The state of our species...
I wonder, in the end, what statement is being made, or difference forged, or truth realized through the collective intelligence, insight, creativity and hypothesizing happening here. Are we preaching to the choir? Are we simply sharing in sympathetic circles? Is our commentary inherently exclusive?
Recent conversation around the quality/relevance/value of the information being added to the body of work that is Space Collective asks and tries to answer the question. The intensity and focus of initial posts vs. what seems to be fatigue as the months lumber on. What does immediate, mass dissemination of this information accomplish? What does it say about us as a culture...species? There's talk of malaise and disenchantment. There's the wholehearted, if only virtual, interest and exploration into the capacity/potential/value of a society that exists solely online.
Humankind exists in billions of small universes... each with the potential to overlap... concentric circles from pebbles dropped on opposite sides of a calm pond. When I mentioned sympathetic circles above, I wasn't necessarily speaking of like-mindedness in individual opinion/attitude/experience, but rather like-mindedness in the fact that there is a collective comfort and confidence in the sharing of those opinions/attitudes/experiences in an online setting.
The phenomenon of electronic culture is growing and garnering more and more clout as a viable and arguably vital part of our society/culture (I'm old enough to remember when typing classes were a requirement in school and half the class still had to use traditional typewriters). But what about face-to-face discourse? What about the marches and demonstrations from our not-so-distant past? The collective and most often undeniable voice of flesh and blood? Is it enough to simply record our opinions/attitudes/experiences here? To make them available to an audience (in reality, a thoughtful minority) for study and debate that stays-put in an exclusive medium (after all, invites are extended to those we feel would add to the conversation..we knowingly,or unknowingly, protect our space)? At what point does our intelligent and socially and culturally (and even politically) valuable discourse turn to involve/influence the leadership and policy of the real world (I'll point to the TED conference)? Is there a bigger picture? Will we ultimately leverage our applied thought to bring about social or environmental change? Will we illuminate the dire situation of millions suffering human rights injustices? Will we help to simply open peoples eyes to a greater and more dynamic appreciation of creativity?
This may very well not be the platform for any of these things. And that's absolutely fine. But if we believe enough in our own merit to publish our thoughts for the world to see...and to challenge those of others respectfully, intelligently and with great passion...if we believe in change, in the idea that an individual voice can be heard on a global stage... there is a need...a requirement...to get dirt under one's fingernails (as I have been discussing with awindow recently), a need for intention and intelligence to defined art (or even this historical electronic record) as "true." What truth are we looking to put forth about our species and its state here? Is it enough to simply define it?
I wonder, in the end, what statement is being made, or difference forged, or truth realized through the collective intelligence, insight, creativity and hypothesizing happening here. Are we preaching to the choir? Are we simply sharing in sympathetic circles? Is our commentary inherently exclusive?
Recent conversation around the quality/relevance/value of the information being added to the body of work that is Space Collective asks and tries to answer the question. The intensity and focus of initial posts vs. what seems to be fatigue as the months lumber on. What does immediate, mass dissemination of this information accomplish? What does it say about us as a culture...species? There's talk of malaise and disenchantment. There's the wholehearted, if only virtual, interest and exploration into the capacity/potential/value of a society that exists solely online.
Humankind exists in billions of small universes... each with the potential to overlap... concentric circles from pebbles dropped on opposite sides of a calm pond. When I mentioned sympathetic circles above, I wasn't necessarily speaking of like-mindedness in individual opinion/attitude/experience, but rather like-mindedness in the fact that there is a collective comfort and confidence in the sharing of those opinions/attitudes/experiences in an online setting.
The phenomenon of electronic culture is growing and garnering more and more clout as a viable and arguably vital part of our society/culture (I'm old enough to remember when typing classes were a requirement in school and half the class still had to use traditional typewriters). But what about face-to-face discourse? What about the marches and demonstrations from our not-so-distant past? The collective and most often undeniable voice of flesh and blood? Is it enough to simply record our opinions/attitudes/experiences here? To make them available to an audience (in reality, a thoughtful minority) for study and debate that stays-put in an exclusive medium (after all, invites are extended to those we feel would add to the conversation..we knowingly,or unknowingly, protect our space)? At what point does our intelligent and socially and culturally (and even politically) valuable discourse turn to involve/influence the leadership and policy of the real world (I'll point to the TED conference)? Is there a bigger picture? Will we ultimately leverage our applied thought to bring about social or environmental change? Will we illuminate the dire situation of millions suffering human rights injustices? Will we help to simply open peoples eyes to a greater and more dynamic appreciation of creativity?
This may very well not be the platform for any of these things. And that's absolutely fine. But if we believe enough in our own merit to publish our thoughts for the world to see...and to challenge those of others respectfully, intelligently and with great passion...if we believe in change, in the idea that an individual voice can be heard on a global stage... there is a need...a requirement...to get dirt under one's fingernails (as I have been discussing with awindow recently), a need for intention and intelligence to defined art (or even this historical electronic record) as "true." What truth are we looking to put forth about our species and its state here? Is it enough to simply define it?







