Comments on: Staying Au Courant http://www.anotherpanacea.com/2009/03/staying-au-courant/ Cure-alls and Remedies Sat, 04 Feb 2012 22:26:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: admin http://www.anotherpanacea.com/2009/03/staying-au-courant/comment-page-1/#comment-772 admin Wed, 25 Mar 2009 08:32:22 +0000 http://www.anotherpanacea.com/?p=472#comment-772 I'm not entering a 12-step program for internet addiction just yet, but I do need to cut back a bit. Some of this is just the ordinary housekeeping we all do: replacing old habits with better ones. Some of it is reminding myself of old arguments: the normal counter would be a kind of mocking reference to 'that dangerous supplement,' but at the level of my lived experience, I really do subscribe to the metaphysics of presence, deconstruction or no. I can't remember the last time I was actually bored. I worry about the 'twitch' effect of constantly accessed news feeds and e-mail. I don't see as much value in the casually-gleaned facts as I do in the hard fought rereading of a really difficult text like the Phenomenology of Spirit or Being and Time. And I suspect that there are many, many articles I've read, comments and posts I've written, that I'd have been better off ignoring or forgoing in favor of a walk. Does new media 'work against historical perception'? Not in my experience, no. Jon Stewart's shown what an easily-searched archive of news footage can do accountability, for instance, and the easy access to old books through Google Books actually expands the past's availability. However, I suspect the new media flattens our expectancy for a future that will be materially different than the past, and that does worry me. Of course, I could be wrong, but I'm concerned that social networking and information-addiction are unsustainable habits: brittle, inflexible, and imprudent. Not really sure what to do about that: I visited the same sites today that I did the day before yesterday. (Tuesdays are too hectic for a lot of internet browsing.) After some introspection, I've concluded I'm still attached to them: I enjoyed the easy access to various arguments for and against Geithner's new TALF plan, or to reflections on the possibilities for the war in Afghanistan. Hell, last night I went out with some folks I know through Metafilter: nice people, and I had a good time. :-) I'm not entering a 12-step program for internet addiction just yet, but I do need to cut back a bit. Some of this is just the ordinary housekeeping we all do: replacing old habits with better ones. Some of it is reminding myself of old arguments: the normal counter would be a kind of mocking reference to 'that dangerous supplement,' but at the level of my lived experience, I really do subscribe to the metaphysics of presence, deconstruction or no.

I can't remember the last time I was actually bored. I worry about the 'twitch' effect of constantly accessed news feeds and e-mail. I don't see as much value in the casually-gleaned facts as I do in the hard fought rereading of a really difficult text like the Phenomenology of Spirit or Being and Time. And I suspect that there are many, many articles I've read, comments and posts I've written, that I'd have been better off ignoring or forgoing in favor of a walk.

Does new media 'work against historical perception'? Not in my experience, no. Jon Stewart's shown what an easily-searched archive of news footage can do accountability, for instance, and the easy access to old books through Google Books actually expands the past's availability. However, I suspect the new media flattens our expectancy for a future that will be materially different than the past, and that does worry me. Of course, I could be wrong, but I'm concerned that social networking and information-addiction are unsustainable habits: brittle, inflexible, and imprudent.

Not really sure what to do about that: I visited the same sites today that I did the day before yesterday. (Tuesdays are too hectic for a lot of internet browsing.) After some introspection, I've concluded I'm still attached to them: I enjoyed the easy access to various arguments for and against Geithner's new TALF plan, or to reflections on the possibilities for the war in Afghanistan. Hell, last night I went out with some folks I know through Metafilter: nice people, and I had a good time. :-)

]]> By: Dr. J http://www.anotherpanacea.com/2009/03/staying-au-courant/comment-page-1/#comment-771 Dr. J Tue, 24 Mar 2009 10:37:49 +0000 http://www.anotherpanacea.com/?p=472#comment-771 First, thanks for the list. I may borrow this idea for a post on my blog, only I worry that I'm not as consistent or disciplined with what I read every day. I'm especially thankful for the Bookforum rec, since I've been tiring of Arts&Letters a bit myself. As to whether or not your browsing-habits rise to the level of a "problem"... it seems to me if you think they do, then they do. That is, if you are given cause to ask the sorts of questions that you ask in your last paragraph, then the answer to most of them is probably "no." I wonder how much this concern is prompted by the still-ubiquitous view that spending time "on the Net" is lazy, or indulgent, or somehow pathological, or a waste of time. My guess is that if you actually sat down every day with print-and-paper versions of all the things you read, neither you nor anyone else would be inclined to criticize. I'm also interested to hear your comments on Elliot's suspicion that the new media "works against historical perception." That's not my experience, but I'd have to think more about it before I could articulate exactly why it isn't... First, thanks for the list. I may borrow this idea for a post on my blog, only I worry that I'm not as consistent or disciplined with what I read every day. I'm especially thankful for the Bookforum rec, since I've been tiring of Arts&Letters a bit myself.

As to whether or not your browsing-habits rise to the level of a "problem"… it seems to me if you think they do, then they do. That is, if you are given cause to ask the sorts of questions that you ask in your last paragraph, then the answer to most of them is probably "no."

I wonder how much this concern is prompted by the still-ubiquitous view that spending time "on the Net" is lazy, or indulgent, or somehow pathological, or a waste of time. My guess is that if you actually sat down every day with print-and-paper versions of all the things you read, neither you nor anyone else would be inclined to criticize.

I'm also interested to hear your comments on Elliot's suspicion that the new media "works against historical perception." That's not my experience, but I'd have to think more about it before I could articulate exactly why it isn't…

]]>