Publick and Privat Curiosities: Articles Related to News, Politics, Society, Gay Issues, Psychology, Humor, Music and Videos.
Some writers and bloggers presently claim that "the internet" rules
as a world-wide mode of interpersonal expression and communication. Even if this were so, the explorers in this field during its opening stages certainly didn't think or sound that way. For many (if not most) of the early pioneers involved in the internet
, the issue of power and control was never part of their early internet instincts and/or experiences and experiences and/or instincts. Yes, it is possible to have it in either or both ways.
Some might say, "Oh, the power of the unconscious!!" Unfortunately, that argument generally is made (one must try hard not to split infinites, although not all splitting is bad for one) by those who never held a belief in the unconscious, or who long ago gave up the belief in it (in favor of either one or another of many secular stances or a commitment to one of the somewhat heatedly competing religious faiths). On the other hand, a life characterized by solitude, hope and (sometimes painful) introspection can lead most of one's unconscious into the realm of the preconscious. As a result, the access to and awareness of the unconscious can be a fairly direct one.
Currently, the issue of "the internet"
is characterized by arguments about which one way, of the many ways, is better than which other way, of the many other ways. And embedded in those arguments is the unknowingness or ultimate uncertainty
about where the path or paths not taken might have led.
One important contemporary perspective holds that any argument about the "the internet"
should be seen as a duality, not as a polarity. And each of the dualities can interact and interpenetrate each other. In other words, mutative resolutions of differences should be co-constructed.
Of course the latter remarks certainly relate to conflicts in the contemporary political and religious worlds, as well as a political world contained/constrained by a commitment to a particual religious faith and the opposite position.
And what is my own orientation in the previous discussion? A sociologist or anthropologist might describe it as one of the "participant-oberver." In psychoanalysis, it might well be described as a post-modern form of dialectical social-constructivism.
Such a position certainly invites further and more in-depth discussion, which will follow in a later posting.