Digital Natives

[lizbethrose]

Okay, Moreno--Although I'm leery about 'popular science,' which is mentioned in all the reviews, I had my daughter put it on hold for me at the library. At least we'll be on the same page.

[d63]

I do think one can use these media in good ways. My negative reaction is to the overall trend for most people. I love the access I have to information and music. Truly.

But what I notice in society as a whole I find disturbing. In my minirant I forget the whole ipod cellphone music omni-entertainment. People are adding music to every activity - often I think, because they really don't like the activity.

So it's the overall massive use where information is pouring into people's heads and images and music are pouring in all the time, that I think is damaging.

Yes, I tend to agree with you on this. One has to wonder if this need to fill the mind with constant external noise doesn't shut us off from the meditative and creative benefits of silence. I know, when I'm focused on writing, the audio-books have to stay off. And even though music can sometimes supplement the creative process, turning that off can also have it's benefits. I have to let my mind fill the silence with its own inventions.

Parallel to this is the issue of boredom. It may well be that young people are growing up without knowing the benefits to be gained from it. Always having something to keep them entertained, it would seem they would never exercise their ability to invent ways to keep themselves occupied.

But this was just a quick flyby. I'll try to go further into this tomorrow. Hopefully I'll have time to think about it in between listening to Hume's Inquiry.

[Typist]

Hmm...

I sense it would benefit us to take a few steps back, and try to take in the bigger picture.

As it stands, our discussion is sort of the equivalent of a conversation we might have had in 1920 about the emergence of radio technology, or a 1950 conversation about the then new television technology. While it's true that both radio and TV did have a significant cultural impact worth discussing, it's also true that both are now being eclipsed in importance by an even more powerful communications medium.

What this bigger picture tells us is that the current moment too is just another bus stop on a very long journey. The current fascination with cell phones, ipads, twitter and facebook etc will also pass, to be replaced by something else, which will be replaced by something else, which too will pass etc etc.

A big picture factor that we might consider is that the rate of technological change is probably accelerating. We shouldn't just assume that we'll always be able to keep up with the rate of change. If we can't keep up with the coming technology driven social changes, they may be very disruptive.

A current example might be the key role new communications technology is playing in the Arab Spring. Of course we hope these changes will be positive, but that's far from certain at this point. Not only is the political system being turned upside down with unpredictable and often bloody results, but traditional family and clan based societies are being subjected to a hurricane of outside cultural influences which threaten the foundations of their culture. This is a huge factor in extremism as some struggle desperately to navigate these transitions.

From the bigger picture viewpoint, the key factor may be the nature of knowledge itself. Consider a jig saw puzzle. The more pieces of the puzzle one has in place, the faster the completion of the puzzle goes. What's wrong with this analogy is that the puzzle is eventually completed, and then the rate of change stops.

I think it's indisputable that technology driven cultural changes will edit the mind. To argue otherwise would be to ignore Charles Darwin. It's clear our minds can and will adapt to new environments, as they've always done.

What's less clear is whether our ancient minds can adapt as fast as an ever accelerating rate of technological change. Can we keep up?

If not, are we smart enough to say, this rate of change is good, but faster rates are not, so we're applying the brakes. Do we even know how to apply the brakes?

[d63]

The process of creativity has always involved one of going through a series of creative hymens, or elastic barriers. It's always a matter of pushing into it, only to have it form against our face or head, then have it push us back, that is until we somehow weaken it enough to break though. It's no wonder that we feel a sense of doom and gloom after breaking through and only find another one to break through -and such a feeling of relief when we do manage it (a kind of jouissance). This is what allows someone like Baudrillard to say that there is nothing new under the sun, that all we can do is play with the fragments, or Fukyama to say that we have reached the end of history. Imagine the sense of relief that would give us. Our history has always been so much work. Why wouldn't we be exhausted in the face of it?

Anyway, I used up my window on another string.



Sorry guys.

[d63]

It's not a question of whether we should cooperate with Capitalism:





Capitalism pushes us to levels we never would have achieved without it.



(it certainly did so with Marx






(It's a question of making Capitalism cooperate with us.

[lizbethrose]

May I be the first to admit I've made some mistakes in this thread because I really didn't understand what d63 wanted to discuss. That's no excuse, sir! Anyway, I came across a Bill Moyer interview with Martin Kaplan, PhD., one of the founding Directors of the Norman Lear Center. His premise is the technology is and has effected our overall culture--that we have become a culture of entertainment. One of the telling things was when he showed two Time magazine covers--both of which were issued on the same day, one in Europe and one in the US. The cover of the European edition showed a picture (and cover story) of a European political leader. The cover of the US edition showed a dog and cat--the cover story was about "Animal Friendships."

