, with most of the existing Holy Circles adapting to the environment. The only real change will be the addition of a few newcomers to those Holy Circles. Of course, I sure hope I'm wrong.
Sapere Aude - redux (Score:1)
Still, I guess journalism could be considered a nonmaterial good, can't it? In that respect, I guess Slashdot then becomes Open Source journalism.
Anyway, you are right about the Net's ability to form and reform around Holy Circles. As long as there are no restrictions, no FCCs of the internet demanding sites have licenses, then the internet emerges as a new medium that can have profound impact on society and government.
But there is still the risk that the net borders on irrelevancy. With all those websites and newsgroups, with all the bytes flying all over the world, it is so difficult to not only keep track of the facts your interested in, but the facts you should be interested in.
For example, there is currently an article in Salon that claims that Bob Dole tried to get the President and Congress of the US interested in what was happening in Kosovo back in 1990. It claims he warned both Bush and Clinton that events there were rapidly worsening, but neither president listened. Setting the accuracy of this statement aside, it seems to me that this is exactly the sort of thing the internet should be good for. Dole hops on the net, tells us all about that dangerous land, and suddenly we find ourselves galvanized into action!
Except, how would that work? Bob could put up a website, spotlighting the abuses and warning people about the future, but how with all the other sites out there, can he compete to get our attention enough that we can do something about it?
There are thousands of sites out there that demand one political change or another, and in that digital cacophony, we're left not only unaware of what the issues are, but which ones are even relevant.
I have this image in my mind, and maybe you're the one who put it there, that the internet is a great, big wall plastered with posters about one important issue or another. The wall stretches for mile after mile, and we surfers pace back and forth, ignoring most of the posters to stop and read only a favored few. That image somehow highlights the (potential?) futility of the new medium for political and social change.
ACK! Have I just argued in favor of Holy Circles?
In the end... (Score:1)
In the end... (Score:2)
However, what mankind most needs to be freed from is not outside authority, but the failings of our own character. "For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do--this I keep on doing." (Paul of Tarsus, c. 60AD).
This is still true today. People still do that which they would rather not, then cover it up in an attempt to think themselves free agents. While freedom from external authority is important, it is far less interesting than freedom from the domination of our own failings.
As long as we continue to look to politics (or anything external) for our freedom, we are wasting our time. If my mind and heart are free, then I will be free, even in chains.
In the end... (Score:2)
If you look at all the greatest atrocities in history, they have come when someone, anyone, was freed from accountability for their own actions.
I'm afraid that this is what too many "pseudo-enlightenment" people mean by freedom: a lack of accountability.
Communication access != Freedom from oppression (Score:3)
In the past few years, a series of radical social and technological movements emanating from the Net and the Web have challenged conventional orthodoxy in its 20th century incarnation.
There is, of course, still a Holy Circle, and it has, at least until recently, dominated our social, political and cultural agenda. It still advances a collection of dogmatic ideas about politics, religion, sexuality, the form of government, morality and the control of information. Liberalism has a fixed dogma, and so does conservatism. The politically correct on the left and the moral purists on the right both constantly seek to control speech and curb free expression. Moral guardians dictate "appropriate" behavior. Corporations have extremely powerful notions about the flow of money and products, ideas that are ratified into law and enforced by government regulation. [emphases mine]
Multinational corporate control of the media is one of the most anti-democratic outcomes of modern communications technologies. Both Television and Radio don't allow for full duplex communication; those who own the transmitters control the communications content to all recipients. And they have used this monopoly to force everything from Playtex pantyhose to war without reasonable debate throughout much of the twentieth century.
Right now some of the largest multinational corporations are currently threatening everything from worldwide food production (Monsanto and it's Terminator gene) along with ADM and a number of other food producers and processors who appear intent on monopolizing world food production and distribution, the environmental devastation of core life sustaining bio-infrastructure (chemical and oil companies like DuPont and Exxon), along with almost total world capital control by the elite. If this Internet Thing gets out of hand and begins threatening elite control over worldwide resources I think we should expect a strong corporate backlash to control how the Internet is used and who has access. Given who finances congressional campaigns and the success they have achieved at incorporating special interest gains into leglislation through political action committees, don't expect our representatives to take a stand beyond their direct self interests.
We should all be frightened to note that hostID like serial numbers are being integrated into Pentium III chips at the same time that Microsoft has admitted that it collects personal data about end users and watermarks all documents generated from Microsoft Word. While this may seem great now that we've arrested the alleged Melisa virus author, anyone who writes dissident material should feel a chill down their spine. This threatens our very democracy as a basic violation of pricavy rights. Yet throughout the last twenty years our basic civil and property rights have been thwarted and subverted in the name of the Drug War, anti-terrorism, and tort reform. It should surprise no-one when we finally realize we have moved from a representative democracy (republic) to corporate socialism and individual social darwinism. This is really fascism, but that word has been so abused that it's meaningless in today's rhetoric.
The biggest human rights success of our age has been the discovery by the elite that propaganda is a cheaper method of control than outright brute force. But don't be foolish and think that a populist movement fueled by easy public access to bi-directional communications will cause the multinational elite to roll over and give up. They have shown time and again that when they're control and wealth is threatened they will take extreme (and often violent) action.
Fear is too easy of a response... (Score:1)
Blaming Christians and Christianity for atrocities and excesses committed in the name of Christianity is like blaming Linus, Linux and Linux users for the excesses committed by script kiddies or overzealous Linux evangelists.
Enlightenment, Choice and Authority (Score:1)
To a point... (Score:1)
If they ever do, it's not necessarily his fault.
Good Article (Score:1)
Sapere Aude (Score:1)
Not bad. (Score:1)
Good article, but is it right?? (Score:1)
The biggest effect that I have noticed from the internet is that I am exposed to many ideas and points of view that I would never have even been aware of before. I have incorportated many of them into my own thinking.
I live in the U.S.
America is often accused of cultural imperialism, usually by those who don't like changes they are seeing in their own culture. I think that the main reason that American culture is so vibrant and so dominating is that new ideas, words, and outlooks are incorporated into it whenever they are found.
