The Net as the New Jerusalem 196
Wertheim says we live in a time marked by inequity, cynicism and fragmentation. She isn't the first or only social observer to point out that our civics are no longer sustained by a firm belief in our society, that we are no longer sure of its purpose. The primary message emanating from the current presidential campaign is that most Americans have lowered their modest expectations about politics, and now believe their government is dominated by a coalition of interests -- corporations, big media, political parties, lobbyists -- rather than by them.
Like true believers watching the sunset of the Holy Mother Church, we have a growing sense of political ennui and disintegration accompanied by a surreal air of prosperity. Some seek to fill this void with a yearning for traditional spirituality; others (like Wertheim) are coming to see cyberspace as a transformative new spiritual geography.
For all its stumbles and shortcomings, the new cyber-culture at its political heart has always had a clear sense of purpose: freedom of speech and thought; the interactive and open distribution and liberation of information; the exploration and development of creative new technologies, the shared creation of a culture with its own particular values.
In response to the decline of old notions of politics and society, Weirtheim writes in her provocative new book, "The Pearly Gates of Cyberspace," Americans in particular look to religion and spirituality for grounding in their lives. She sees a palpable spiritual yearning -- reflected in the right-wing zeal of the Christian Coalition, in California-style mysticism, and in the pseudo-Native-Americanism of an executive retreat at a sweat lodge -- vibrating throughout U.S. society.
Wertheim sees cyberspace as part of a continuum dating to medieval times, through the discovery of astronomical space in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, to the relativist conception of space in the twentieth century, and on to contemporary physicists' eerily beautiful ideas about hyperspace.
Wertheim believes this has brought us full circle. Once again, we have a physical space for the body to inhabit, and an ethereal space a number of people believe will ultimately become the home of the soul. She even goes so far as to suggest cyberspace will become the technological version of the Christian heaven.
It's a big idea, one many people will be attracted to. I think I see what Wertheim means, but can't quite enter this kingdom myself, or buy the notion of cyberspace as heaven. The world is probably ripe for this new techno-spiritualism, but it probably doesn't cover all generations. Perhaps it applies mostly to the disillusioned and fatigued Boomers, who talked about revolution and spirituality, but didn't quite achieve either. Now they rush to fill their moral void, to overcome their political disappointment by trying to infuse politics with some higher purpose, perhaps the highest of them all.
Boomers have a bad name at the moment, but they did -- some quite consciously -- lay a framework for a different kind of revolution, one they were able to pull off. They did the legwork and visionary planning, and built the preliminary distributed architecture, that became the Net. In a way, the Net is one of the Boomers' greatest legacies, though it would take the next generation to patch together the Web and push cyberspace to the next level. That turned out to be quite a leap.
But if you take Wertheim's idea and apply it to politics, the whole notion takes a new, highly relevant twist. Cyberspace may not be the gateway to heaven, but there is definitely a new kind of geography here, and we could well be witnessing the Birth of a Nation. Or at least, of a 51st state, a new sort of space with intensely political as well as spiritual significance.
Scholars like Wertheim see global and domestic politics going through a sea change. The kind of politics being played out by Bush-Gore-Nader and their anemic parties is clearly exhausted, overwhelmed by change and challenge. The process doesn't seem to have any purpose, and does suggest a culture whose political structure is in decline. Because the system has no moral purpose, it has no moral authority; a growing number of people ignore it. Online, an entire generation has grown up learning how not to take government seriously.
Cyberspace, writes Wertheim, is a completely new kind of space, a New Jerusalem, potentially welcoming male and female, First World and Third, "...is open to anyone who can afford a personal computer and a monthly Internet access fee ... many cyber-enthusiasts would have us believe that that the Net dissolves the very barriers of race and gender, elevating everybody equally to a disembodied digital stream."
This New Jerusalem stuff is appealing but, again, relates as powerfully to politics as spirituality.
Younger Americans, especially those who spent a large part of their lives as citizens of this new space, have mostly detached themselves from the institutions producing the last days of politics. They don't often read newspapers or follow the evening news or check out the newsmagazines. They don't see themselves as Republicans or Democrats, liberals or conservatives. There's a lot of earnest chatter about the importance of voting, but it's defensive. Mostly, people talk about voting to prevent something from happening: a certain person's being elected, the judiciary's being tilted too far in one direction or another. It's hard to find a citizen who's voting for something.
My own sense is that they are witnessing and participating in the birth of a different sort of nation, seeking not so much spiritual as moral and ethical renewal. We have the sense of being present at the revolution, even if it's not clear what kind of revolution. People are hungry not only for spirituality, but for a sense of purpose, and they don't see one advanced in the election.
The birth of any legitimate political system begins with a moral purpose, an ethical underpinning for existing. Some see cyberspace as a new kind of sacred space, and maybe they're right. Politically, it's an empty place waiting to be filled up. The people running the other system seem out of ideas and ethical impulses. Perhaps the void could be filled from within. Then cyberspace would, in fact, become the New Jerusalem Wertheim describes.
Next: Politics and ethical technology in the New Jerusalem
Oh great (Score:2)
So are there going to be car bombs? (Score:1)
-russ
Reality check? (Score:3)
But it's currently chuck full of commercial nonsense and porn pop-up ads, so I don't think we'll be seeing any of that happening soon.
I think Margaret Wertheim has been reading a bit too many Gibson novels. :-)
Re:Oh great (Score:1)
Ouch, will they 'settle' the Internet like they 'settled' in the middle east ? Throw me out of my flat and confiscate my computer and domain name ?
--
Why pay for drugs when you can get Linux for free ?
Maybe, judge for yourself (Score:1)
Some information (Score:1)
Yale is going to rock the world when we release the full study results next year.
Hmmn.. (Score:2)
That is a deeply well thought article full of more BS than I can comprehend.