My question then is, are we dumbing down our culture, or are the media doing it for us?

I googled Martin Kaplan and found only one article about him. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marty-kap ... 72003.html

There are also a couple of Utube videos I haven't had the time, yet, to watch--but I will. I also read that Sci-Fi movie producers are going to hire 'science advisers to ensure the movies are more scientifically accurate.

[d63]

May I be the first to admit I've made some mistakes in this thread because I really didn't understand what d63 wanted to discuss. That's no excuse, sir!

In a jam, what we usually work from is sense of what the other is doing. It cannot possibly be exactly what they are doing, because, one, we cannot possibly see it all from their eyes (we can only speculate), and, secondly, we‘re generally too preoccupied with what we’re doing (because it takes so much energy) to actually focus on what the other is doing –and to focus on what we are doing, as an individual, would be obstacle enough to creative flow.

The cool thing about it, though, is that we generally work towards a common understanding. It just takes time. We have to be both diligent and loose.

So there’s no need to make an excuse.

Anyway, I came across a Bill Moyer interview with Martin Kaplan, PhD., one of the founding Directors of the Norman Lear Center. His premise is the technology is and has effected our overall culture--that we have become a culture of entertainment. One of the telling things was when he showed two Time magazine covers--both of which were issued on the same day, one in Europe and one in the US. The cover of the European edition showed a picture (and cover story) of a European political leader. The cover of the US edition showed a dog and cat--the cover story was about "Animal Friendships."

My question then is, are we dumbing down our culture, or are the media doing it for us?

The only answer I can give to your question:

We’re still here.

As you pointed out, Europe is a more mature culture. It’s not that we’re dumbing down our culture. It’s that there are a lot of people in this country that don’t want to go through the trouble we do. And who can blame them? But I don’t need every worker in the country to read Das Kapital to know they’re being exploited. We all have a purpose. And while most people are here to just get by, we’re here for something more. We’re here to articulate the praxis that is already in motion. It feels like we’re losing, I know. But that’s only because the powers that be seem louder because they own the means of communication. But the conservatives have always had to adapt to the truth the progressives arrived at before them. That’s because there was no way around it. We said labor should be treated better, and they had to adapt. We said that blacks should be equal, and they had to adapt. We said women should be treated better; they had to adapt. We said that we better take care of our environment, and they had to adapt. It may not be completely what we wanted. But progressives have always been the truth to their veil of fantasy.

Not too long ago, the conservatives could get away with saying the word “socialism” as if it should immediately set off psycho shrieks. They were basically using cold war tactics 20+ years after the Berlin Wall fell. “You can’t do that, that’s SOCIALISM”. REEK! REEK! REEK! But on a recent episode of Bill Maher’s Real Time, I heard the director of Sarah Palin’s documentary, a Tea Partier, say:

The rich and the poor benefit from socialism, while the middle class struggle under grinding Capitalism.

Of course, the guys a complete moron given that he still supports policies that support his corporate masters. But the main point here is that this is a big change in strategy. It means that the conservatives are losing the ability to use the term “socialism” in a way that no longer worked in European Countries a long time ago.

Relevant to the point you made: we are going through a phase that every other western industrialized nation has had to go through: we have to step down from above other nations and take our place among them. And it will feel like apocalypse. But we’ll be all the better for it.

Even if Romney, another frat-boy with a Christ complex, does get elected, all it will be is a last gasp.

[d63]

The arrogance of Capitalism will push people into a corner:



and there is nothing more dangerous than a cornered animal.

[d63]

[d63]

When they speak for corporate freedom:


they equally speak for worker oppression.

[d63]

William F Buckly Jr., aristocrat that he was, despised the middle class.


As far as he was concerned,
They were why the 60's happened.

[d63]

And let's not fool ourselves here:

the most powerful form of social control has been through the workplace:


urine testing, smoking bans, and, the latest, wellness programs:


who really owns u?

[d63]

Or:





is it just all appearance






?

[d63]

I think I needed to get drunk:

the world hurt me.

Sorry about the rant.

[d63]

May I be the first to admit I've made some mistakes in this thread because I really didn't understand what d63 wanted to discuss. That's no excuse, sir! Anyway, I came across a Bill Moyer interview with Martin Kaplan, PhD., one of the founding Directors of the Norman Lear Center. His premise is the technology is and has effected our overall culture--that we have become a culture of entertainment. One of the telling things was when he showed two Time magazine covers--both of which were issued on the same day, one in Europe and one in the US. The cover of the European edition showed a picture (and cover story) of a European political leader. The cover of the US edition showed a dog and cat--the cover story was about "Animal Friendships."