One of the big effects of the internet will be to put this process on "internet time". In other words I expect that the incorporation of new ideas and the resulting social change will speed up. I also expect that this process will increase and accelerate in other more traditional or conservative societies. This mixing of ideas and creating of new "philosophies" does seem to me to follow in the footsteps of the enlightenment.
What isn't right. (Score:1)
What will I do for intrinsic motivation? The very best I can.
Which Truth? Which Lie? (Score:1)
'Is Freedom the right to do whatever one wants? Certainly noone complains of laws banning murder as an infringement on freedom.'
Within reason, yes. Where laws against murder come in is that your are free to do as you please until you infringe on the rights of others. Other sorts of freedom that involve philosophies and religions are not (IMHO) under the purview of what ought to be instutionalized or politically enforced.
'Freedom is not the right to do what you want, but the authority to do what you ought.'
This is personal spin, I'm afraid. And begs big questions, such as who determines what is 'what you ought'? The government? Your religious beliefs? Mine? The beliefs of the people who live on Main St in Wichita? The best you can do is make sure that people take responsibility for actions taken within their freedom. 'Doing what you ought' has NO business being legislated, enforced or coerced by others.
'Don't exchange this truth for a lie.'
Which particular 'lie' were you referring to? And which 'truth'? You quote the Bible, but in a very non specific way.
Try Not to Have Preconceived Notions (Score:1)
I'm sorry that someone out there has suggested that a member of your Holy Circle, namely the 'sainted corporation', might have some flaws, but I'm afraid it's so. Corporate America isn't inherently 'evil', but due its very nature individual parts of it can go off the beam at times.
It's best to remember that corporations have structures very much like those older parts of the Circle, namely government and large scale institutionalized religion. They also are not inherently evil, but they can become like a runaway train because of the way the parts combine to make a whole that can act indepently of the parts therein. A corporation is a legally separate entity, legally independent in many ways that as a whole is dedicated only to its own survival and self interest. Sometimes this causes corporations as a whole to steam roller (or try to anyway) individuals or smaller groups who get in the way of those goals.
If you want to believe that somehow large corporations have absolutely no downside involved, and that they don't sometimes reduce the freedom of individuals while acting in their own self interest, then I think you need to reexamine who's exhibiting signs of sycophancy.
Revolutions? (Score:1)
Thomas Jefferson said that revolution was necessary every so often to keep this experiment going, yet now in the age of bloatedness within the "Circle" it seems as though we are a bit delayed in running our fourth. And we are the most likely to do it.
We have the control of the technology, and the dissention waiting for an action to rile us up.
And there are plenty of actions requiring reaction: weak encryption laws, CDA, and whatever else annoys you.
Revolutions? (Score:1)
My point was that geeks, like myself, are living in a state of confusion. How so? We have good lives and all of us are free to pretty well do as we please.
Yet those who see us feel threatened and then seek to control that which really cannot be controlled. Eventually, they will win because they are bigger than me, and I'll get to be miserable just like everyone else. But I don't think it can happen if we recognize that WE are the ones who can successfully pull off a revolution, just like Thomas Jefferson suggested.
A revolution is required every twenty years in his words, and that makes sense. We ARE leading a revolution and those who don't like it are trudging through their slow system to control something that is 5 years old by the time it first gets even considered.
It needs to end. We end it. Plain and simple. it's not about drawing lines in the sand by crackers, and it's not about standing by while hackers forfeit their rights because we were too busy writing code and what not.
It's the fact that we're in demand now, that means we run the show now. When we're not in demand, if we don't step down, some other group who is in demand returns the favor and revolts against us. It's a healthy system, that's why Jefferson wanted it.
That's my point.
"FREE KEVIN, get your FREE KEVIN right here. Step right up and win yourself a KEVIN my friend!" sounds like a goddamn carney.
Oh please -- what a load of you know what (Score:1)
I believe that Katz is a fairly smart guy, yet I don't believe he is sincere. This whole essay is a farce. His argument that corporations run this country is designed to get you nerds riled up. Don't you see that? While I agree that certain companies like MS and ADM are scary, they're subject to the same laws that you and I are. The corporation is manned by human beings -- not androids and what have you. Do you honestly believe that these humans are that evil? That they can keep this conspiracy intact and secret? And mp3.com the revolution? What a load of bullshit. I've been an op in #mp3 on irc for almost 4 years now. And yet this neophyte tells me that its going to change the world? What a load. I think mp3s are great, but they ain't going to change the face of this world. Maybe the recoding industry is a little concerned, but its their job to worry about these things. The bulk of these fears are due to the fact that people, shareholders and stock analysts, actually believe this kind of hype. He completely ignores the importance of the worst comporation in my opinion, MTV and co. Distribution is just a small part of the equation. Exposure and what not will still keep certain corporations in power, the most the internet distribution model will do is shuffle the deck a bit. Just because a few artists jump on the mp3 band wagon doesn't mean much either. These artists have been jumping on and off various band wagons for years now, be it the environmental movement or what have you. I don't believe that they have the staying power. Also I assure you that even if this current generation does, what kind of contracts do you think the next generation of Pop artists are going to sign? There will be provisions in there making sure that if they want exposure they stay with company A and give them their cut. And don't even get me started on the actual power of OSS......
Katz just thrives off of this kind of drivel and there are enough sycophants out there to keep him clothed for some time.
Exactly my point. (Score:1)
Corporations are a part of humanity. The interests of the invididual are no more in the interests of the country, are they? No matter how humanity organizes itself it doesn't remove the human elements of it. Corporations don't have a lock on self-interest, this is a human trait.
The law essentially views the corporation as an individual. While I do not agree with lobbyists, this is protected by the constitution to some extent. Its called Freedom of Speech. Legally a corporation just as entitled to political speech as the individual. The right to make contributions to certain political parties is also a right. Corporations aren't the only entities with lobbyists mind you. The NRA, Farmers Unions, Unions, Environment groups, all have lobbies. There is some need for corporations to speak their minds. I do, however, believe that these huge lobbies need to be drastically curbed. While companies like ADM have used lobbying to actually grow their business (impose tarrifs on foreign sugar, so they can sell their wares,etc), this is an exception to the rule. Most corporations don't have this kind of power.