God knows the last thing I want to think of is the internet as my final spiritual ground, you try having a LD relationship, or spending 20 hours straight on the net, you come to see that it is NOT whatever this author is depicting.
Anyways I just dont see this ladies point, I think the net is not mysterious enough for me...
Jeremy
Yes I read as much of the article as i could tolerate
Re:Reality check? (Score:3)
But it's currently chuck full of commercial nonsense and porn pop-up ads, so I don't think we'll be seeing any of that happening soon.
Replace "Net" with "Physical Reality". Pretty scary, huh?
Naive (Score:3)
Sure, the guys who got there first may have been great thinkers with their idealistic morals. And as the thing grew a new 'society' of sharing and cooperation sprung up. And then e- happened. Ignore the drugs warnings about 'E', the thing that's a bigger problem is 'e-'. Every advert on television has a www (stands for wank wank wank amongst the group of hackers I hang around with)
It's turning into another way for big corporation to shove adverts down our throats.
That's an entirely different thing from the new society some previously (naively) hoped for.
FatPhil
I wonder if in 20 years time there'll be web pages dedicated to "classic old web pages", like oldies' radio???
New Jerusalem (Score:3)
The Net gives us another community to exist in, but far too commonly at the expense of that which we already have. Whilst it can help build relationships with other people, even people we're never likely to even meet in real life, if we fail to build relationships with people in our own physical community then this is hardly improving our lives or society as a whole.
Despite the idea of a global village sounding appealing to many, in many ways the Net is causing us to become more insular.
Let's add it up, shall we? (Score:1)
"Politics:" used 8 times.
"Digital:: used only 1 time (thank God).
"Society": used 4 times.
"Techno-": used 3 times.
"Net" or "Internet": used 5 times.
Not as egregiously redundant as most KatzBait, but it's still pretty turgid and dull. It doesn't tell us a single thing we don't already know or that we couldn't wow our luncheon partner with over our V-8 and chicken salad.
Will Jon Katz ever write something that doesn't sound like it was dashed off first thing Saturday morning after watching "Johnny Quest" cartoons?
Who is Margaret Wertheim? (Score:3)
Jaded? (Score:3)
What is the trend in America regarding religion? Is it on the increase or on the decrease? It seems that many in Britain have quasi-religious beliefs, but define such things for themselves insofar as they do at all, is this happening in America?
KTB:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Programmer.
yup... it IS the new jerusalem.. (Score:3)
//rdj
Cyberspace caused this? (Score:2)
Re:Reality check? (Score:1)
Is God in the Net? (Score:3)
This might be considered off topic by some, but if you look carefully, it is actually right on topic.
Ever noticed how the Gibson books seem to progress toward a living matrix? Like at the end of Neuromancer Case is talking to the AI and it says it has BECOME the net. And he even sees a little ghost of himself walking around in the matrix with Neuromancer and Linda Lee. Ok.. now in Virtual Light, there's the character (Security Guard with all the allergies whose name escapes me) who grew up in a trailer park that believes that God is in the TV. (Neuromancer?) In Idoru we have the "walled city" which is a virtual community created out of a shared killfile (with the help of Neuromancer?) There are other examples in his other books, but it's too early for me to recall them.
Is god in the net? Well, philosophically speaking, yes. The Christian, Muslim & Hindu gods are generally looked at as being omnipotent (all powerful) and omnipresent (everywhere at once) and of course omniscient (all knowing). How could this be? Hindu philosophy suggests that GOD (a symbol) exists in each of us. If so, anywhere we project our consciousness (including when we place our awareness "online") there GOD (still a symbol) is.
In that sense, "heaven" is merely the place where our spirit comes to contentment and bliss. Heaven is really just a state of mind, not a place you go when you die. Most humans live in a state of mind called "hell" because they choose to focus on the negatives.
If you project your anger and fear and self-loathing onto the web, then it will be just as dark and dirty and unwholesome as you believe it will be.
If you project your good will and positive thoughts onto the web you just might find it heavenly.
(and that goes for any other kind of internal or external interaction)
If you want to be happy, think happy thoughts, and the world around you will get more and more beautiful.
If you want to be angry, think selfish, angry thoughts, and the world around you will get uglier and uglier.
-The Reverend (I am not a Nazi nor a Troll)
Oh my... (Score:1)
(heheh)
Net != Heaven (Score:2)
The Net is a tool. Nothing more. Looking to the Net for some sort of morality is ridiculous. It like looking to a hammer for some sort of guidance. The net is a powerful communications tool, but it is the people who make the net worthwhile.
As for creating a heaven on earth or the net creating a new revolution, I highly doubt it. To base a revolution on the net is pretty silly for two reasons:
1) People aren't very truthful on the net. That was the first leason I learned back in the days 2400 bps - people says stuff on the internet they don't believe and that they won't act on in real life.
2) You can shut the power off. No electricity, no internet. While I don't think the power is likey to go off and bring the net down, it is possible. Revolutions need a solid base, and that last time I checked, electrons didn't make a good base to build on.
provolt
Re:Some information (Score:2)
Since when did Politics = Spirituality? (Score:2)
Politics does not equal Spirituality. I vote for people (or ideas), not worship them. Can anyone expain how Katz jumped topics? Maybe there is a paragraph or two missing from the article?
errr (Score:1)
Oiiii stop that, somebody mod Jon as flamebait quick.
Re:Hmmn.. (Score:1)
Shit! Not another space cadet off to the "N. J." (Score:2)
People who "herald" anything as the New Jerusalem clearly don't read history, or philosophy.
Utopia, is Justice, is Reality, is Transcendence is a paradox. (The bold & caps are there for a reason.)
Its all verbal and mental masturbation and people who jerk off with such pifflage are idea murderers and the leading cause of their own unhappiness. And they're also more than willing to share that last attribute with you
Who is this person, and why should we care? (Score:1)
Please tell us so we can read these things for ourselves, and remember the Reading Rainbow refrain (paraphrased): "We shouldn't have to take your word for it."
