Hi out there just joined this. Does anyone know if there are as yet any interesting books or articles on philosophical approaches to social networking?
Recent Updates Page 3 RSS Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts
-
Gary Banham
-
Evan
Judgment – I am wondering what all your thoughts are regarding judging the way people use social media. Top trends on Twitter this week:
* New Moon.
* Modern Warfare
* #theresway2manys.
* #youmightbealiberal
* #youknowyouruglyifBy making communication easy, are we hurting its value? I think by making communication easy we are expanding the human connection, maybe even getting closer. But I wonder about what we share, and what that means…
-
Evan
And that’s Modern Warfare the video game, not discussion around warfare in the modern age, of course.
-
thePuck
I would argue that by opening the methods of communication and making it easier, what we are doing is adding bandwidth to social knowledge. In the past knowledge was held by a privileged few, then with the advent of the printing press that few became much larger. In the same way, knowledge is now in the hands of more and more people. Since there is more bandwidth to use to pass around information, the premium on that bandwidth is much lower, hence the frivolousness of those topics.
Consider: paper was once at such a commodity that books were reused by scraping the ink off the parchment. Only the most necessary messages and information was written down, because the bandwidth for social knowledge (abstractions encoded so people can communicate over time and distance) was at such a premium.
More bandwidth is good. Who is to say what set of information someone else will find useful?
-
Evan
Good insight – and I agree that more bandwidth is better, and easy communication has reaped many benefits.
But it was not long after the printing press that we saw Yellow Journalism arrive…
Easy media is also more easy to manipulate.
I wonder, what is on the otherside of the pendulum swing? to counteract easy information, there must exist or arise, an even more exclusive source of information that is more valued simply due to it’s scarcity.
-
-
-
Leon
Patterns of recognition
We have to notice that message of the media have always had /possesed information that man and media are one entity. That kind of information would be cool, iconic, spherically media, because of incorporation into one idea of man, nature, society and culture.
In that case all the rest of the patterns of recognition would have some sort of circlessness, spheressness, we would say and curve no matter they were founded on the effects of mechanical technology, which is linear, or under the effect of organic technology, inclusive, circle and synaesthetic.
Thus, the patterns of recognition of typographic culture, founded on the effect of Gutenberg print, must have that cooler part as well, because the print, no matter being hot itself, have had within its message end cool information-that the media is a part of a man.
It seems to me that the very moment has not been discovered yet. So, in the typographic culture patterns of recognition have been created, unconsciously, only in harmony with visible side of the objective nature of print, and that is specialism, fragmentation, individualization.
Curve is not incorporated, so the typographic patterns of recognition are not enough precise and correct. There is a hidden reality behind them, and that reality would be discovered if the synaesthetic part of print-that the media is a part of man-was appreciated.
Patterns of recognition in mathematics, biology, chemistry, physics…have to have curve and only then they could be good tools to discover reality: chemical, physical, biological, etc.
The medium is physics and chemistry. When the medium is undergoing the change, both physical and chemical reality is undergoing the change. Curve of space-time has been discovered in the phase of the emphasizing of a hot, mechanical media into a cool, collectivistic, organic media. Though, typographic patterns of recognition have had to be in the start curved and spherically, and not only based on the intrinsic values of print-individualization, specialism and fragmentation. They didn’t incalculated cool part of the message of print-that media is a part of man. Had they done it, that patterns would have been more correct and precise.
They discovered only linear, fragmented and segmented reality, analytically distincted and categorized. For example, chemic elements are not discovered precisely ie. their connections between atoms and molecules. They have to carry some dosage of circlesness, not only explosive specialism, fragmentation and individualization. The non-correct patterns of recognition had been constructed.
In the phase of television, patterns of recognition became more cooler and more non-correct. It was, in postmodernism, the action of deconstruction of not good enough constructed typographic patterns of recognition. Why? Because objective nature of television did not allow that and again it was not confessed that the media is a part of man. Objective nature of television and electric technology is not synaesthetic, tactile. Without individualism there is no synaesthesy. And there is no real individualism in the culture of television. Neotribalism is not possible without an individualism. Cool television is only a half-cool, synaesthetic media and there is a weaker specialization of man, society, nature and culture under its influence. Television takes civilization into a nothing, nihilism and disappearances.
Television patterns of recognition are false because that did not confirm that media is a part of man; because they are created upon the effects of fake cool media; because they deconstructed not enough precise constructed typographic patterns of recognition.
When it comes to the Internet, science must also confirm its superindividualistic side, and not only collectivistic.
Science must confirm that media and man are one. If it doesn’t, patterns of recognition will be more and more non-correct.
In that case, human gene is under the deconstruction, and humankind will destroy itself and will face the biological disappearance.
Leonid Zuvic, communicologist
Contact: lznovinereporter@gmail.com
-
thePuck
Interesting post, sir. I very much agree that the mediums by which the narrative of reality and culture are communicated are affecting that narrative. I think it’s hard to make value-judgments about it, though, because we have to use the narrative to do so…it’s like trying to judge the accuracy of a lens using itself as a basis for comparison. This is an epistemological problem that, I think, is existential to humans; we have to use knowledge to judge knowledge, and it’s just elephants all the way down. If we define knowledge as “justified, true belief” then knowledge is impossible because it can never be justified.
-
Evan
I think it is still unclear if knowledge truly is possible. As we are learning at the quantum level, things we would have considered concrete, like location in space, are not real. Maybe media -which seems to be a driving purpose of humans on earth (I know that’s a big statement, which probably deserves an explanation) is only mirroring that reality
-
thePuck 1:06 pm on May 9, 2010 Permalink |
Not that I know of. This blog was the first attempt I have ever seen to address the philosophical issues pertaining to social media, and I am discontinuing it due to lack of interest soon. The archives will be available on my own site at some point, nealjansons.com.