Can you say hypocrisy? (Score:1)
First off, there is nothing preconcieved about my notions. I've read a great number of Katz spiels. The word preconceived implies that I had an opinion before I read this particular article. Bu even if this were the case, I've read articles of his previously. All of them have been similar. Are you trying to tell me that I must approach all of his detritus with an 'open' mind? Like you must read all of the KKK's materials, or what have you, with an open mind?
"I'm sorry that someone out there has suggested that a member of your Holy Circle"
^ I never said it was my circle. I never said it was perfect. This IS a preconceived notion.
Oh so now i'm a sychophant? I read slashdot, I use mp3, I run Linux, I'm a capitalist. I've been doing so for a long time. Capitalism is not the 'in' thing on slashdot. If anything, its very unpopular to be pro-business these days. I used Linux longer than 95% of the readership on slashdot, yet I have my doubts about its long term success. What about this makes me a sycophant? Please tell me what group I follow, I'd really like to know so I can get some company here.
I believe that the internet is going to have a nominal effect on society at best. I strongly disagree with the likes of Katz and Al Gore. Who believe, or atleast espouse the belief, that all you need to do is plug this magic internet pipe and everything somehow gets better. I'm telling you, based on my own experience, that I think the internet is closer to the goldrush than anything else. Not a great deal of wealth is going to be created as a result. Sure some people will get rich, but like the goldrush, it'll be those who sell the supplies. Not those who blindly jump on futurists' bandwagons such as Katz.
Bah (Score:1)
While it may be the managements job to maximize profits it doesn't mean that they throw all morals out the window. Companies that do are really a very small minority. Most people on slashdot who make such claims have never really seen capitalism at work. There is alot more to capitalism other than the monster corporation. Secondly, there is also the 'enlightened interest' theory by Milton. Which pretty much states that a company will do things that don't directly further their bottom line. Companies also contribute a great deal of money to various charitable organizations such as schools, education campaigns, you name it. On a dollar charity vs. assets ratio, I wouldn't be amazed if companies donate more than individuals on the aggregate.
True Christianity is not a religion (Score:1)
I agree with that, except I'm not sure there was ever a time for religion. A religion is basically a set of traditions and behaviours that are repeated. This is what the Jews' relationship with God had become in Jesus' time, and what Jesus (and Paul) fought so hard against.
When asked what the greatest commandment was, Jesus answered, "'To love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neightbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hand on these two commandments."
If you examine the teachings of Jesus (or the whole bible, for that matter), you will realize that everything is simply an explanation of how to fufill those two commandments. To put things another way, the most important thing is your relationship with God, and then your relationships with others. True Christianity is not about religion, but relationships.
With that in mind, you have to realize that many people who claim Christianity as their religion do not have that relationship with God. All they have is the actions that a "good Christian" should have. These people then fight for their religion in ways that completely contradict the basis of Christianity.
A parallel I could draw is the free software / open source change. Free software originally had a specific meaning, and a philosophy, but it was tainted by people who used the term "free software" to mean things it did not mean. This forced people to change the term to open source.
Perhaps true Christians, those who base their lives on relationships, need a new term that does not carry the conotations of religion!
"Bugs are harder to cope with than features, because they are less well defined and less well designed."
The nature of Freedom? (Score:1)
I'm sorry, but a free mind in an enslaved body, will only more fully realize it's enslavement. I do not envy Stephen Hawking's condition, regardless of how free his mind is. What good does all that brainpower if you can not walk on a beach? Singing "Swing Low Sweet Chariot" only goes so far, and a cotton pickin' cotton picker is a cotton pickin' slave, unless he is picking HIS OWN cotton.
We are, each of us, a trinity onto ourselves. The mind, body and spirit all must be free for the entire being to know freedom.
freedom from what. (Score:1)
but not from outside authority necessarily
rather freedom from the self you are in reality.
When I think of the net, it's this nowhere
place where you can recreate who you are in
the image you've always wanted and you are
truly judged only on the contents of your
character.
In a world of anorexic models, quickly passing
fashions, stereotypes, latent racism, and the
always unfulfilled desire to fit in, the net
becomes the mecca for lonely souls and misjudged
individuals as well as a stomping grounds for teens
and adults alike, all masquerading as the people
they usually aren't in life but desperately want
to be.
-Z
Not like that outside of the USA. (Score:1)
My comment on the article is that the form of Christianity and "Holy Circle" (those that attempt to control change and say they hold the moral high ground) in the article may be typical of the USA but aren't representative of the rest of the world. Sure, the USA is going through a time of milennial turmoil and change but please, don't believe that the same form of change is happening the world over.
I live in the UK and, although change is happening, it takes a very different form. The power of institutions is very much eroded and is often seen as an irrellevence to the "european" youth. The experience of living and working internationally, creating products for an international market and choosing which country and currency to have your bank account in is a liberating one; the internet is just one of the mechanisms used to make this happen. However language will always be a barrier to free movement, hence the highly intelligent are more free than the uneducated, regardless of computer knowhow.
Summing up, I'd ask you Merkins to please think globally when attempting to characterise the Internet. Anyway, there's more of us than there are of you!
Not like that outside of the USA. (Score:1)
I live in the UK and, although change is happening, it takes a very different form. The power of institutions is very much eroded and is often seen as an irrellevence to the "european" youth. The experience of living and working internationally, creating products for an international market and choosing which country and currency to have your bank account in is a liberating one; the internet is just one of the mechanisms used to make this happen. However language will always be a barrier to free movement, hence the highly intelligent are more free than the uneducated, regardless of computer knowhow.
What you've described isn't that much different from what's going on in the states. Political apathy among 20somethings is at an all time high. As for other institutions, such as The Media and Large Corporations, their influence is as pervasive as anywhere else... I will grant you that in Europe and the UK it's much easier to travel to other countries (maybe because they're all so tiny :-) ), but that's an economic reality that's true anywhere.
It also doesn't hurt that the UK has a system of higher education that does a good job of insulating students from reality, either.