You bet (Score:1)
Kiboism, the Temple of the Internet Oracle, the Church of the SubGenius, just to name a few....
And don't forget all those folks who consider the Net an Unholy Place!
---
Re:Since when did Politics = Spirituality? (Score:2)
Re:Oh my... (Score:1)
Shattering? or Shitting on?
It's all the same in context..
FatPhil
Re:Will children be killed by soldiers in this NJ (Score:1)
hmm... (Score:2)
it hasn't been around for very long, there's a bunch of squabbling over who owns what, with no end in sight, like the net. instead of jews and palestinians, its consumers/users and lawyers/corporations.
wow, i'm agreeing with Katz, that's messed up like a soup sandwich...
---
Too much time on your hands (Score:1)
COME ONE COME ALL! (Score:2)
JonKatz wave his hands in mad synchronization!
HEAR...
the gasp of the crowd as he strokes the egos of twentysomething computer nerds!
GAZE IN DISBELIEF...
as he draws parallels between computer users and GOD HIMSELF!
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
Middle East Tensions Spill Online (Score:1)
Middle East Tensions Spill Online [idefense.com].
Re:Some information (Score:1)
people who spend more than 20 hours a week online comit less crimes
"
Do they commit _fewer_ gramattical errors?
FatPhil
Re:Some information (Score:1)
grammatical
Can I blame it on a bloody foreign keyboard?
Thought not!
FatPhil
Thank you! :-) (Score:1)
If you'll notice my tagline, it's Japanese for "no matter where, all people are connected". It's a saying from Serial Experiments: Lain, an Anime that deals with the questions (and answers) you just posed in that post. (I won't spoil it for people who have yet to see the series, so I am not going to go into detail.)
The Net has the potential flexability to be whatever want it to be. It's a medium of pure expression and individual preference (it's just being used as a cashcow at the moment).
What will the Net become when we can interact with it on a more personal basis? Direct neural links? Nanotechnology being used in a human brain to transfer signals? What is it going to be like when we can consciously enter this ethereal thing we call "Cyberspace"?
Re:Jaded? (Score:1)
in his congregation he has 5 people over the age of 100 (NO JOKE!) but very few members in their 20s-30s.
not really sure what any of that has to do with the net tho. i get the feeling that we like to stretch things around here and make the net the new frontier for every aspect of our lives. personally, i'm not looking for salvation, enlightenment, etc on a web server...
No, you and the rest. (Score:1)
once again south park leads the way (Score:1)
calvin: I work best under pressure.
Just another class device. (Score:4)
As much as I love my internet access, the thought that it will bring the classes together, without the boundries of race, sex, religion, or class, is a bit naieve.
What the web is doing is creating a new class of global citizen. Admiteddly it is one that that crosses many of the traditional boundaries, but it is still not an inclusive one. As the article states: "[Cyberspace] is open to anyone who can afford a personal computer and a monthly Internet access fee". Perhaps that puts the middle class on equal footing with the upper, but it still leaves out a global majority, and a large minority even within the US.
Furthur, while those who have access to the net have a voice, it doesn't mean anyone is listening. Discusion forums such as this one are still dominated by the educated and by those with a gift for public expression.
Before we tout ourselves as a new Utopia of political and social equality, or allow others to hold us up as such, let's all remember that we are not representative of the masses.
Re:Some information (Score:1)
Think this through: If you're spending that much time online you're going to have less time to do everything else.
Of course, there's the other option: That if you're online that much you're not committing violent crime because you're viewing porn/committing data theft (not a violent crime but a prosecuteable one)/playing violent games (wait, that's obviously linked to violent crime, ignore that)/Slashdotting, etc.
Kierthos
Re:hmm... (Score:1)
Isreal as a whole is more two-sided, but Jerusalem (Or somethinging like Uts as the Arabs would have it (I was taught to write it in Arabic but don't know how to transliterate it!)) is the focus of three religeons: Judaeism, Christianity, and Islam.
So what are the _3_ sides in this metaphorical new battle?
FatPhil
Ugh, yet another story by JonKatz, the troll god. (Score:2)
Re:Some information (Score:2)
They made a movie about it, called "The Matrix"
Re: (Score:1)
William Blake said it best, Katz (Score:1)
I will not cease from Mental Fight,
Nor shall my Sword sleep in my hand:
Till we have built Jerusalem,
In Englands green & pleasant Land.
William Blake
Too many Jerusalems to choose! (Score:1)
Re:Hmmn.. (Score:1)
Which is just what the Internet is doing to a lot of people. I can't count the number of people I know who can't wait to check their e-mail 12 times a day, or are more socially adept (usually) through IRC or other online chats. (Most of them still can't spell though.) And there's even more people who spend hours a day playing online games like Evercrack or Diablo II or NWN. This is supposed to be a sign of the spiritual growth of mankind?
Excuse me while I search for viable real-estate on Mars.... I want to get off this planet before most of mankind goes down the crapper.
Kierthos
Re:Too many Jerusalems to choose! (Score:1)
Re:Jaded? (Score:1)
KTB:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Programmer.
Re:Keep in mind (Score:1)
Not even Noel Coward posts made via a net connected Ouja board ?
Re:Jaded? (Score:1)
Re:Net != Heaven (Score:2)
As you mentioned, it's not the net itself that is going to bring about these changes. A material object never caused a revolution, it was allways the changing ideas and opinions of the general public. The reason why the net is so profound in our current situation is that revolutions are based on ideas and widespread proliferation of ideas to the general public is now possible. It's all about educating the masses, and since (as described in the article) the current trend is an increase in the use of the net for information gathering (news, personal research, communicating, etc.) it only makes sense that it will develop into a new staging ground for public opinions and whatnot.
