Brad McCormick:
>As a 28 year veteran of data processing/information technology/computer
>science research, I would certainly concur with Ed's concern about his
>daughter's computer mediated socialization -- the concern being, of course,
>that it may be computer dominated/computer fascinated/etc. largely
>a-socialization.
It's not quite like that, Brad. Fortunately, my daughter does have her
circle of non-digital, non-virtual friends. She uses the computer for what
it can do to help her pursue things that she is interested in. She has some
talent in the graphic arts, and has been experimenting to find what it can
do for her in that field. She therefore uses the computer as a tool, and is
not especially interested in it as a thing in itself. She also uses it to
do her assigned homework, which her teachers encourage. Acessing the web
seems to have become a substitute for going to the library. I suspect that
a lot of kids use the computer the way she does.
>However, I believe there are other forms of humanizing socialization
>besides "the street". The old-monied rich have often grown up
>to be statesmen, scientists, et al. *because* of their form of
>socialization which, although very different from that of
>the wretched of the earth, is nonetheless social in
>a thoroughgoing way.
What may be happening now is similar to what happened to the landed-classes
with the growth of the factory system. Power shifted. Those who recognized
this followed it. Others got left behind. Where power is moving now is
uncertain. It does seem to be moving away from the nation state and toward
multi-lateral organizations. Perhaps it is moving from "place" to
cyberspace.
>Why cannot we take the life of
>"luxe, calme et volupte" -- in which persons freed from
>necessity pursue autochthonously chosen (like, e.g., some of the
>Rockefeller scions) -- as our *norm*? By this I mean that
>technology should be oriented not toward the asocial activity
>of "puzzle solving" in a vacuum (I have previously referred to
>PhD computer scientists whose imaginative horizon is bounded
>by the latest episode of StarTrek), but toward providing
>for all the facilitating conditions which, prior to technology, were
>possible only for a few at the expense of many. (And, of course,
>the "vacuum" in which most "techies" in the socially privative
>sense operate is not any vacuum at all, but "the military
>industrial complex".)
But I would refer to what I said above. Like engineers who design physical
things, techies will be needed to design the software for the next Martian
lander. The techie may have no interest in the chemistry of the Martian
soil or atmosphere, but, if the next lander does not fail, he will have been
of tremendous help to the chemist who wants to know. Sadly, he may, as you
suggest, also be of great value to the military industrial complex.
>Speaking from bitter personal experience, I have become convinced
>in my middle age, when I have at last
>learned about things which were not part
>of my [culturally even if not materially deprived] social milieu of
>origin, that there is no way that a person who has experienced
>adversity in early life can not thereby be scarred, i.e., more
>or less impeded (as with surgical adhesions)
>in the free, graceful exercise of full human capabilities. I am
>not sorry to say that I am convinced that any "benefit" that
>accrues to anyone *after* suffering is not due to the
>suffering, but despite it. As Bertolt Brecht said: That
>land is happy which does not need a hero. I have known one
>hero in my life -- I admire him greatly, but have
>ZERO wish to *be* him.
Brad, think of it this way. If we did not suffer, how would we ever know
what is good and valid from what is bad and corrupt.
>Yours in the hope for a more Matissean world (facilitated
>by science and technology, among other cultural resources).
Amen!
Ed Weick