--GP
non-Catholic Christians != Blameless (Score:1)
flesh99 wrote:
How can you not seperate the two when one persecuted the other, that alone would almost serve as a dividing line.
A wee bit of historical revisionism going on here. Yes, Catholics have killed Protestants. Protestants have also killed and persecuted Catholics. Look at the history of England, or America's own "Know-Nothing" party, if you don't believe me. The KKK is nearly as anti-Catholic as it is anti-black.
And, of course, both Catholic and Protestant ganged up in hunting down Anabaptists back in the crazy days of the Reformation.
Is this a disgrace and a scandal to Christianity? For sure.
I hardly believe this invalidates Christianity -- I'm a Christian myself. But we need to be honest in dealing with the historical record. And atrocities committed in the name of Christ are hardly unique to the Roman Catholic branch of Christianity.
Grrrrrr... (Score:1)
Those in the Church who rise above their baser instincts are truly a credit to the Institution as a whole; however, that doesn't change the fact that the Institution and the Concept are flawed.
So, let me see if I have this straight: Christians doing bad things discredit Christianity, but Christians doing good things couldn't possibly credit Christianity? Sheesh.
Let me know when and where you find a creed whose adherents are all perfect people.
On a more serious note, you write of Christianity as an "Institution" and a "Concept." You are either missing the point, or choosing to ignore it, that Christianity (plus most other "organized" religions) are not simply nice philosophical concepts with an organization to promote them, they consist of a number of claims to truth, to information that accurately represents something real about the universe.
So, if Jesus of Nazareth really was the Son of God, and rose from the dead on the third day, this is true, regardless of whether some who claim to follow Christianity have done shameful things. And if Allah really did deliver His message to Mohammed, then Islam is true, regardless of atrocities comitted by Muslims. If Joseph Smith did not get his messages from God, then Mormonism is false, regardless of the good lives of Mormons. And so on through the list.
And guess what? The Internet isn't going to change that, any more than it's going to make 2+2=5, or pi a rational number ...
"These are the days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed except his own." -- G. K. Chesterton
"The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried." -- G. K. Chesterton
Battling for freedom... (Score:1)
" Christianity is no longer the predominant philosophical force as it was during the Enlightenment."(In our time, corporatism is the nemesis of the individual.)
Now then, I will gladly admit to being a Christian. However, this does not require me, however, to defend the excesses of the Christian orthodoxy (in the Middle Ages or now) in seeking to control the very minds and souls of the people. Similarly, I can now choose (via Linux) to free myself from the the control of most of the corporation(s).
"One of the most dramatic legacies of Enlightenment philosophers was their shocking, often brave challenge to Orthodoxy, ... and to the power of the existing monarchies that ruled the world.
When Linus originally mentioned his goal for Linux to reach "total world domination", as far as I can tell he was mostly joking. But look at how the 'Net philosophers [okay, I really mean the /. posters -- the "nerds and geeks of our time"] are engaging the powerful forces that seek to control our society (corporatism, media elitism, etc.) in "... ferocious battles about faith and reason.
We ARE different people, building the 'Net rather than marching to the tune set by others. A final thought, (and probably one I'll get flamed for, I know) is that for myself the drive toward freedom and enlightenment is not incompatible with belief -- in fact, it is the foundation of belief.
So maybe God isn't as silent as Hume thought. We simply choose to limit ourselves to how we are willing to hear God's voice. I, too, like Kant's motto: "Sapere Aude" -- Dare to Know. It won't hurt much, and besides, once you know you can make more of a difference later.
Linux == Freedom.
The Point (Score:1)
There was a time a few years back when something like J.K's sentiment here struck me.. for the first time in recorded history communication between disparate groups has become trivial. And that's the operative word.. Trivial.
Mail has been around for a long time, but with delay times and lack of materials or money to send information to whomever needs it most, as well as government mail filtering, it has been very difficult to establish communication with this method. It is difficult to establish a paper-based forum that is egalitarian, so we ended up with Newspapers and magazines.
But with electronic transmission of information over a global network, now we have a means to disseminate information of any type we desire.. in fact -anyone- does, and likely will. Which is likely the reason for the fear of strong encryption by government.. they won't be able to stop information flows if they believe they need to, given strong encryption.
The Internet has proven its power to some members of congress, and so now we see all of these lovely laws related to what is essentially, in the US, a privately held collection of networked computers. Huh? We should all be concerned about that.. most of the Internet in America is privately held.. it is not a public utility at all.. and yet we are getting regulations proposed that curb content providers into actions deemed suitable by the government.
So, sure.. they are afraid. Afraid that because somebody always knows something about the latest scandal or power grab, etc, that somebody can -easily- give that information out to the community.. which will then have the power to react to it. They can't really play delay games anymore.. the information is out there, and somebody will sift through it and alert people of the relevant parts.
The Internet looks like it will become something of a hybrid.. part propaganda and part real (it already has, to some extent). The good thing about that is it puts more control in our hands. We can decide to simply cut and paste text, or email an URL to someone else.. they don't have to be up at 10pmEST to see the news piece.
My point? I think Jon is on the money. The Internet is more liberating than it can ever be enslaving (at least in its current form) and so it is causing a shift in power. I've seen it myself.. and you have too. Let's hope that -this- revolution is bloodless.
----
internet (Score:1)
The Holy Circle (Score:1)
enlightenment was not a movement against the excesses of the church of the time? Is he
trying to argue that the enlightenment didn't reduce the power of the church? All I saw where
references that showed that some great western thinkers believed, or where interested in god.
Was not Einstein's argument against quantum mechanics simple "God does not play with
dice". If this was the aim of Georges posting I can't argue, but I can't see how such an
argument relates to Katz's article.
History cannot be broken down into single events, or even a fight between two ideas, with
one idea coming out victorious. History is a river with a direction, some will swim with it,
some across, and some against the flow. Most will swim in different directions during their
lifetime. To quote single events, or single writings may be useful to support an argument, but it
does little to eliminate the period.
Mankind's accumulated knowledge mark the banks of our historical river, how quickly ideas
can be disseminated determine the flow.