I believe that this is a crucial aspect in the current debates over what the net should be and how it should be regulated. The more that current authorities regulate the web, the better they can maintain their agendas and entrench themselves in this new 'communications tool', thereby preventing it from facilitating their downfall. It's happened in history before, and with dire consequences.
Re:Jaded? (Score:2)
You are conflating two things -- church attendence and religiosity -- which you can't conflate in the US. Church attendence (and general participation in organized religions) is plumeting; churches are closing left and right. Meanwhile, people are reporting adherance to spiritual belief systems in higher and higher numbers. Spirituality is skyrocketing; sales of spiritual self-help books and participation in spiritual self-development services (e.g. yoga classes, theological seminars) are skyrocketting. There is a big trend in books right now to present the spiritual or religious aspects of everything, from children to the stock market (I am not making this one up).
This all, of course, has the organized religions quite vexed.
Re:Some information (Score:1)
define 'religious' (Score:2)
"I'm not a bitch, I just play one on
Re:Some information (Score:2)
Re:I'm voting for Harry Browne (Score:1)
Your word in bold, the most important word to any libretarian, well-defines the problem with that political philosophy. To think you used this statement to counteract this by Katz:
It's hard to find a citizen who's voting for something.
It's kind of funny to see someone prove such trite and worthless fluff writing correct with such a narrow-minded statement. I dont know which statement is stupider.
Besides, isn't not voting a powerful political statement, sending a message to the politicians right where it hurts? Or something?
This threads hilarious. Full of useless babble, two dufuses inadvertently prove each other correct. Film at 11.
nobody
Re:Some information (Score:1)
Of course people who spend 1/8th of their time online aren't going to commit as many crimes. They're too busy reading JonKatz' crap and looking for pr0n to hold up the Circle-K.
The Net isn't open to everyone.... (Score:2)
No, the Internet requires more than just a computer and a monthly access fee. It requires technological knowledge and most women today don't posess enough of it. (And as a side note, I hate that recent AAUW study which claimed that women/girls don't wan't to be techs because it's boring/nerdy/antisocial, etc. What crap.)
The net *is* discriminatory because the majority of Internet movers, shakers and doers are male. How many women techs/hacks do you know today? Not many I'd assume.
60 Minutes (the news show) did a great piece on females on the Net a few months ago. Lesley Stahl interviewed the founders of Ivillage and a popular gift registry site, and made a point to note that there WAS NOT ONE FEMALE working in the back with the heavy technology-the servers, routers, etc.
I have to note that I witness this phenomena everyday. In the "welcome to the world of computers" classes I teach, the ratio is around 3 males out of a class of 18 or so. The first time I walk into a class to teach I *always* see a few jaws drop and am asked incredulously "Are YOU the teacher?", because, guess what, I'm in my mid-twenties, female, and love working with technology.
Am I male bashing? Definitely not. Am I saying that females who are on the net are idiots? NO. I'm just trying to make the point that the Wertheim's claims of the net being gender neutral is a great fantasy, but far from the truth.
There is some merit to this article (Score:3)
The merit to this article, though, is Katz' discussion of Americans' profound sense of dislocation. We Americans are a very lost group of people. We are divided, fragmented, powerless, very deeply scared of everything, and yearning to find a meaning to it all.
Some posters here have wondered "Why does America need a 'national mission'? The Brits don't have one, the Canadians don't have one." The reason is that if we do not have a national mission for ourselves, we just might see our country for what it really is--a vast money-making conspiracy that has absolutely no regard for human life or human rights or human dignity. And that's a pretty shocking thing to realize. No wonder we're burying our heads in the sand.
Technology can NEVER be a religion, or a salvation, or the answer to our problems. It can be a useful tool to help revive the American people and save ourselves from doom, but only in the context of a broader socio-political movement that aims to truly fix the American system.
Re:Some information (Score:1)
Re:Some information (Score:2)
Re:Ugh, yet another story by JonKatz, the troll go (Score:1)
Go to your user page and their should be a section "Exclude stories from the HomePage", one of the subsections should be "Authors".
Simply select JonKatz and his stories will never appear on your
Re:Jaded? (Score:1)
There are many people in this country that go to church every week (some go several times a week, ie Baptists), but there are not very many true christians. The majority go to church, but don't experience any sort of change in their lives. They go on living in the world, only giving second thought to the Spirit. I am not condemning these folks, just stating what my experience has shown.
I did consider myself an Evangelical Christian, but found a more consistent, and logical theological foundation in Catholicism. I once persecuted the Catholic Church (not quite like Saul - Paul - did) because I believed what some Evangelicals claimed about it. Then I started investigating it myself hoping to find some strong arguments against it. Instead, I am converting.
I guess this is sort of a long way to say that here in America, we too are guilty of trying to put God in a box. Therefore, this New Jerusalem idea may appeal to many here, after all, isn't the physical structure of the internet mostly contained in these beige boxes and the veins (cables) connecting them?
Email me if you want to discuss anything else about America or religion.
Defending Katz Against the Philistines (Score:1)
Re:So are there going to be car bombs? (Score:1)
too late (Score:1)
New Jerusalem from the Net? I don't think so.. (Score:2)
Despite how much we have changed the world around us and despite all the scientific discoveries, all ages of philosophy an culture: humans have not significantly changed as beings for thousands of years. I've seen the other day on "Discovery" that a 100.000 years old pair of skeletons was discovered - a female and a child - and those skeletons are no different from our own. It's hard to say when civilizations started, but some buildings built 2000 years ago are still in use (for example Pont du Gard [greatbuildings.com]) and others built up to 8000 years ago still exist. Writings about social problems that were created at that times and made it to ours are still valid, still interesting. Just a short example - a quotation I received today:
"We trained hard--but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams, we were reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing, and what a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while actually producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization."
Petronius Arbiter, 210 B.C.
