INTERNET POINTILLISM

Read what's on the Internet -- blogs, personal websites, etc. -- and you see that the average person out there has already come pretty close to matching the expertise of the media experts, in many cases. And in some cases, the bloggers know more than the experts. Access to the pages of big-name newspapers and magazines is guarded by gatekeepers who close ranks around their friends, relatives, like-minded people who share their viewpoints, and people who devote more time to style than to substance. Sports radio callers can tell you about middle relief pitchers' tendencies, and commentators on discussion forums can question football play-calling -- save for the jackasses who curse out the opposing team's players, the collective intelligence of the populus vastly exceeds that of the experts. While John Madden was telling a Super Bowl audience that the New England Patriots should sit on the ball at the end of regulation, against the Rams, plenty of members of the viewing audience (including many who have never played organized football) knew better. Most of the audience knew that it was better to try to win the game, then to play for overtime, against a team, the Rams, whose offense was heating up, at that stage in the game -- it was better to try and control the game's outcome then to play for a coin toss (to decide who gets the ball first in sudden death overtime). But Madden's error came as no surprise: the big-name media voices are always trying to convince you to avoid risk and embrace the establishment. And that is because they are part of the establishment, and the establishment is part of them.

Most of us know better, and we have more to say than the big-name media sources. The only problem now is most of us lack an audience. Everyone has a blog. But are people reading others' writings? Or have we reached the point where everyone is a potato farmer with surplus -- where everyone has too many potatoes to eat, and then tries to sell potatoes to a neighbor who also has a potato surplus? What if there is an oversupply of writers -- because writing is fun and expressive -- and an undersupply of readers? Does a tree make a noise, if its fall is documented on a blog that no one reads?

Free trade is predicated on specialization. The farmer with the potato surplus lives near someone with a tomato surplus, and so they exchange their goods with each other and with someone down the block who has a surplus of grapes. This depends on people making the effort not only to publish their own thoughts but also to seek out other individual voices, instead of relying on the major media outlets. And people are doing this -- because the major media outlets are too biased, in favor of their own interests. These outlets are all centrally owned by a few conglomerates that have vested interests on almost all matters of public interest. The major outlets are homogenized -- reflecting stale, predictable viewpoints. They try to play on the audience's emotions and prejudices, without even mixing in objectivity or self-awareness. The mainstream sources don't reflect segments of the population who have other primary careers outside of journalism, even though other primary careers provide invaluable perspective. The mainstream sources don't represent people with viewpoints that are less conventional but more interesting and innovative than that in the tryannical majority. Yet technology is a great equalizer. Computer hackers are taken by the government and brought in-house. And now movies can be made with videocameras and editing software. The smartest people among the major media outlets will take part in the great proliferation of voices -- they will find their next hit singers from obscure music websites. The smartest executives will listen to their audiences instead of trying to exploit them. They will ride the new wave of information, and recognize that they can't control it. The era of expert dominance in media is over. But don't take my word for it. Ask your neighbor.

CELL PHONE HAVENS

The cell phone is our disembodied life, unconnected to the our immediate surroundings. Where we can have a cell phone on our person, then it means that part of our consciousness is far away, caught up in the possibility (or reality) of an information exchange with a distant person -- the information exchange may consist of a conversation, or of merely receiving the information that someone has called (even if we aren't able to talk, when the call is received). Even if we choose to leave our phones home when going to a concert, or to turn the phones completely off, we run the possibility that someone near us is distracted by a vibrating message of an incoming call -- meaning that the consciousness of the group is divided.

There are few areas where we remain connected to the group, such that it is impossible to possess a cell phone that is capable of receiving calls (at least by vibrating). These places -- where we cannot have our phones on us, or where we can have them but they can't receive calls -- fall into a few categories. There are places where there is no signal (on a flying airplane, generally, and in some subways). Also, places where possessing a cell phone violates enforced rules (taking a standardized test). Also, places where we can't have phones on our persons, because the phone would be damaged (in a shower, in a swimming pool), or the phone would be at risk of breaking (playing contact sports). In a sense, these few places are the only places where we are truly tuned into our immediate surroundings, in a simpler manner. In pretty much all other places, people can have phones -- and they can be on, receiving calls, at least in vibrating mode (regardless of whether the person can talk at the moment a call is received). And whereever people have operating phones, a part of us is caught up in the daydream that is the cell phone.

To be sure, many other places, such as concerts and other public spaces offer opportunities -- excuse me for a moment, I'm getting a call ...

REALMS OF SELFISHNESS

There is a reservoir of goodwill. And we are free to tap it, and drain it away. The reservoir of goodwill ... it is not regulated by law. Courtesy cannot be compelled, regard for others cannot be forced. Selfishness is prefectly legal -- when it comes down to interacting with clerks and other shoppers in stores, or other drivers on the road, or when we choose isolation over the company of other people, by engaging in solitary pursuits that feed our egos at the expense of society.