There can be no argument that the Internet has increased the rate at which ideas flow. Just
look at this discussion. Five yours ago it would be a discussion held by students at a university
( perhaps after a few stubbies). Today it is being held between interested parties from around
the world on the internet. It is no harder to participate in the discussion than it is to sit at the
relevant table in the university canteen.
It can be argued that without printing the enlightenment would never have happened. I think
future generations will look back at the internet as an important point in human history. It will
not be just university students sitting in the canteen that will argues it's merit but many
individuals from around the globe, that will be the heritage the internet will give our children.
If the internet is a important event in human evolution then the the open source movement is
an inevitable consequences. Mankind would feel very uneasy if the printing of books was
controlled by the Roman Catholic church. If the internet is to become central to how we
define our societies, Mankind will feel very uneasy if the internet is controlled by one
corporation.
If you look at recent events from this point of view, Microsoft's attempt to dominate the
Internet was doomed to failure. I am at a loss to see why anyone would believe microsoft
could succeed where the Roman Catholic Church failed.
Microsoft failed to see the importance of the internet ( wasn't it Bill who said "it's just another
network"). I believe they got themselves into their current unholy mess by failing to see just
how important the internet was even after they realized it could destroy there business if
nothing was done.
The Internet was not just another technology to be embraced and extended, it is an idea that
has taken several decades to develop and as Katz correctly points out it is an idea that will
change society in fundamental ways. The internet is fast becoming a fundamental part of a
societies required infrastructure. I am sure this has been seen by people far more powerful
then even Mr Gates.
I think Microsoft failed to see just what they were attempting to do when they started down
there internet embrace and extend strategy. If they did the should of expected the
consequences and if they did I don't think they would have attempted to corrupt the open
nature of the structure being built.
Just my 2c worth.
The internet enables (Score:1)
However the internet enables whatever form of communication you choose. It enables it to be distributed to as many or as few people as you choose.
That's the power of the internet.
Enlightenment, Choice and Authority (Score:1)
The tension here is between those who wish to make their own way in the world (making their own decisions about morality and choices about the manner in which they live their lives), and those who wish to make everybody live their lives in the same way (submitting to the authority of pronouncements and edicts espoused by figureheads). Let's called these groups the Enlightened and the Authoritarians.
The precise terms of the debate may vary, but its form does not - the Enlightened appeal to the rights of the individual, the Authoriatarians appeal to some nominal greater good (whether that be some higher power, or a supposed Big Idea doesn't really matter).
And of course there are extremists and moderates on both sides - Enlightened individuals who wish to tear the scales from the eyes of everybody; Authoritarians who recognise that their Authority may not be for everyone.
As an Enlightened individual, I think there are two important points to bear in mind:
- diversity is crucial - if we all drink from the same spring, and that spring is poisoned, then we all die. Two real world examples: the Irish potato famine (where potato blight destroyed a whole crop because all the potatoes had been propagated vegetatively - all the plants were clones, so they were all susceptible to the same strain of disease); and the recent Melissa virus.
- not everyone needs choice - there are a lot of people in the middle who don't care; they just want to live their lives. Forcing them to Choose will just alienate them and (perhaps) drive them towards the short term comfortable choice.
Still - that's my tuppence ha'penny (getting on for sixpence three farthings...)Man always overcomes. (Score:1)
When you examine the greater portion of it though, the material accomplishments of Man are mostly positive, and in every age we strive to make ourselves into better beings. Freedom comes from that internal struggle between our base and higher instincts.
No external bond can negate that which is won internally. The external world can only assist or hinder the struggle which we all must engage in to become truly free and human. Those who chose not to try, relegate themselves to a world forever dominated by the external.
Don't fear the Christians. (Score:1)
Read a good book lately?
Some clarifications or reason would help (Score:1)
"I do not 'look down' upon those whose views are different than my own. I do, however, hold in contempt an institution (or idea) that has resulted in the slaughter of so many innocent people."
Perhaps you would do better to place the fault into the hands of those that committed the atrocities. Remember, just because it was in the name of religion does not mean that it was what the religion espouses... I wish I could remember the passage, but, since I can't, I suggest you re-read the Gospels (I am only saying this since the religion in reference is Christianity; do the say with the like documents for other religions).
"Please back that up. Here's my justification.
Crusades:Let's see, the Crusades were two things(I'm making a generalization here):
#1:The Church needed a distraction, a rallying point to bring in warring factions...
#2:The Church (as always) needed money. Who better to get it from than the Infidels that occupied the Holy Land?"
Let us also examine the Islamic jihads, the Hindu v. Buddhism, the Shinto v. Confusicism/Taoist, the Celtic v. Everyone, and the various African religions v. everyone conflicts. One might initially say that religion is the single common thread. In reality, what is religion but a unifying system of morals and beliefs for a culture? Once together, they begin scheming, and will often use the very religion that unites them to justify their actions, even if that religion does not endorse such activities. My point is, look to the fault within man first; there is the root of the problem.
- G.
Ok... (Score:1)
"At least in the Koran, it explicitly gives permission to strike down one's enemies. In the Bible,that is left up to interpretation. The difference between the two, while subtle, is in part my beef with the Church."
I must profess my knowledge of other religions than Christianity beyond the general overview of then is lacking, but I have heard about that passage in the Koran. As far as the the Christian Bible (and to a certain extent the Judaic Torah), it is that interpretation bit that riles me. Those very passages you have mentioned have always , in my eyes, pertain to those that would harm the followers of the church, whether they are Christians of not; God has promised to save those of his flock ("Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him" - Revelations 3:20). It is unfortunate that many overzealous leaders through centuries have taken these same messages and applied them in a heavy-handed manner, turning on anyone who does not view it the same (for my interpretations I have given here, I would be branded a heretic). All I can see now to try and remedy through action, although it is difficult to have a culture put aside 2000 years of history and re-examine their faith. I feel though, that through that very action, fewer people outside of Christianity will feel then need to lash out in a justified self-defense. It is that very principle that the founding fathers of the USA were striving for; not necessarily separation of church and state (which is a 20th Century Supreme Court ruling, BTW, not a tenant of the Constitution) but understanding and the ability to live without fear of persecution. In a way, I think the Internet enhances this; the anonymity it provides gives the users a chances to flesh out, and seek out their own beliefs, giving them confidence in them and allowing them to eventually bring them forth, off the Net, and into the sun.