Isn't this still valid today?
Someone may ask why did I write all this and what is the connection between ancient civilizations and the topic of the article. I think that before we will speculate about huge changes in the way our society would be organized we should have a proper prospective. We have to realize that for thousands of years our ancestors lived first as cavemen and then in various forms of society - and that those years have formed us, not those few mere years that passed since computers were invented, Internet was created or even liberal, media-backed democracy became dominant form of social organization. I don't think those few years can outweigh those thousands of years of human history. It is really stupid to expect for example, that suddenly society would not be composed of many people being led by few who have power and vision to do so. It is really funny to expect that the role of wealth and money would change - since it didn't for at least 60 centuries.
I think that it's the toys we play with that change - not the way we play.
The Sacred and the RFC Compliant... (Score:4)
Because we perceive things as happening 'on the net' -- and that perception will only grow stronger as virtual reality becomes more common -- it's fairly safe to predict that people will derive a sort of spirituality from cyberspace. Already there's a sort of sanctity attached to internet 'places' like Slashdot; people regard it as special, and they get very incensed when it does things they regard as 'out of canon'.
So yes, in time as groups and places evolve on the internet, I can see the sources of strength people find there becoming sacred, even spiritual to them.
But unlike Wertheim, I discount any involvement of Christianity in this evolution. Christianity is based around the sacredness of the teachings of one man. Whatever spirituality arises from the internet, Christians are most likely to see it as a threat and an aberration.
Internet Spirituality will arise, but it will be wholly non-traditional and likely highly individualistic. And as the internet is unique in human history, the spirituality that people find in it is also likely to be unforseeable and new.
Some points of dispute (Score:2)
At first, it seems that the Internet is generally seen as some kind of cultural integrator between the First and Third World, between the sexes, between people of different colour and so on. At least where the First and Third World are concerned, this is plain wrong, as pointed out, for example, at the famous e-commerce criticism page BlowTheDotOutYourAss.com [blowthedotoutyourass.com], where you see a rather well-made campaign under the slogan "ButWeDon'tEvenHaveElectricityInAfrica.com" - I think the point is quite clear. In fact, Jon has even pointed this out himself unwillingly, when he says:
Even in the more developed Third World countries, it is very uncommon that anyone from a not-so-wealthy social environment can afford a personal computer; and as far as the Internet access fee is concerned, well, in Sudan the Internet costs a thousand dollars per year, at a flat rate. (If you're interested, the provider is SudanNet [sudannet.com]. The website is not very impressive, but you can contact them that way, and the access providing works, which I know from experience.) Did you know that in Egypt, which is definitely one of the more developed countries of the Third World, so that one might argue that it doesn't even belong to the third world at all, university professors get a monthly salary of eight hundred Egyptian pounds per month, equalling two hundred dollars? That settles it, I'm afraid. The Internet is a tool or a toy, whichever you prefer, for the rich. In the West, practically all of us are rich, which you undoubtedly will notice if you ever set foot on African soil, for example [possibly excluding South Africa].
A second thing is that this is just another example of a quasi-mystical attitude towards the Internet, as if it was some spiritual entity that eventually will lead to the solution of all problems on Earth. I personally don't believe in the Internet possessing any metaphysical qualities - it is just a very powerful facility of communication. When telegraphs or telephones were invented, the leap in ease of communication was probably just as great as the leap introduced with the Internet, yet no one would probably attribute metaphysical qualities to a plain telephone, not even then. It was just a practical, useful innovation.
To me, it appears that one of the unique qualities of Internet communication is that unlike in meatspace, you can choose your partners and means of communication with unrivalled ease and flexibility. The result is that people with a more technical interest (i.e. "geeks") who often lack social skills of communication hang around at discussion areas like this or communicate with people like themselves, while persons who are of a maybe more sociable type, possibly with less technical interest, interact with others of their sphere. As a result, the Internet only serves to give anyone what they want and to enhance the character traits that people already possess: geeks interact with geeks, which is communication, of course, but which doesn't help them at all in interacting with non-technical people and/or in the real world, while non-geeks interact with non-geeks, thus enhancing their communication abilities because the topics of their communication are most often derived from some social sphere in meatspace. The same applies to political opinions, with ethnic groups (if you find me a nationalist Israeli discussing things in a civilized way with a nationalist Palestinian, you are good) and so on. The Internet, as a result, does not help people interact with others of a different frame of mind.
Part of the argumentation here is derived from the notion that the Internet is not the cyberspace invented by Lem in the sixties and made popular by Gibson in the late seventies and early eighties, and that it is not some sort of place apart from the "normal world". Lem's and Gibson's idea of cyberspace encompasses the notion of it being ever-present, which the internet is not (go looking for Internet adverts in Kaduna, Nigeria), and it providing sensual immersion beyond looking at a however-large screen and being played the occasional streaming noise. At its present stage, the Internet is just an addition to meatspace, and as long as we still live, dream, eat and raise children in the "real world" as opposed to the "cyberspace" that the Internet is (erroneously, I think, but that's just my humble opinion) commonly referred to as by the media, it will not serve to raise people's problems from the frame defined for them by their environment provided in the real world. To assume that the Internet would solve any real world problem beyond some people not making enough money and some other people not having anything to play around with is in my opinion mainly a na?ve, progress-optimistic, overly-Modernist self-delusion about the nature of problem solutions.
To take the new Jerusalem don't we need. . . (Score:4)
there is no New Jerusalem (Score:2)
Revelation, Chapter 12.
"1": And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
"2": And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
"3": And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
So there must be a new Convenent with God... and the Net is not it. It has the possibility to be a new populist means of ending the old "authoritarian" ways, but that has yet to become substantial.