My question then is, are we dumbing down our culture, or are the media doing it for us?

Herein lies the connection between producer/consumer Capitalism and the issue of digital media that keeps sending me off on my little rants. The problem here is that it’s not enough to report the news; it has to be sold as well. And I sometimes get the feeling that what we’re being sold is not so much what we want as what marketers think we want. And there may well be some manipulation at work. Furthermore, we live in an economy (as described by Naomi Klein in No Logos) that has gravitated away from the actual production of things and toward image and brand production. This is why our culture, in general, tends to offer this kind of candy coated perspective of the world. Hence: the reason that time chooses covers for us that make everything seem like we’re in one big TV commercial. This sensibility haunts CNN as well.

Another thing to look at as well is the growing pervasiveness of reality TV. I’m not so sure it’s a matter of what we actually want. It’s more matter of being able to produce these shows cheaply while attracting a large enough audience to make it profitable –even if that audience is not as big as one for a fully produced show.

But it really has been a repulsive process to watch. There was a time when the TLC was a learning channel, when A & E was about arts and entertainment, and when Bravo was the culture channel. We’re watching the same thing happen to the History Channel.

And it does have some detrimental effects. Our children, for instance, watch shows like Jersey Shore and MTV Beach Party, and mistakenly think that it is reality. They begin to compare with their own lives and think that it must somehow rise to that bar. Therefore, it becomes real hard for us, as parents, to get across to them that not everyone has the resources to live like that. Plus that, the whole thing tends to put people into a land-of-the-lotos-eaters type lull that makes it difficult for them to question the underlying assumptions at work. In a sense, it immerses them in their role as producer/consumers to such an extent that they lose the ability to get outside of it.

But as I said before, the intellectually curious still persist.

[d63]

Telling as well is the way we embrace every new technology like primates discovering fire.

[d63]

That said, I apologize for the rants. I've lately been studying Zizek's Veil of Fantasy that often ties the issue of digital technology and the hegemony of producer/consumer Capitalism together. Between him and Naomi Klein, I've been hanging with a bad influence as of late.

It just seems to me that you cannot talk about the influence of technology without talking about the influence of Capitalism as well.

[d63]

However, for it's negative effects, we still have to admit that Capitalism, and the technology it produces (especially computers and the internet), equally provides us with nomadic lines of flight.

[d63]

I do think one can use these media in good ways. My negative reaction is to the overall trend for most people. I love the access I have to information and music. Truly.

But what I notice in society as a whole I find disturbing. In my minirant I forget the whole ipod cellphone music omni-entertainment. People are adding music to every activity - often I think, because they really don't like the activity.

So it's the overall massive use where information is pouring into people's heads and images and music are pouring in all the time, that I think is damaging.

Yes, I tend to agree with you on this. One has to wonder if this need to fill the mind with constant external noise doesn't shut us off from the meditative and creative benefits of silence. I know, when I'm focused on writing, the audio-books have to stay off. And even though music can sometimes supplement the creative process, turning that off can also have it's benefits. I have to let my mind fill the silence with its own inventions.

Parallel to this is the issue of boredom. It may well be that young people are growing up without knowing the benefits to be gained from it. Always having something to keep them entertained, it would seem they would never exercise their ability to invent ways to keep themselves occupied.

But this was just a quick flyby. I'll try to go further into this tomorrow. Hopefully I'll have time to think about it in between listening to Hume's Inquiry.

The main concern I've been wanting to add to this is the way the technology allows us to multi-task like it does. As I said, like some techno-version of Marxian ideal, we can writing a blog in the morning, putting together a fully produced song in the afternoon, and putting together the cover art that afternoon. And we can do it all with a reasonable amount of quality. The problem this is that our cultural growth has traditionally been the product of a lot focus and commitment to singular projects. Take this and add it with a submission to Baudrillard's proclamation, that there is nothing new under the sun, that all we can do is play with the fragments of history, and you have to be concerned that we might turn to an aesthetic of the trend.

For example, one of the stations I tend to listen too a lot, Groove Salad, keeps me consistently entertained with a lot of ambient jazz. It's quality stuff that I'm sure is produced with computer technology by people who are working alone and multi-tracking the various instruments together. The only problem is, while most of it is good, not much of it really stands out. I don't tend to find the personal classics like I did back in the 90's when I had search everything out through compilation CDs.