During Fusion I lead a breakout session on the current state of technology. The GDI network is increasingly transitioning into online community as things get even more decentralized, but a lot of our more "chronologically advanced" people have been having a hard time adjusting and learning to operate comfortably in a virtual community.
I've been the point person for a lot of the things we've launched in this arena, so I've fielded a lot of questions and concerns. The one comment I heard overwhelmingly more than any others was, "I want to join in and start posting, but I'm worried that I won't do it right." At first, this really confused me. How could you "post wrong?" I spent some time thinking about it, however, and I realized that this disconnect is due in large part to two different standards for establishing the value of information, Paper and Digital.
With the creation and standardization of the printing press in the mid 15th century, Western culture transitioned from a Verbal standard to a Paper one. Prior to that time books were rare and very expensive, having more in common with works of art than a Barnes and Nobles shelf. Most information traffic was verbal, passed between friends and neighbors, shared by merchants in commercial hubs, or preserved by bards, storytellers, and other entertainers. Information and ideas were intangible and rarely consistent.
The printing press made the written word widely available and cheap. A huge range of content, from political pamphlets to sonnets, plays, and illegal bibles flooded Europe. But as inexpensive as information had become, it still cost something. The expression "that wasn't worth the paper it was printed on," underscores the fact that the value of information had become the price of a piece of paper. Until a few years ago that hadn't changed. Processes and tools have been refined, making everything even cheaper and easier to distribute, but that standard of value was still tied to paper.
Until early in this new millennium. Five or six years ago we crossed a point where digital information became less expensive than physical print media, and the real cost of digital information has been moving closer to $0.00 ever since. As the network grows, the individual connections within the network become more cost effective (i.e. an internet connection today buys you more than it used to). In other words, we're now operating on a new standard for establishing the value of information.
Most of us wouldn't fill pages of notebook paper with every random thought that comes to our head, or try and have fun, pointless little chats by passing notes all day. We'd end up with trashcans full of "wasted" paper. But that's exactly what we're learning to do online, because all we're using to do it are little strings of 100110101001. That's the disconnect I'm trying to help a lot of our GDI friends grow out of. If you stop to think about it, two people wouldn't normally stare silently at each other, waiting to say something because they aren't sure they'll "get it right". We're not that sparing with our words because we haven't been taught that they cost us something (I'm talking real costs here, in dollars or other resources, not intangibles like emotional or relational costs. Those can be very high).
Anyway, that's something I've been thinking about lately. It's going to be fascinating to watch what we do with this growing freedom, especially once we really begin to realize the process of multiple, integrated media forms (video, text, music, audio, etc.). This is a fun time to be alive.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Paper Standard vs Digital Standard
Posted by JustinFike at 10:50 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comments:
You make a good point.
Of course, there are several other aspects and implications of digital media. Sampling is different, generally more common and maybe mostly more precise.
Digital expression can sometimes be more transient but one of the most troubling things is that it often persists and bounces around in ways and to a degree that paper can't.
In general, I disagree or have difficulty with most of your sixth paragraph ("Most of us . . ."). At least part of it has to do with the fact that bits sometimes seem cheaper and easier than even speaking. This may be quibbling over terms, but I either don't like your use of "real" or I don't much care for reality.
And there's a thinness to the digital (yes, like butter scraped over too much bread). Some of this may be essential. Swapping bits seems intrinsically inferior to actual presence, whether there is visual or tactile or whatever other kind of contact or not. Some of it may be more-or-less inevitable as a function of fallenness and human corruption. Some of it, sadly, we choose.
Frankly, though I don't like the idea of folks disconnected because they're intimidated by the technology or even just the oddness of a new medium, I have to say that I rather like the idea of folks in this interspace pausing just a bit and reflecting over their words before they let them fly. In truth, of course, the one kind of pause is not necessarily conducive to the other.
Transparency is good and it can be aided by immediacy, but sometimes I wonder whether, as with so many other things, we've succeeded in making expression too cheap and too easy. There is something in us (and it can be twisted, no doubt, and perhaps what it is mostly is an echo of the fall, but there's something there and I'm convinced it has some virtue) that's uneasy when there's no resistance, no sweat on our brow or soil in our nails.
It is indeed a fun time to be alive, but it behooves us to consider the great power that lies beneath our fingers. Not to be fearful. Not to shrink back. But to be thoughtful. Perhaps to pay more attention to the shaping of our souls.
Those are just a few of the thoughts this stirs. There's a lot to it--much that we tend to take for granted or never even look far enough to see. For that matter, I doubt we have much grasp of the implications of speech or print.
Post a Comment