Re:Let's add it up, shall we? (Score:2)
DON'T GIVE KATZ ANY IDEAS!!! Some of us would like to watch our cartoons in peace and not have them regurtitated during the week Katz style. I had to throw out several hundred dollars worth of Shadowrun manuals because after Mr. Katz mentioned them I was no longer able to read them without getting nauseous.
It's a short jump from Johnny Quest to Scooby Doo, and if Katz started working Scooby into his schtick I would have to kill him.
Uh, just kidding... Don't call the FBI on me.
Re:Just another class device. (Score:2)
So, yeah, it does divide people by those who can get on and those who cannot, but it does help with all who do make it on. There are people who can express themselves better online than IRL because they don't start with the stereotypes. It's a lot harder to be prejudiced about someone when you cannot see or hear them - most of hour prejudices come from the input clues a person gives us. Here, people are prejudged mainly based on their post structures. (In other words, people who post with no caps and no punctuation are generally considered to be trolls/losers. Look through the posts at -1 and you'll notice your dispostion based on the "look" of the post.)
As newsgroups such as the various alt.supports show, there are plenty of people who can actually express themselves "in Cyberspace" where they can't In Real Life.
It should be noted that I have no gift for "public expression" IRL. I hate speaking in front of even 10 people. Yet here I am, posting a long post to Slashdot. Why? Because the fact that I can "Preview" what I just said makes it easier for me to be coherent.
The Internet does serve as a way to merge the classes, for those who are priviledged enough to get on it. While as always, the conclusions that Jon Katz draws seem to be a little out of proportion, don't discount the Internet yet. It really does serve as a means to eliminate class boundaries, and even geographic boundaries and political boundaries. Yes, the Internet leaves a vast majority of people out - but those who can get in, find that the social barriers to entry are far less than those in real life.
MODERATORS: click the link before moderating (Score:2)
Score:4,GoodTroll
Re:Jaded? (Score:2)
It's interesting that you are converting to Catholicism, many people in this day and age seem to find the 'back-to-basics' idea of this quite appealing (including some South African members of my family). However, it seems to me that such people are in the minority. Many seem to be forming a church of one, if you like, where their beliefs are unique and they arrive at them on their own. But the majority find that religion has nothing to say for them any more, and indeed find the very idea of spirituality itslef rather creepy and wacky (in my experience anyway).
For myself, I think this is a good thing. Such matters should be up to the individual, and I think that this state of affairs has been arrived at through many factors, not just liberalism. People are no longer ostracised if they don't go to church, or if they think differently. Greater levels of education have empowered people to think for themselves and better communication has allowed them to get the information they need and come to their own conclusions. Can you honestly say this is a bad thing? For when you say there are not very many true christians, and lament the increase in liberalism, it sounds rather as though you do think it is a bad thing.(though I could be wrong).
Now, I think the internet will change religion & spirituality, by further accelerating and aiding these processes. I suppose traditional religion is faced with both a threat and an opportunity by the internet, but somehow I don't think it will succeed if it is totally inflexible regarding peoples beliefs.
KTB:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Programmer.
Re:Since when is "Jerusalem" a common space (Score:2)
Not that you actually care, but Jerusalem (the city) makes at least one bold-faced non-metaphorical appearance in the Koran, in a story called "The Night Journey." I don't have a Koran on me, so I can't give you a ref., but, again, you don't really care, so who cares.
Social Classes on the Net (Score:2)
---snip---
Furthur, while those who have access to the net have a voice, it doesn't mean anyone is listening. Discusion forums such as this one are still dominated by the educated and by those with a gift for public expression.
Good Point, but assume just for a moment that the old ideas of social class IRL were dissolved. Here we are seeing the beginnings of new criteria forming. Education and public expression are certainly good skills, but we are inventing other modifiers as well.
Consider HTML. On who knows HTML can express themselves with hyperlinks, formatted text, and generally outwrite someone with only textual writing skills.
We also have concepts of property and status. Do you wish you had a full suit of rubicite armor? A nice house in your favorite shard? Level 80? 120,000 platinum coins?...or more realistically, a fully secured BSD box? A T3 piped into your home? A highly regarded webpage? Operator status on several EFNet or Undernet channels?
Even here, we have moderators (although randomly selected). This was posted with a +1 Bonus.
To remove social class, it may be necessary to form a society of ACs, that is to say, distinguishing characteristics necesarily form social class.
Jerusalem, my happy home... (Score:2)
Supper's Ready (Score:2)
Basically, if information breeds knowledge and knowledge breeds power and brings one closer to knowing everything there is to know about the world, then the internet is the new Jerusalem.
Lord of lords, king of kings, he has come to take his children home, to take them to the new Jersusalem
--
Bleargh! More gushy techno-spiritualism! (Score:2)
Oh, my, so much fluff, so little time ...
Cyber-"space" isn't. The point should be obvious, and it worries me that it isn't, and needs to be explained. All of us, every last one of us, live in what gets referred to disparagingly in cyberpunk novels as "meatspace," the real solid physical world. OK, so some of us spend more and more time staring at computer screens. That no more means that we "live" in "cyberspace" than the fact that I spent a lot of time one year reading Lord of the Rings meant that I lived in Middle-Earth.
Tools don't provide meaning. Again, I would hope this should be obvious. It is right to look for a moral and spiritual foundation for society (Jon is on the right track here), but the things we build and use can never provide that foundation. The technical theological term for this is idolatry, and it is the thing warned against most strongly in the Judeo-Christian religious tradition. This is not new with the Internet; it goes back at least as far as Babel.
Try some non-techophile authors. In particular, Jacques Ellul's The Meaning of the City (Amazon [amazon.com], my review [bright.net]) is relevant to a discussion of technology and any supposed "New Jerusalem."
The real New Jerusalem doesn't have a monthly access charge. In Revelation [brown.edu], New Jerusalem is the symbol of eternal shalom, of God's justice and mercy for all who will enter and be citizens. There is no poll tax -- in fact, the global poor are probably in a better position than the global rich (which includes anyone with a computer and Internet access). It strikes me as ... almost obscene, to take the symbol of universal relief from oppression and suffering, and claim that the plaything of the rich techno-elite will take its place.
