This is well said, and moving. Perhaps I am trying to remind myself that there are cultural and philosophic divides as well as digital divides, and that we digerati tend to think of ourselves as "visionaries", "early adopters" out to make sure that the laggards who are trying to hang on to what they have become enamored as we are of the new rather than hang on to the old.
Indeed, sometimes people hang on to the old because they resistt change. And sometimes they resist change because the old has values the shiny new lacks. The awkward coinage "glocalization" captures some of this tension between the new and the old. As our technologies turn the world into one common marketplace, a kiind of global McDonald's, there arise counter movement that want to nourish the old ways, the old foods, the old traditions that have beauty and meaning. Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 7:58 AM Subject: Re: [DDN] Yale "Global Flow of Information" Conference - Apr. 1-3, 2005 Dear Steve: I can't help but wonder if Taran, being that he surely is an optimist in a troubling, challenging and exciting world meant by something "new" that the reader should try something new to them, not necessarily something that is brand spanking new in as far as invention. For example, to a 12 year old who is beginning to enjoy the art of being able to read well, Doestoyevsky might be something "new". Discovery is perhaps the better journey and discovery means being able to react to and appreciate the ineffable human response be it positive or negative, that is generated by encountering an experience or knowledge that the individual had not been previously exposed to. Just as it has been said that there are really only twelve major themes in literature, if one has not encountered all of them in life than they might be quite unique to you. I also think it is important to not become jaded and to be able to be available to unique and first time experiences and explore them without cynicism. So "old" is not "old" if it is a first encounter. One can still appreciate the test of time of some great writing, painting, beauty, dance etc., but it is in attempting untried things and being unafraid to explore the previoulsy unexplored that individuals reinvent themselves everyday. ---- Steve Eskow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Taran says: > > <<At the end of the day, people should probably try something new every > day. It doesn't have to be technology, it can be walking a different > route or maybe eating something new. That's the difference between > stagnancy and progress.>> > > Like all advice, Taran, this piece is a mixed blessing. A half truth. At > most. > > I live in a rich community in a rich state in a rich nation. A nation where > every message seems to be, throw out something old and try something new > every day. > > So: perhaps we need a counter-movement: > > At the end of every day, try something old. > > An old piece of clothing. An old book. An old idea that needs a little work > to make it useful again. > > For example: turn off all the new media and read an old book. The bible, > perhaps. Or Tolstoy's WAR AND PEACE. > > (Without enrichment, without links to sound and images and interviews with > Tolstoy's great-great-grandson. After reading the unenhanced original, the > DVD is ok.) > > Or: try talking to someone. > > If our online communities grow and prosper, and our local communities wither > and die because we stop talking to neighbors, what a monster have we > technoromantics uncaged. > > The great gift of this technology is that allows me to communicate with > Taran, who otherwise would be lost to me. > > That's why the divide can't be narrowed without it. > > But I must learn to restrain my joy at these new powers and turn the machine > off every day so that I might talk to neighbors. > > So: in order to get a truth, we might put two half-truths together: > > Try something new every day; > > Try something old every day. > > Steve Eskow > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Taran Rampersad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "The Digital Divide Network discussion group" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, February 07, 2005 8:54 AM > Subject: Re: [DDN] Yale "Global Flow of Information" Conference - Apr. > 1-3,2005 > > > > Steve Eskow wrote: > > > > > > > >Taran Rampersad writes > > > > > > > > > > > >>But you see, people are slow to adopt things.< > > >> > > >> > > > > > >Perhaps this is one of those enduring fictions, helped along as it is by > Ev > > >Rogers' taxonmy of "early adopters" and the like. The speed with which > > >people all over the world are adopting the new technologies is > astounding. > > >The digital divide is caused more by poverty than by "resistance to > change." > > > > > > > > In a quantitative analysis, that's right. But qualitatively speaking, if > > the people who can adopt do not adopt, then that has more weight in the > > context of the technology than poor people being unable to adopt. There > > are few people who will adopt at the bleeding edge, but it's because of > > those few people that others do adopt. Consider Linux - a few early > > adopters assisted in the creation of an operating system which people in > > poverty could not access. But through the adoption process, it has > > become extremely accessible to even those in poverty when compared to > > proprietary software. > > > > >People are indeed reluctant to disrupt styles of work and play that offer > > >them important satisfactions because an outsider--often a marketer of > some > > >new product--tries to convince them that if they throw out the baby as > well > > >as the bathwater they will be happier in the long run. > > > > > > > > This is the main problem. Many of the new technologies are available at > > no cost, but the generation of mine and the generations preceding it are > > probably late to adopt because they feel that 'there has to be a catch'. > > Because of this discomfort, they may not adopt. And yet, there are no > > 'catches', it simply requires some personal effort. > > > > > <<This is why we're > > >using listservs for most of the communication here on the DDN, because > > >many are simply not comfortable unless they can use Microsoft Outlook to > > >inform us when they are out of town (perhaps so that someone can > > >burglarize them and they can make insurance claims? I do not know). > > >Perhaps on a busy day, such as when you sent this, I would not respond > > >because I'm up to my neck in other listservs.