In more primitive societies, the reservoir is more safe from depletion at the hands of selfishness. The smaller the community, the more a person's face and reputation are known -- meaning that there are consequences for selfishness. Face-to-face interaction is more necessary in societies where the telecommunications are not so dominant. Face-to-face interaction is more meaningful in societies where there is less geographic mobility -- in those societies, the same faces stay in the area, for a longer time, building reputations and connotations. Primitive societies have their own problems -- suffocation of free will and individuality. And our society has certain mechanisms, such as credit reports and other impersonal monitoring devices, to keep track of who has been doing what.

But we are primarily living through machines now, whether they be cars or computers, cell phones or credit card scanners. Our society is connected by the wiring of unseen routers and cables that string together the internet and cable and phone systems, and by the walkie-talkie towers that carry our cell phone calls (as the connection to the local loop). The reservoir of goodwill is tapped and drained by each automated phone service center that frustrates our attempts to answer our questions, by each driver who cuts us off to get to a red light, by our own limited patience with others. Goodwill is a human emotion, one that binds people together as living beings, building communities and societies; but we are no longer building human community or society -- our mass endeavor is now the construction of a network of information transmission, through telecommunications. This network allows us to communicate with friends, relatives, and business contacts, who are scattered across the world. But the network also displaces essential parts of our humanity, today, just as, in the past era, industrialism took its toll on the natural environment. Conscience might be the one final regulator, to protect our humanity ... if only they could develop a barcode that would scan for it.

ZOOTOPIA

An engineered habitat in which animals simulate their natural life functions, in isolation from other species, cordonned off from the outside world by walls, left to focus on themselves in the absence of external stimulus, under static conditions, where physical movement cannot bring about travel due to the boundaries on the enclosed space, and a domesticated and inward-looking mental state results from the unchanging external surroundings and the sense of confinement ...

is ... a zoo. Or is it a health and fitness club?

Join now, with memberships starting as low as $39.99 per month, and the first month free! Start your training program today! (Too bad there are so few other practical ways to stay in shape...)

THE SYNTAX OF TOOLS

You can't paint a landscape with a chainsaw. You can't fix a carborator with a toothpick.

The tools that we use largely predetermine our work. But this is not merely in physical matters -- many tools are mental. Language is a tool; different languages allow for different expressions -- some languages don't have words for concepts that are embodied in other languages. Certain languages are more lyrical, romantic, aesthetically-pleasing, while others are more pragmatic, to-the-point, efficient. Thought systems or disciplines are tools -- poetry cannot analyze a baseball player's hitting tendencies in late-game situations, against right-handed pitching, with the efficiency that statistics can. Likewise, numbers cannot capture landscapes, beauty, or drama, as words can, when strung together vividly.

Of course, tools overlap, and there can be poetry in numbers, and logic in rhymes. But this is usually not the case. Working smart, and not merely working hard, is often a matter of spending considerable time in choosing the right tools. For once the tools are selected, the range of possibilities is limited, intentionally or not.

IN SERVICE OF MACHINES

They have us working to support computers, phones, cell phones, fax machines, televisions, iPods, Blackberries, satellite radio, satellite TV feeds, cable TV, DVD, Tivo, wireless internet, DSL, cable modems ...

It is precisely as laid out in "The Matrix" -- the batteries in the machines are the people. The people supply energy to keep the machines running.

The machines have us divided and conquered, so that our protests -- such as writing this -- are solitary and go unheard. If we could only band together collectively, we could generate power enough to resist the machines. But we can't. And the worst part of it is that the machines are merely a part of ourselves (collectively) that stands for selfishness (which is defined as the desire to be alone, apart from others). Right?

LAW of the LAW

The law defines a set of boundaries between people. Trespass is the transgress of a (real estate) property boundary. Theft is the transgress of boundaries of tangible property (by claiming someone else's property). Assault is the transgress of a the property in one's body. Contracts refine property relations: for instance, a lease agreement allows you to rent someone else's property, subject to certain terms and conditions. The law also defines boundaries between individuals and government, such as due process and other civil rights (free speech, freedom of religion, etc., which set certain boundaries that the government may not transgress).

But what are the boundaries, if any, that keep the law itself bounded? Are there boundaries which prevent the law -- which itself is a set of boundaries -- from encroaching beyond certain defined limits?

If unfettered, can the law impede our autonomy, our ability to engage in self-government? Or is our willingness to allow the law to grow -- beyond any bounds -- merely a result of preexisting limitations of our faith self-government?