- G.
Information vs Knowledge (Score:1)
There is a difference between access to information and knowledge (although the latter somewhat depends on the former). To some extent, mere access to information (such as words on
So we need to learn how to present information in a manner that the viewer understands truth leading to knowledge. Any illuminating view needs the underlying data/information available for independent analysis and signed by its creator to expect credibility.
Some may recognize some influence of the notions of Edward Tufte, professor of statiscal evidence, information and interface design, at Yale University in this epistle.
Good article, but is it right?? (Score:1)
Of course wether he's right and the net is the new enlightenment we wont know for a long time to come, but it seems to me that this revolution is a lot less to do with the philosophy of freedom and a lot more to do with acheiving it (at least within the infosphere). A change of time, a change of emphisis.
In the end... (Score:1)
In the end... (Score:1)
Personally I'd say that freedom to do what I want is far more important because 1) it makes me feel good to do what I want to do and I am happy to live my life the way I want to even with all the character flaws I'm sure I have, and 2) because it allows me to help other people achieve freedom thus giving other people the chance to be happy.
Only having mental freedom means I can accept who and what I am and be happy in myself, but I cant pass that happiness on without freedom of action.
Open Source: no, /. :yes (Score:1)
"I know that I am insignificant to the Universe at large and my actions can not even in my wildest dreams hope to affect the whole of it, but can any one of you PROVE to me, that this Universe will continue to exist without me and that I am not truly at its center."
~the Just Made this Up files--Wah
What isn't right. (Score:1)
"From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs"
Take away men's motivation and all they have or can do, and give to those who won't help themselves. Yea people will love that one.
language barriers. (Score:1)
http://babelfish.altavista.com/
kewl things the net can do #1,098,428,324
Language Beauty (Score:1)
off topic inquiry.. (Score:1)
..and nice post, good to see katz called on rewriting history to more closely fit his position.(although it will make most
The Philosophy of Free (Score:2)
Without question the overriding dogma of our (American) society is the corporation. The Corporate culture if you will. The embodiment of capitalism in an individual (how corporations are treated by law). Now this structure is being directly challenged in one area where the product simply does not support any previously built model, information.
Our capacity to process and disseminate as well as replicate information has reached what I would have to believe is near the null point. I mean, could it get much easier to share a single thought or bit of information with the entire world (besides lacking the serving power). Becuase of this any good idea can be quickly spread and incorporated into daily lives. Bad ideas have the same potential, but often their nature is their ultimate undoing. To go take it literally, the EnLIGHTenment grows as each person shares the light bulb of eureka with their peers, family, and any random schmoe with a Net connection and some time.
Becuase of the Digital nature of this Age, information can be reproduced ad infinitum, and when the supply is infinite, no matter what the demand, the price is zero. I have seen many times the argument, or distinction, between Frees (speech and beer). Yet what about a speech about beer, or more to the point how to make beer. One can, in a special situation, lead to the other directly. This is what we have HERE
I was suprised that Katz didn't mention a good example of our new (gnu) culture directly clashing with the old. Linux vs. Windows is the perfect example of a real-time battle between the power of status quo (profit taking corporations) and the power of change (OSS). Even in the face of indisputable fact many will stay with their eyes tight shut against the light, merely becuase that's the way they think it should be, because that's the way it has always been.
(of course you all know this, but it's still fun to say)
What else to say....oh yeah, if you like music go get MP3Spy [mp3spy.com] before the lawyers do. Another example of information (in this case, art) wanting to be free.
Sapere Aude (Score:1)
This was a force that had ultimate authority for over a millenium. Martin Luther, almost unwittingly, knocked that authority down.
Today, there are hundreds of Christian religions. Centuries have passed, and the Roman Catholic Church has not regained the total eminence that they had.
The moral: the Big Boys will often enter the new arenas. They will not often dominate them as they did the old arenas.
Fear is too easy of a response... (Score:1)
I can't understand why
I liked Katz's article, I found his parallels amusing at the very least. I in fact did not see it as a slam to any religion since all he did was point out accepted historical facts. I have only one question, why must an "Age Of Enlightenment" have to destroy religions, why can it not expound on them and help us become more accepting of each other ? It would seem the more enlightened you are, the less you would look down on those different than you.
The more you look down on someone the better the chance they aren't looking up to you.
___________________________________________
Can We trust the future - Flesh99
Missed point.........off target (Score:1)
I do, however, hold in contempt an institution (or idea) that has resulted in the slaughter of so many innocent people.
The institution you speak of is the Catholic Church, which is entirely seperate from the protestant church.
The Inquisition:
An attempt to finaly quash the last remaining vestages of Goddess-type worship
You will find that they (the Catholic Church) not only went after Goddess worship, but they also attacked any non-Catholic believers they found along their way. The Inquisition was an assault on anything non-Catholic, be it Goddess religion, multi-deity religion, or Christian churches that did not believe that the Catholic Church was right. For those reasons I feel it necessary to distinguish between Catholic and non-Catholic Christians.
As a side note I do not believe that any hate crime laws are good, all they do is make one race more important than another, and one of the precepts I believe is that we are all equal.
_______________________________________________
Can We trust the future - Flesh99
non-Catholic Christians != Blameless (Score:1)
Vengence is mine saith the Lord (notice it does not vengence is yours)
Judge not lest ye be judged
Love thy neighbor as thyself(nope no qualifiers on neighbor here)
I feel that one sects purposful mis-interpretation of the Bible for their own political gain should not cast a shadow on the other followers of that religion(not aying that Protestants are perfect in the least, that is another discussion)
So the past atrocities are the fault of all Christians, that akin to saying that the enslavement of African-Americans is the fault of all whites. So the division of the two sects in this case is one that is necessary because the Catholic Church was acting as more than a church at the time in question, and using religion and the public lack of access to the Bible to commit these atrocities.