>> > > > > > >I am one of those who prefers to use Outlook and remain comfortable. (I > > >don't quite get the point of the burglarize reference.) I don't choose > to > > >get uncomfortable unless there are important benefits --benefits that > appeal > > >to me--offered to me in exchange for my discomfort. I don't yet see the > > >benefits--to me--in what you are proposing. > > > > > > > > I hate to sound like I'm bashing Microsoft products, because I'm pretty > > balanced about Microsoft products. However, Outlook has shown time and > > again that it is unsafe and is a dependable vector for viruses. So while > > we talk about the comfort of the user, perhaps we should talk about the > > comfort of other people that user communicates with. I'm sorry, I view > > Outlook as a social disease. It's a personal opinion which is > > substantiated by all the emailed viruses I do get from people who use > > Outlook. > > > > What Outlook did do is get people using a technology. It did a good job > > of it as well. But when I get all these viruses emailed to me, I must > > wonder - should I blame Microsoft for selling something that can do > > that, or should I instead be upset with people who don't care enough > > about the safety of the data of people that they communicate with? I > > don't care who people paid, really. That's not my problem. > > > > There are other email programs out there (you won't see them advertised > > because they don't take your money). Mozilla has a great system that I > > use, which blocks all sorts of things. But it doesn't block everything > > (but it certainly doesn't send all the garbage that Outlook is often > > automated to do!). I still get lots of SPAM despite triple filtered > > email addresses and Bayesian filtering. > > > > Is there a better way? I think so. But I suppose until people actually > > want to improve communication, we're stuck where we are. > > > > ><<There are forms which are not as self limiting. As you say, all forms > > >are self limiting - but the degree to which they are self limiting > > >varies. For broad communication with large groups, websites are less > > >self limiting - and are decreasing even further over time. Email hasn't > > >really changed in the last 10 years that much... however, website > > >technology has changed quite a bit, and has shown itself to be more > > >adaptive to the demands we place on this medium. It even uses email as a > > >tool at times.>> > > > > > >The hand-held hammer is not more limited than the jackhammer or the > > >piledriver: indeed, for certain purposes the more powerful tools are > almost > > >useless. > > > > > > > > A good analogy, but don't forget the 'swiss army hammer'. Much of the > > technology being discussed is easily tailored for the job. > > > > >I, for one, don't want to have use shortcuts or insert URLs into a brower > to > > >conduct email eschanges: I much prefer the speed and simplicity of the > > >listserv. I may be fooling myself, but I don't believe that preference is > > >because I resist change. > > > > > > > > > > *chuckles* > > > > You do anyway. It's just easy because you click on the links. I think > > Outlook still has that ability, but it doesn't allow opening links in > > new tabs in a browser. > > > > At the end of the day, people should probably try something new every > > day. It doesn't have to be technology, it can be walking a different > > route or maybe eating something new. That's the difference between > > stagnancy and progress. All of these technologies that we are discussing > > - including email - are imperfect. Until people start using them, they > > won't become better - until people say 'this sucks, fix it' or 'this is > > cool, keep it', nothing will change. And if the fairly small number of > > early adopters - such as on this list - do not adopt... then it's less > > likely that the people who we advocate to - in this case, those > > interested in decreasing the digital divide - will adopt. > > > > Heck. Bonnie's got a blog now that I read whenever she updates. And I > > like that, because Bonnie has a lot of good things to say and I get > > copies of the same message on different listservs. Now I can read what > > she wrote in one place - at one url - and spend less time downloading > > messages. And Bonnie's messages are worth it. But now her messages are > > more valuable to me because they cost me less time and bandwidth. > > > > People in poverty, who are working just to hopefully make ends meet - > > they don't have the luxury of time. They are busy worrying about food, > > shelter and water. Over the past 4 years, I've done that with the > > addition of electricity and bandwidth. There were times I looked at the > > cost of my phone and internet access (about $100 US/month in Trinidad > > and Tobago, $600TT phone inclusive) and considered how many peanut > > butter sandwiches that could be used to make. I built computers, did > > websites, wrote articles, taught - whatever it took to pay these > > necessities. I got lucky and got a bit comfortable with a new salary for > > my role with SSC. > > > > But now I have to risk higher to gain more, and that's the real issue I > > am talking about for anyone dealing with technology. A lot of people > > have come into this world of technology - I was fortunate, I did so in > > the 1980s with the narrowmindedness of a pre-teenager. But the most > > compelling thing about technology is change, and that change - lest we > > forget - is to make our lives simpler. And with the internet has made it > > so that we are a Web of people interacting with each other at a degree > > which would make the great minds of our past jealous (and yes, the > > twisted minds as well). But this is our reality; our reality is change. > > > > I would personally rather to write stuff in my weblog and have comments > > there - and comments from other sites going there. But many, including > > yourself, are not there yet. It's because I value what you have to say > > that I encourage you to try new mediums. There's a thriving, growing > > community out there that could really benefit from more than less. And > > so, here I am on a listserv - subject to your technology 'limitations' > > because what you have to say is important. I'm being selfish because I'd > > like to move forward, I admit that openly. And to move forward, I need > > others to move forward. That's our reality. > > > > Granted, it's easier for people to catch up without having all this > > progress to keep up with. But they can leapfrog from that progress; the > > bar is dynamic. > > > > -- > > Taran Rampersad > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > http://www.linuxgazette.com > > http://www.a42.com > > http://www.worldchanging.com > > http://www.knowprose.com > > http://www.easylum.net > > > > "Criticize by creating." â Michelangelo > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide > > To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide > To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message. _______________________________________________ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.
