An International PDF Literary Quarterly
RE: Erase the Books
This is my response to Adnan's blog post, originally meant as a comment:
In the end, I think information transferal is all abstract. Whether you visually "upload" something from a printed page or a computer screen, or receive a verbal "transmission" through your ears, all information is eventually rendered invisible and immaterial. I do not see how there is a qualitative difference between oral, printed, and electronic writing, because in the end what form the delivery takes is inconsequential: we take it inside ourselves and transform it into something only we will ever know completely. And that will never stop unless the visual image finally eradicates the written (or spoken) word, which in my mind is doubtful because the visual image can never become ours in the same way our own private interpretation of the written or spoken word can- it will always have an objective existence outside ourselves.
So I do not think that e-books, if they do take over (which I am not sure they will), will really qualitatively change anything, because in the end what you do with those words is yours and yours alone, despite the similarities your interpretation may have with someone else's.
I see books as only ever having been a medium with which to transfer this invisible data. I don't see them as having any function or nature beyond that that would change their contents. My feelings are the same with oral storytelling. They are just different ways of facilitating an ancient, unchanging process. What happens inside people when they read will not change.
The only way I do see this changing is if, as ChrisBays mentions in his blog, the human mind is able to create a fundamental, direct link to electronically stored information which is in turn transferred to the human mind in exactly the same form as it is saved upon a memory chip. Because then we are seeing something objective and unchangeable becoming a part of multiple independent, sentient minds, which creates the possibility of a frightening homogenization of thought--Orwell's Groupthink in its purest and most horrific form. If that massive gap--from the artificial surface of a data chip to the organic neurons of the human mind- is bridged, then I will be very worried about the future of independent thought.
But in that case, I still think there will be a natural human yearning for something strictly our own--I believe humanity would evolve another organic firewall, shutting out the faceless and lifeless data in some way, adapting out of necessity, because humans require that mental space to themselves in order to survive.
So, no. I can't say I think that technology will ever manage to qualitatively alter the human mind. There is something it can never reign in.
In the end, I think information transferal is all abstract. Whether you visually "upload" something from a printed page or a computer screen, or receive a verbal "transmission" through your ears, all information is eventually rendered invisible and immaterial. I do not see how there is a qualitative difference between oral, printed, and electronic writing, because in the end what form the delivery takes is inconsequential: we take it inside ourselves and transform it into something only we will ever know completely. And that will never stop unless the visual image finally eradicates the written (or spoken) word, which in my mind is doubtful because the visual image can never become ours in the same way our own private interpretation of the written or spoken word can- it will always have an objective existence outside ourselves.
So I do not think that e-books, if they do take over (which I am not sure they will), will really qualitatively change anything, because in the end what you do with those words is yours and yours alone, despite the similarities your interpretation may have with someone else's.
I see books as only ever having been a medium with which to transfer this invisible data. I don't see them as having any function or nature beyond that that would change their contents. My feelings are the same with oral storytelling. They are just different ways of facilitating an ancient, unchanging process. What happens inside people when they read will not change.
The only way I do see this changing is if, as ChrisBays mentions in his blog, the human mind is able to create a fundamental, direct link to electronically stored information which is in turn transferred to the human mind in exactly the same form as it is saved upon a memory chip. Because then we are seeing something objective and unchangeable becoming a part of multiple independent, sentient minds, which creates the possibility of a frightening homogenization of thought--Orwell's Groupthink in its purest and most horrific form. If that massive gap--from the artificial surface of a data chip to the organic neurons of the human mind- is bridged, then I will be very worried about the future of independent thought.
But in that case, I still think there will be a natural human yearning for something strictly our own--I believe humanity would evolve another organic firewall, shutting out the faceless and lifeless data in some way, adapting out of necessity, because humans require that mental space to themselves in order to survive.
So, no. I can't say I think that technology will ever manage to qualitatively alter the human mind. There is something it can never reign in.
Comment
-
Comment by Chris Bays on February 23, 2009 at 8:52pm -
Maxwell, you bring up an interesting point about human adaptability as an organic firewall to shutting out faceless and lifeless data. The question of course is how powerful this technology is in influencing the chemicals of the mind. After all, drugs can change people's moods and alter their states of mind, even to the point of making them physical and emotional wrecks of what they once were (Addiction to "crack" or other hard drug is a case in point). If cyborg technology has a direct influence on chemical reactions in the brain, then we may see human will and spirit bowing to forces beyond its control ... if it is not kept in check. However, I too hope that we are strong enough to adapt so to retain something human that cannot be reigned in, if ... and this is is big if, cyborg technology grows beyond that imagined. The key, then, is to have ethical principles set up to keep the human spirit alive, perserving the best of what it is we have -- compassion, love, poetry, music, individuality, etc. Personally, I don't want technology controlling me; I want it to help me become a better human being without causing it to steal my humanity. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this.
-- Chris
About
© 2009 Created by Cantaraville on Ning. Create a Ning Network!
You need to be a member of Cantaraville to add comments!
Join this Ning Network