Jon Katz is using rap slang for New Jersey! (Score:2)
Katz is the original gangsta!
Of course I don't know how the Net is like New Jersey... I've never heard it referred to as the "Information SuperTurnpike".
Re:OT tangent (Score:3)
And they still do. Arabs who didn't run when Israel was founded (either because they thought they'd be killed or because they thought they were regrouping for the final assault to push the Jews into the sea) still live there. Roughly 20% of the Israeli population isn't Jewish. Their freedom of religion is respected and they are able to vote and hold seats in the parliment (in fact, there were 3 Arab members of the first Israeli parliment). The recent problems with Israeli Arabs rioting in support of the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza is a new phenonmenon.
Oh, and by the by, the holy books of both Christians and Moslems say that the land of Palestine is Jewish land.
Meanwhile you can trace the deed to your property back hundreds of years, documented by authorities established there hundreds of years previously and recognized by the entire world (including the United Nations), the exception being an occupying power making claims to your land in direct violation of international charter and law.
You mean like Yassar Arafat, who was born in Cairo? Or Eduard Said, whose family had left Palestine before the formation of the state of Israel? Strong claims they have there.
And where is the compensation for the Jewish refugees who were kicked out of Arab lands? Just because Israel took care of Jews who were kicked out and didn't leave them to rot in camps like the Arabs did to the Palestinians doesn't mean that the Jews shouldn't be compensated, too.
So, based on this vague notion of history and spurious claim, they kick you out of your flat and, when you join a protest against this action and begin throwing rocks at those you feel are oppressing you, fire bullets into the crowd killing you or some of your fellow protestors, then pat themselves on the back for their "restraint." This, in a context where any civilized country answers rioting and rock throwing with tear gas, water canons, and night-sticks, not machine guns, tanks, and rocket fire.
I take it you aren't aware of the Intifada which ran from the mid-80's to the early 90's. That was mainly rock-throwing children and teens against rubber bullets, tear gas, and water cannons. There were still deaths, but at a far lower rate than what we're seeing now. The new uprising has people with guns using rock-throwing children as cover. They should be ashamed of themselves. Instead, they bus in more children.
What's going on in Gilo/Beit Jala is more of the same. People who don't even live in Beit Jala are coming there at night, and shooting at Jews in Gilo, hoping to get the Israelis to damage the property and kill the residents of Beit Jala, so the international media will condemn Israel, and the residents of Beit Jala will join the fighting. The Israelis, ham-handed as they are at PR and the like, don't know how to get this story well-publicized and instead act like big bullies by shooting rockets at Beit Jala.
Are the Israelis doing the wrong thing? Yeah, probably. As I said, they don't understand PR. Israel sees itself as an island surrounded by hostiles in a world which has shown time and again that it would like nothing more than to get rid of the Jews. Condemnation by the UN isn't a big deal compared to the fallout from being called Christ-killers for 2,000 years. The Israelis are going to do what will protect themselves the most, and damn the consequences. This is a highly paranoid and stupid strategy which is going to backfire, sooner or later.
But anyone who thinks that all of this fussin' and fightin' is going to be ended if the Israelis just packed up and left the West Bank and Gaza is delusional. The Palestinians aren't going to be satisfied until there isn't a Jew left in the land. If you don't belive me, listen to some of the lovely sermons being given in the mosques, or some of Arafat's speeches when the Western media isn't watching. If Israel doesn't figure out how to get more of the world's opinion on its side, when the time comes that the Palestinians/Arabs do seriously threaten to push the Jews into the sea, the rest of the world is going to sit back and say that they deserve it.
I wish I had a solution to the problem that everyone could agree to, but I don't. But at least get your facts straight before arguing your point.
-jon
Don't need a new Jerusalem (Score:2)
There are no utopias. What makes most of the messes in the world is one group imposing their utopia on another group. Instead, we need to provide enough constaints (laws, regulations, etc.) so that we and our descendants have the opportunity to lead full and productive lives.
Re:Some information (Score:2)
Re:New Jerusalem (Score:2)
Really now. And how did you reach this conclusion? I suppose none of the interactions I have over the net enrich the lives of either me, or the other person.
In the US, physical communities are dying. They were dying long before the Net came along, and I can only see that the Net has slowed this phenomena to some extent because of the connections it builds, and the sense of purpose people can derive from it.
I have a theory that all the things economists think matter don't matter in the least. The thing that does matter is that people have dreams they feel they can achieve. Hope for the future. The hope for the future present on the Net is what has caused our economy to blossom.
You bemoan the lack of physical connection, but I really don't see much of a difference between the Net and a nervous system. Where does the virtual end? Where does the physical begin?
What's this WE sh1t? (Score:2)
We? Does this Margaret Wertheim claim to speak for all of us? Or all the Romans? News flash: "we" never were "sustained by a firm belief in our society". Neither, I'd hazard a guess, were the vast majority of the late Romans. Most are too caught up in the strugle for the almighty shekel to be concerned about such lofty ideals as society's purpose and whether they/we are sure of it.
Cyberspace, she writes, will fill the void.
The Romans didn't have cyberspace. For them, gladiatorial battles filled the void. And kept the masses amused and distracted. This is not a good thing. I like to think that the internet - or cyberspace, if you must - is a good thing.
The Net, she says, is the New Jerusalem, our new common and profoundly spiritual space.
This must be some kind of figurative Jerusalem. The people living in the REAL Jerusalem seem dead set against it being a common space. The profoundly spiritual nature of it convinces them that they dare not share it with anyone whose spiritual view of it might be different.
I hope the net doesn't become like the real Jerusalem, fragmented into warring factions intent on driving out or exterminating all who disagree .