How can you not seperate the two when one persecuted the other, that alone would almost serve as a dividing line.
_______________________________________________
Can We trust the future - Flesh99
non-Catholic Christians != Blameless (Score:1)
_______________________________________________
Can We trust the future - Flesh99
non-Catholic Christians != Blameless (Score:1)
(Not to be Inflammitory:This is a dangerous statement used to prove a point, not to insult)
Which denomination(s) perform clinic bombings again? I seem to have forgotten..."
I see your point but in todays society the people who would bomb clinic is a severe minority, and prove your satement no more than judging the black race on the actions of The Nation of Islam or the Black Panthers
""So the past atrocities are the fault of all Christians, that akin to saying that the enslavement of African-Americans is the fault of all whites."
Not the fault of all Christians, but the fault of the foundation of Christianity. If the foundation is flawed, then the house will fall, no matter how good the builder or how sturdy the material"
Those who mis-interpret the base should not be used a qualifier for the whole.
"Therefore, I must look back to the actions of the institution and the members of said institution; that is my guide. Understandably, not all Christians are bad. But as a majority, taken from factual, historical information, I must conclude that the institution is bad, if it compells people to do some of the things they do"
I cannot see the Crusades or the Inquisition as actions of the majority, they were mostly political actions carried out by the Catholic in their ever ceasing search for power that has no Biblical basis(once again Protestants aren't perfect either). As a majority...hmmm....OK let me clarify I do not judge a Catholic by the actions of his Church, nor a Protestant by the actions of a fanatic. You are judging a whole group of people by the actions of the few. The Catholic Church was/is/will be a government for some and a Church for many, do you judge the Germans by Hitlers acts. Hitler was elected by a popular vote, yet we don't still hate Germans. It seems that if it is a religion you would rather judge the whole than the idividual(I could be wrong, no insult intended).
As for the atrocities committed by the Catholic Church, the common man was denied access to the Bible and therefore was led to believe only what the "Church" wanted him to hear. The base of the Catholic religion is only very loosely based on the Bible. I still see a very definitive line between the Catholic Church and the Protestant Denomonations. If you want to blame anything blame human nature, the lust for power, etc. There will always be fanatics, and they will always do what they will
I will however refuse comment on situation in Ireland as it hits very close to home and I would be forced even farther off topic to rant about my views. (Funny thing I kinda side with the Catholics in Ireland, but only politically)
_______________________________________________
Can We trust the future - Flesh99
Un-Grrrrrrrrr................ (Score:1)
_______________________________________
Can We trust the future - Flesh99
non-Catholic Christians != Blameless (Score:1)
________________________________________
Can We trust the future - Flesh99
Freedom, within limits (Score:2)
The same type of thing is being done to the web. You can visit any number of sites that speak of empowerment, yet most of them have as their sole goal the selling of eyeballs to advertisers. The stories that are written, and the forums that are provided, are dictated by what will serve the advertisers the best, not what will serve the users the best. Yet again, the look and feel of freedom is used to coat a loss of freedom.
We're all being given freedom in many areas, but only within strict limits set down by who profit from our behavior. We can indeed get around that through the online medium, but we still have to be careful. We still have to keep on our toes, and always ask ourselves what the forum we're participating in is really about.
-Joe
"Pick and mix" philosphy (Score:1)
I think it would have been better to give links to some background reading to those of us who are interested in philosophical points he makes. (after all computing is one of the main areas where philosophers find work).
Then people could find out that Kant and Hume (two names thrown in the hat), rather than agreeing, were pretty much apposed.
"Kant gives a number of arguments to show that Hume's empiricist positions are untenable because they necessarily presupposes the very claims they set out to disprove. In fact, any coherent account of how we perform even the most rudimentary mental acts of self-awareness and making judgments about objects must presuppose these claims, Kant argues. Hence, while Kant is sympathetic with many parts of empiricism, ultimately it cannot be a satisfactory account of our experience of the world."
To use philosphers names to add weight to a piece, does Katz, philosophers and us a disservice.
and to use them to put forward some idea that all philosophers think alike is particularly bad.
philosphers != enlightenment != anti christian
Fear is too easy of a response... (Score:1)
Hmmm??
One million?
Ten million?
Half a billion?
How many of my ancestors died because of "God, Gold, and Glory"?
How many of yours did???
While I truly respect Martin Luther, that doesn't change the fact that the Church is the largest mass-murdering orginization this world has ever known.
Why?
Because some people actually thought for themselves.
Because some people were never given the FREEDOM to think or choose.
Because some people were the wrong race, gender, creed, or just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Fear the Christians?
I think not..
Freewill (Score:1)
their lives. Forcing them to Choose will just alienate them and (perhaps) drive them towards the short term
comfortable choice. "
'You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill.
I will choose a purpose clear; I will choose freewill."
--Rush, Freewill
I'm sorry... (Score:1)
"It would seem the more enlightened you are, the less you would look down on those different than you"
I do not 'look down' upon those whose views are different than my own. I do, however, hold in contempt an institution (or idea) that has resulted in the slaughter of so many innocent people.
"I think that if you look you will find that other "Crusade" style wars have happened thoughout history that were not
based on Christianity."
Please back that up. Here's my justification.
Crusades:Let's see, the Crusades were two things(I'm making a generalization here):
#1:The Church needed a distraction, a rallying point to bring in warring factions...
#2:The Church (as always) needed money. Who better to get it from than the Infidels thet occupied the Holy Land?
How many died?
The Inquisition:
An attempt to finaly quash the last remaining vestages of Goddess-type worship.
How many burned?
How many were raped?
The conquest of the 'New World':
'God, Gold, and Glory', though not in that order.
How many of my people died?
How many still die?
"I would think that geeks wouldn't
care about each others religion nor lower ourselves to the level of attacking someones beliefs. "
Again, I am not 'attacking' anyone. My father's pastor is a man whom I hold the deepest respect for. I can agree with most everything he preaches. I am attacking the close-mindedness of the religion that causes so many to die. And I'm not 'bashing' Christianity. Just look to the middle east. How many still die there? Does Christianity play into it? Yes, but that's not the only thing.
