meta-explosives are blowing up
the perversion of organized systems is a process that occurs naturally as a result of any increase in the amount of organization defining the structure, as manifested in code-complexity frustration among data-workers, or the left-handedness of the internal structure of seed nodules of southern watermelons. the real example is the unstated one, the implicit question in all literary pursuit in a post redd fox world -- "am i frightened of twitter?" Of course it's a necessary method of self-elucidation to ponder one's relation to technology, but a continued and frequent examination of the defense of luddite-ism on the low-band channels has me perplexed. several times a day, or at least by my count each time a website is mentioned, npr commentators examine their previously unrevealed nostalgia for the naked simplicity of a copper brassiere leashing knowledge workers to building which have free coffee. is it that the teletype and typewriter were better? it's impossible, as they are as much manifestations of the desire to [over]organize thought as the more recent developments online, however less efficient at broadcasting the spectrum of output rather than selected bits delegated to other selectors they may be.
it's not hard to sympathize with this position, nor of one of nostalgia for the days when big computers had open accounts, but only one of the two has (so far) caught on at SUV^H^H^HNPR. the problem is not 'can humans relate to technology's 2010 version?' but rather 'do i have anything to say?' -- which might be why i hear so many proud protestations of detestation of your facebooks and other conspiracy public access methods by commentators most likely stretching to fill time before the break. any refutation of the most recent version of the technology at hand is a secret prayer to avoid what using it at all promises to bring, which is misguided only out of ignorance. the true ritual of technology is to use it sensibly to demonstrate anyone at all choosing to react to the insensible and chaotic with consideration and contemplation. the easy and first exit from the angry heckfire of the interjerk is of course to pretend you've never touched it, but this doesn't save you from (even accidentally) avoiding the conversation that smarter people are having about topics you need to know about, right now. the fact that a closening technology makes closer jerks to other jerks should not be more surprising than were the case to be the currently prevalent commentators to their consumer mindshare. the idea of even considering the dominant age group that uses a technology like twitter is absolutely ignorant of the functional nature of useful websites. it's like polling what age group speaks french, if french were invented before half of them were born.
it's true that 'having anything to say' has contexts that differ, from the conversational context to the editorial, but it's my view that the editorial context is a pretense applied to discourse. this was invented to be, and remains one of few ways to make sensible discourse digestible across a range of readers. the text of contemporary conversation, however, occurs as much faster than that as daily editions are than hand-written letters. it is a broad, and wide moving stream of information both comprehensible and not.
"it's the end of the world" came from behind a tree full of ticking wind-up ornaments, a hasty scribbler on the couch. he was in an incontrovertibly elevated position, having declared and acted out his abstention from such a silly use of typing far before the conversation had even come up. it's useful to have a strong retort to such pernicious and regrettable conversational napalm as a discussion about a third party's particular use of technology, or one's previous experience of technology, or ones' friends planned use of technology, as anyone who's experienced it can attest. the true meta-idea is talking about talking -- discourse pointed at discourse, and this is not the best meta-idea. of course the problem is the difference in utility between the two, so it's telling that the problem manifests as a scourge on the real world. almost any queue of polite humans will have at least too many talking about their preferred methods of sitting very still and staring at technology. the only solution to this is to standardize the conversation, the super-implementation of the class of ideas represented by facebook. the problem here is not the standard but the standardizers, as capricious and arbitrary as any corporation generally desires to be. it is important to participate sensibly in the instrumentation of the establishment of any technology this close to the pure manifestation of political will, at least to be prepared to witness how exactly the idea gets destroyed by its own implementation. it's the business of meta-explosives and it's blowing up.
it's not hard to sympathize with this position, nor of one of nostalgia for the days when big computers had open accounts, but only one of the two has (so far) caught on at SUV^H^H^HNPR. the problem is not 'can humans relate to technology's 2010 version?' but rather 'do i have anything to say?' -- which might be why i hear so many proud protestations of detestation of your facebooks and other conspiracy public access methods by commentators most likely stretching to fill time before the break. any refutation of the most recent version of the technology at hand is a secret prayer to avoid what using it at all promises to bring, which is misguided only out of ignorance. the true ritual of technology is to use it sensibly to demonstrate anyone at all choosing to react to the insensible and chaotic with consideration and contemplation. the easy and first exit from the angry heckfire of the interjerk is of course to pretend you've never touched it, but this doesn't save you from (even accidentally) avoiding the conversation that smarter people are having about topics you need to know about, right now. the fact that a closening technology makes closer jerks to other jerks should not be more surprising than were the case to be the currently prevalent commentators to their consumer mindshare. the idea of even considering the dominant age group that uses a technology like twitter is absolutely ignorant of the functional nature of useful websites. it's like polling what age group speaks french, if french were invented before half of them were born.
it's true that 'having anything to say' has contexts that differ, from the conversational context to the editorial, but it's my view that the editorial context is a pretense applied to discourse. this was invented to be, and remains one of few ways to make sensible discourse digestible across a range of readers. the text of contemporary conversation, however, occurs as much faster than that as daily editions are than hand-written letters. it is a broad, and wide moving stream of information both comprehensible and not.
"it's the end of the world" came from behind a tree full of ticking wind-up ornaments, a hasty scribbler on the couch. he was in an incontrovertibly elevated position, having declared and acted out his abstention from such a silly use of typing far before the conversation had even come up. it's useful to have a strong retort to such pernicious and regrettable conversational napalm as a discussion about a third party's particular use of technology, or one's previous experience of technology, or ones' friends planned use of technology, as anyone who's experienced it can attest. the true meta-idea is talking about talking -- discourse pointed at discourse, and this is not the best meta-idea. of course the problem is the difference in utility between the two, so it's telling that the problem manifests as a scourge on the real world. almost any queue of polite humans will have at least too many talking about their preferred methods of sitting very still and staring at technology. the only solution to this is to standardize the conversation, the super-implementation of the class of ideas represented by facebook. the problem here is not the standard but the standardizers, as capricious and arbitrary as any corporation generally desires to be. it is important to participate sensibly in the instrumentation of the establishment of any technology this close to the pure manifestation of political will, at least to be prepared to witness how exactly the idea gets destroyed by its own implementation. it's the business of meta-explosives and it's blowing up.
--
Wrecked Order #3738 - meatsock