I find that the very thing that makes the net a good place to spend my time (I hesitate to call it profoundly spiritual) is the disagreements. It would become a very dull place if everyone agreed.
Your sig. (Score:2)
Real programmers use:
vi /dev/sda
fault of journalists (Score:2)
Best response here (Score:2)
THOU SHALT NOT HAVE FALSE GODS ... (Score:2)
Re:OT tangent (Score:3)
The Jews have suppressed and taken advantage of the working class time and time again. Currently, they have strong influence in the film industry (MPAA), and in the music industry (RIAA). What will it take to reform them?
Ah. A Jew-hater. Very good. Easy to pick apart.
Since you seem to think that there is no individual Jew, but rather a single, nefarious Jew, I'll talk about it that way.
Isn't it funny how those pesky Jews took advantage of the working class, and yet they wrote the Communist Manifesto (Marx) and founded the CIO (Samuel Gompers). And they hate the poor so much, the evil Jews wrote the poem on the Statue of Liberty (Emma Lazarus). And then there's the evil Einstein Jew, who founded Pugwash.
Those black-hating Jews helped found the NAACP, and its first three presidents were evil, evil Jews.
Selfish Jew Haym Solomon helped fund the American Revolutionary War. Jew organizations like Mazon raise money to feed the hungry (and as I'm sure you'll tell me, all Jews are rich, so obviously there aren't any hungry ones, yet they are raising money for hungry people, and they only raise money for Jews...is your head going to explode?). If you take a look at http://www.ziv.org/ziv_links.html, you'll see a whole page of charities for Selfish Jews, like the one which raises money to keep poor Pakistani children from being used as child labor (but, your feeble mind says, that's helping poor workers AND Muslims! Those dastardly Jews, always trying to cover for themselves!). And those Muslim-hating Jews in Israel were among the first countries to offer support to the Muslim Kosovo refugees, far earlier than any of the Arab nations did.
I could go on and on with examples that refute your stupid bigotry. But hate-filled people like yourself won't listen, and those that understand that your head is filled with straw don't need the examples.
-jon
Re:OT tangent (Score:2)
See, this I don't get. The land of Israel (ignoring the West Bank and Gaza) supports a population of roughly six million, a million of whom are Arabs. In 1948, the population of the part of Palestine which became Israel was WAY under a million. About 300,000 Arabs fled Israel and became refugees. Considering how many people are there now, population pressures wouldn't have forced out those people.
50 year later, there are 3 MILLION people who claim to be refugees. This is an astonishing population growth. It's also crap. My great-grandfather fled Russia to avoid pogroms. Does that mean that all of his descendants are entitled to land in Russia? If so, please tell me how to collect. If it will help me get sympathy, I'll move my family into a tent and throw rocks at Russian troops. Anyone care to bet whether or not they'll use live ammo?
And, of course, if the Arab countries hadn't kicked out so many Jews, then they wouldn't have come to Israel to displace Arabs.
Anyway, it's not like there were no Jews in Palestine, and the one day in 1948, five million showed up and killed any Arabs they found, forcing the rest to flee. There were Jews in Israel at the time of its founding, and there have always been Jews there. Relatively large numbers started to return in the 1880s, but Jews had been in places like Tiberias, Jerusalem, and Hebron for basically forever. It's just that after a couple of thousand years of persecution, it was realized that maybe having a place to call home wouldn't be a bad thing. In short, there wouldn't have been a Jewish homeland if one hadn't been needed.
And they live like blacks used to live in the US and South Africa.
I'm not aware of any "Arab-only" water fountains or lunch counters in Israel, and I don't recall ever hearing about black people holding public office in South Africa or the US when segration was in full force. But I could be wrong.
I'm not saying that life is perfect for Arabs in Israel; there is discrimination, and it's wrong. Israel has certainly taken away land from Arab residents without just compensation, and Arabs are excluded from many things (the army in particular), based on security concerns. But let's keep our facts straight.
The US is who is backing Israel. So their relative ineptitude with PR is not important.
Which is true for now, but I don't think the US is going to be backing Israel in 5-10 years, if things continue the way they are now. Would the US stand up to another oil boycott? Would Americans blame Israel (and Jews in general) for it? I think the answers are fairly obvious. I'm pretty sure that most Americans would give up support for Israel if it would knock a buck off the price of gas. I might be selling people short, but not by much. Maybe two bucks would be the cutoff point, I dunno.
-jon
But what about zion? (Score:2)
But what about zion? Weren't the people in Zion the only people who weren't wired for computers?
The solution is DIY (Score:2)
So it'd be use the Internet for downloading the Linux ISO or reading pretty banner ads from the multinationals that now control who sees what by having hijacked ICANN, and for day to day power to the people use, go back to the Fido and WWIVnets.
Re:But what about zion? (Score:2)
Your cat's name is Bootsie???
Re:OT tangent (Score:2)
It's not a race-based state, but a religion-based state. Entirely different. It's as legal as Vatican City is. Anyone who wants to become a Jew can become a Jew. I've yet to hear of a way for a black person to become white, but science is always improving.
Sounds like there's horrible and pervasive racism still today: "Israel's Apartheid".
And yet the article mentions that there's an Arab justice on the Israeli Supreme Court, that Miss Israel is an Arab, and that the Supreme Court has ruled that anti-Arab discrimination is illegal. Like I said, it's not perfect and there's still discrimination, but it's not like South Africa.
-jon
Re:OT tangent (Score:2)
-jon
Re:OT tangent (Score:2)
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mdeniers.html
And I'm always curious: why is it that anti-Semites deny the Holocaust happened? They keep running around, talking about killing Jews; you'd think they'd be proud of what Hitler and his goons did. But no, they deny it happened. Yet, they keep on saying that they'll kill all the Jews, if they get the chance. Odd.
-jon