"In fact you might even do well to seperate Catholic and Protestant and not lump them all
together under the banner of "Christian", better yet, why not break it down into the factions that it truly is, the
denomonations."
In the same way you would have me break down murder in the US by race, right? The point is not about denomonation, it is about the precept. How many Protestants killed Catholics in Ireland today? How many white people killed black people today?
"I in fact did not see it as a slam to any religion
since all he did was point out accepted historical facts."
You got that right, at least.
Ok... (Score:1)
just because it was in the name of religion does not mean that it was what the religion espouses... I wish I could
remember the passage, but, since I can't, I suggest you re-read the Gospels (I am only saying this since the religion in
reference is Christianity; do the say with the like documents for other religions). "
Agreed, fault does go to those individuals who committed said atrocities.
However, what can one expect when a God-figure says 'I am the way, and the truth, and the light; man cannot reach the Father save through me' (I know, the quote's off; I don't have my Bible handy) What that means is that if you are not a Christian (meaning 'Christ-like') and if you do not believe that Christ is your savior, then you go to Hell.
Simple as that.
I think that that quote (along with 'Veangence(sp?) is mine' and 'If a church teaches one falsehood, then all of its teachings are untrue') went a long way towards the slaughters.
At least in the Koran, it explicitly gives permission to strike down one's enemies. In the Bible, that is left up to interpretation. The difference between the two, while subtle, is in part my beef with the Church.
non-Catholic Christians != Blameless (Score:1)
...And therefore blameless??? I feel that the book that is the basis of the religion (Catholic or Protestant) is the catylist of the killing. Remember the parable of the man who built his house on a foundation of sand? Same principal applies.
"As a side note I do not believe that any hate crime laws are good, all they do is make one race more important than another, and one of the precepts I believe is that we are all equal."
Agreed. Anything that sets one above another for things out of one's control (race, heritage, eye color) is a Bad Thing(tm).
To a point... (Score:1)
non-Catholic Christians != Blameless (Score:1)
So abortion clinic bombings and the murder of those who perform abortions are in the past?
"How can you not seperate the two when one persecuted the other, that alone would almost serve as a dividing line."
(Not to be Inflammitory:This is a dangerous statement used to prove a point, not to insult)
Which denomination(s) perform clinic bombings again? I seem to have forgotten...
"So the past atrocities are the fault of all Christians, that akin to saying that the enslavement of African-Americans is the fault of all whites."
Not the fault of all Christians, but the fault of the foundation of Christianity. If the foundation is flawed, then the house will fall, no matter how good the builder or how sturdy the material.
"I feel that one sects purposful mis-interpretation of the Bible for their own political gain should not cast a shadow on the other followers of that religion(not aying that Protestants are perfect in the least, that is another discussion)"
No, it should not. How many
To a point... (Score:1)
Good point.
Would it be different if they killed in the name of linux?
Ok... (Score:1)
And me. While I have to agree with you on the whole, I still have a tough time being that optimistic, as we have already established the innate 'bad' nature of man earlier in this thread. To expect a person to believe that Christ walked on water or the parting of the Red Sea is to also expect them to take everything else in the Bible at face value. The lowest common denominator in this case amounts to genocide, xenocide, and a few other -ocides. Maybe I'm being a bit simplistic, but if one will take the Bible at face value, then I must take the Bible and the Institution at face value as well.
Grrrrrr... (Score:1)
"OK let me clarify I do not judge a Catholic by the actions of his Church, nor a Protestant by the actions of a fanatic."
Agreed.
"You are judging a whole group of people by the actions of the few."
No. I am not judging the people. (The murderers, yes, a Christian, no) I am judging the Institution as a whole. Let's put it this way; I belive the US Government is pretty corrupt, but I do not believe that every politition is corrupt. Irregardless of the *people* the Government is what is corrupt. (I won't get into my views on US politico here. More than I could type in a day
It goes like this...
* Bible is flawed and ambiguous ->
* Man reads bible and is forced to take everything at face value ->
* Since Man's nature is essentially bad(according to the Bible and comments earlier in this thread), Man will
take the worst interpretation ->
* Fighting, carnage, and bloodshed ensue ->
* Repeat ad nauseam...
Those in the Church who rise above their baser instincts are truly a credit to the Institution as a whole; however, that doesn't change the fact that the Institution and the Concept are flawed.
See???
Back to the Internet (with the religion tacked on) (Score:1)
Very good. Actually, I am a little concerned. I've seen some sites that espouse hatred and closed-mindedness. My only concern would be those with little interest in searching(cattle, as it were) attaching the sum of their beliefs to the first radical (different, not necessarily extreme) thing they find. If they search no farther, then this nifty 'Internet thingie' is wasted.
OTOH, the Internet has been proven(ish, no real scientific study) to foster learning across broad ranges of subject matter. I just hope that this concept will apply to those searching for something to believe in...
In the end... (Score:1)
well at least in your mind if you want to be"
- Sly and the Family Stone
Enlightenment? (Score:1)
To go beyound the "Holy Circle" indecates the voyage out of our known reality with the own mind-body-energy complex and to become adult and aware of the possible higher level of existence. Fooling around with uncommon aspects of the current reality does not mean adopting a new one, it simply means exploring the actual reality. The borders of this are the "Holy Circle". Some aspects of the outside are known but only less people can afford the power to cross the line. And if they did, few of them will tell you (forget it I have not
Science knows little about the borders of our world. Internet may uncover the whole spectrum of reality and even the way to beyond, but it is not enlightening itself, nor does it reduce your way. But it may provide new ways to enlightenment and their avatars surely will take them. Do not expect the sum of the Avatars will rise because there are new ways. We will only get the freedom of new choices.
Anyway the net has given us Linux. This is a spiritual topic in the way that thousands of idealistic programmers invested thousands of hours , their creativity and knowledge to bring it up and make it something special. This is the living spirituality of the rightous.
What I am sure of is, that the net has the capability to re-establish a healthy kind of spirituality hand in hand with science. This might be one of the factors to break the circle for the whole mankind.
best regards
Slowhand
PS: please forgive me my poor english...