ephemeralization

http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13208736

Pianos are being replaced by digital replicas. The lead of this story, though, is that Yamaha has gone to great lengths to get the player's experience to mimic that of playing an analog grand piano, as well as the concertgoer's.
The first implication from this goes along with the digitization of car steering, chemistry labs, cameras, warehouses, and dozens of other information capture and transformation processes. I'm certain there are a few processes which will always continue in the old, direct, mechanical way, but it's increasingly clear that it's not easy to tell which side of the line any given object will fall on.
The deeper implication is that a professionally trained piano player doesn't feel right without the characteristic motion of the keys and the hammers, and they are even sensitive to the vibrations strings cause in the piano body. Now that the sound coming out of the piano has been decoupled from the mechanisms which produce those experiences, there is a new degree of freedom in producing a musical instrument. What kind of music would a concert pianist produce if the vibrations in a piano's body were the inverse of the notes played? What if the keys had two click-points, could be pulled upwards as well for a different effect, or had a variable resistance setting? What if notes played on one instrument could be mapped onto and come out of another instrument, or if another surface entirely - like a door or a table - could become an instrument, or if another device like a coffee machine or a printer could be fitted with such experiential, force-feedback controls?

Too many options - who has a way to narrow them down into a world that makes sense?

consumerism

Watched "The Reader" yesterday and realized that our irresponsible consumerism is enabled/created by the same sort of dysfunctional social system that allowed the Nazis and the SS to kill millions of innocent people.

compression

Reading too many books and magazine articles, I keep coming across more that I should read. The tenth or twentieth time I'm recommended to read something I'll go to the library and pick it up, but this is dangerous because passing by the "New Arrivals" section I'll inevitably see two or three titles that are not just interesting but germane and specific to the research I'm turning in in a few weeks.
I take a break from all this by getting back to my fundamental research on abstraction, communication, and the theory of knowledge that I won't be turning in for at least a decade. I want to sum up this article or that one so I can come back to it later (when I have more time) and fit it into a larger structure, and it occurs to me that - perhaps - this is one primary goal of literary criticism and analysis: to condense the long-winded explorations of the ancients and the greats into a sufficiently compact format that our peers and colleagues will have time and energy to digest them.
At any rate, now that I see it as even on the same level as the other goals of analysis and critique, I'm letting it serve as a motivator for me. Even though my work may be infinite, at least I can make it easier for others to access the information I have at hand.

postmodern fairytales

Sunday:

I remember it bothered my family when I started to say things like, "god - that stupid bastard - I doubt he'd understand what we wanted if he was sober and awake enough pay attention."

I have a dream where god is sitting in a beautiful, old building in this giant, ornate chair, strapped down and gagged, trying to motion to the children not to believe the lies of the people who put him in this gilded cage called a church.
but the children just laugh and poke him like a stuffed animal.


I once dreamed god was a pinata full of lies

assertionism

When trying to lead, the most effective statements are assertions. Laying out a form or structure gives people something to see and feel - even if they don't like it, they can hardly ignore it, and since most people don't have the time, energy, or foresight to replace it with something of their own choosing they will usually end up accepting it and using it.
Even if the assumed followers are actively opposed to you or your assertion, unless they're fast and smart enough to build an opposing assertion the best they can do is try to tear yours down.
Compare this to a popular format in the humanities - critique. Taking time and thought to show where or how another author/artists' work is deficient can - at best - say that it's imperfect. It can never say that it's entirely unvaluable, because just taking the time to critique shows that it has some inherent value you're trying to strengthen and bring out.

network anxiety

A couple of days ago two satellites collided, creating an unknown amount of debris in orbit. There's some small chance that one of these pieces will collide with another satellite, creating lots more debris and setting of a chain reaction which will destroy many more satellites.

Telling a friend about this yesterday, she commented that it would be great to have a little less communication in this world - a few fewer emails, maybe a smaller dose of news, not as many friend requests on facebook... After learning about the value and methods of networking while I was in Washington, I have seldom given voice to my own desires to be more cut off, more disconnected, more careless about the thousands of people I've met and learned the names of and don't really care about anymore. But this describes it almost perfectly: we're aiming to become too connected - maybe there's an optimal amount of friends and acquaintances, and maybe it's finite.

Steven Levy wrote about a similar feeling yesterday in Wired. While lots of people would probably disagree - those with 800 facebook friends, rolodexes with the business card of everyone they've shaken hands with, or who make those few thousand dollars worth of conference worth every cent - maybe there is a place in our society for those of us who don't want to be networked. Personally, there's a 90% chance I'll find joy and fulfillment sitting at home, alone, reading philosophy, while there's closer to 10% chance I'll have fun going out and meeting new people. Perhaps this extroversion even evolves during one's life?

If you agree, don't leave a comment, don't friend me on facebook, just be content that we're all together in our fear of falling satellites.

Ambiguity or opacity?

The mechanisms of society and culture are a great mystery to most people. My time in college - especially in Washington - helped reveal to me how and why things work, and my time here in Chicago is opening up another world of doors to power, influence, and ideas. But still much remains closed, invisible or uninterpretable, reminding me of one of the great maxims of ID: "Accept the Ambiguity".
But perhaps it's not just ambiguity - perhaps there are parts which are deliberately made opaque. There exists the possibility that fearful or power-hungry individuals hide knowledge, processes, and above-mentioned doors in order to create scarcity. If this is truly the case - which surely it is in some places, as described in the book Secrets by Daniel Ellsberg - our society is currently undergoing profound transformations brought about by the cult of transparency.
In many circles, notably Academia and NGOs, the free flow of information sparked by the printing press and reaching its apogee in the internet is humanity's most fundamental source of value. This worldview implies that more open access to information creates a more efficient and effective use of that information, enriching everyone.
If there is anyone not committed to this idea of sharing access and knowledge, they may remain powerful and rich, but they will drown in the rising tide of converging societies that is coming to define our era.