We in the West have been involved with personal computers now for over thirty years. All of the developed world and even many parts of the developing one have also discovered, and not just recently, the attraction and now (in many cases) the psychological dependence on this transformative mode of communication. This blogger joined the participants and pilgrims along the Information Superhighway little more than three years ago (and in late middle age) after balking like many an old fuddy-duddy when confronted with a new fangled entity. Fear was overcome with the usual societal tools: a bit of peer pressure and the seductive rewards of a fantastic invention that is truly akin to a magic carpet ride.
Today my use of the computer may honestly be characterized as bordering on that of an addict's, and though I am not fearful of such a possible state of affairs, now seems a proper time to examine what may be profitable and what may be of no use or genuine value about this tremendously omnipresent phenomenon in our society. Two things that I learned rather quickly when first learning to send messages, particularly e-mail "letters", were that folks are disinclined to elaborate on their communiques and that any fantasy that I nurtured about the "Art of Letter Writing" enjoying a renaissance with this electronic and highly convenient machine would remain just that: an unrealized dream. Also, my life- long proclivity to revel in "chatterboxing" on paper as well as in person, I have discovered, needn't be thwarted, but that I must not delude myself that anything but a monologue or a long winded blog entry like this one and the others I have generated for the last two years or so, are the forums available for my "cries in the wilderness." It is really not such a bad arrangement. I can (and do) pontificate to my heart's content and no one is offended or even ever reads my "scribblings", save for the few unknown souls around the globe who stumble upon my blog or other comments in cyberspace. It is largely, a hopefully safe and innocuous enough endeavor. But communication? That is a two-way street, and interactive features of my big grown-up's toy seem to not excel as satisfying devices to facilitate this very human and profound need. What of "chat rooms" one might ask? Am leery of this world wherein anonymity is naturally built into its structure and this in fact, may be said of all communications on the mighty internet.
Misunderstandings can abound on the "web" if one is predisposed to vent one's spleen or criticize, however constructively, especially when engaging a stranger, with an honest but brief remark. I have been guilty, while motivated by again frankly, a great hunger to engage a kindred spirit and intellect, of making statements that were neither vapid nor dutifully cheerful and encouraging. Several were, admittedly, by the standards of the "don't be controversial" unwritten rules of etiquette, provocative (merely thought provoking I would contend) or even acerbic. For example, recently a person in a "group" or sub-site of the enormously popular social network Facebook posted a photograph of the aftermath of the 1920 bombing on Wall street. A fellow member of the site indicated that she "liked" this image by "clicking" on the "thumbs-up" icon. Thousands, nay millions of times daily, persons express their approval of most anything on the "net" by voting as it were, with this method. Normally, images, photos, videos, manifestos, poems, etc. are aesthetically pleasing, entertaining or mirth giving and thus a sign of approval is expected, much like the clapping of hands by an appreciative audience. But because of the subject matter of this particular photo, i.e. violent deaths of people, horses and destruction of property, a "thumb's up" seemed an intriguing reaction and one that merited some sort of elaboration or the following question that I posed in the "Comments" section: "Why, precisely, do you like this?" Well, mine was apparently an impertinent interrogative as measured by the eager responses from others who seemed to rush to the defense of this "liker" of a documentation of a disaster. Hers was an easily explained point about the composition of the photo and the historically important event depicted, but the "like" icon was not sufficient to make her views clear. For my part, I felt compelled to elaborate as well and to assure all that I was not "attacking" the lady involved. It seemed as if I were perceived as a disruptive party all because I sought some honest discussion and expansion of a point of view that a "like" indicator could not adequately provide. The pressure for concision and the apparently preferred conformity of digesting information with a certain rapidity and an eagerness to deal with myriad stimulations, etc. are dictates of the modern computer age that I find deeply unsatisfying. This pace of life where items, ideas and reflective ways of cogitating and communicating are instead telescoped and subject to an inevitable skimming and superficial treatment, cause me to doubt whether all the kudos heaped upon the P.C. and its allied gadgetry are truly deserved and to consider whether or not meetings "in the flesh" and other traditional methods of social engagement are the purest and finest ones to further understanding and good will. McLuhan said many years ago that the "medium is the message." It would be most unfortunate if messages sent or received were somehow subtly but irreparably garbled by intrinsic modifications of cyber space and its filtering essence.
No comments:
Post a Comment