This video is a short, ten minute lecture on the future of advertising if gaming merges with marketing. I tend not to pay attention to gaming all that much, but there is reason to pay attention to this industry and the way in which it could influence human behavior.
This excited lecturer reflects on how our entire lives could become a gaming module, where we score points based on our behavior, particularly in relation to what we purchase. He concludes by saying, "I do know that this stuff is coming. Man, it's gotta' come. What's gonna stop it?!"
This discussion reminded me of Spielberg's 2002 film, Minority Report. Here is a short, 45 second video. "John Anderton, you could use a Guinness about now!"
Generosity and giving can result in a certain power over others. Such was the gist of Jean Vanier’s comments in his interview with Krist Tippet on the NPR show “Speaking of Faith.” Vanier is not saying this to be critical or cynical. He is a soft soul. A living saint who founded L’Arche communities where adults with disabilities can live together in love. He is not a cynic, but he ain’t naïve either.
One of the areas of thinking I have been deeply engaged with is the idea of giving. I am writing a book about grace, and I want to push this concept of “unconditional grace.” I don’t want to be a cynic, but I want to ask the hard question of whether or not any grace can truly be “unconditional.” There is a good deal of philosophical discussion that centers on just this point, so there is much about the gift to engage the heart and mind.
Giving, more often than not, puts others in debt. It creates a cycle of reciprocity. Can we escape it? If so, it’s certainly easier said than done! And that’s a fact, Jack. Even despite our best intentions, even if we were to have “pure motives” (which is also debatable), even then a “symbol” is created (to use the philosopher Jacques Derrida’s) in the giving. As such, the idea of “unconditional giving” is easier to conceptualize than practice, and it’s even difficult (yea, even impossible!) to actually find a true-to-life example of purely unconditional giving.
But again, my point in this post is not to approach giving as a cynic.
I was watching the NFL Playoffs last weekend, the rare bit of television viewing I do these days, and I noticed that the networks flashed a number to text for Haiti relief. To give ten dollars to the Haiti relief effort, one only need send a text message to the number. Presumably the process is streamlined such that in minutes (or less, perhaps) one can make a ten dollar donation for the people of Haiti.
I imagine that these efforts brought in many funds, all much needed for the relief efforts. This is a good thing, no doubt. But my suspicions were aroused when I saw the text message giving system on tv. And the answer was obvious to me: why can we (as citizens of the U.S.) give so much to Haiti relief and fail to engage our neighbors in need? By “neighbor” I mean, specifically, the Hispanic population in our small, northern Indiana community. Or the peoples in jail. Or the meth addicts in Syracuse. Or the “poor white trash” who live in the trailer parks scattered throughout the county. That is, there are so many people so close to home who are in need, living desperate lives. So easy to text ten dollars to Haiti and call it a day, says I. Says the part of me whose suspicions have been thoroughly aroused.
But as I mentioned, my point in this post is not to approach giving as a cynic.
In point of fact, I know that many who are involved in the Haiti relief effort are those who want to engage people. Like Jonathan. He’s a pilot. He lives about three quarters of a mile from me. He raises chickens and sells eggs. He’s a political conservative who organizes local tea parties. He is also exhausted from flying his airplane to Haiti and finding ways to get supplies to people who are in desperate, life-threatening need.
Or there’s Kristi. She had a minute a few days ago and sent me some Instant Messages through gmail. She only had a minute, but she had enough time to tell me about how a certain local insurance company is shelling out big bucks. It’s more than just a marketing, image gimmick. Kristi had to roll. She’s helping to organize. Oh, and she is also a political conservative.
I’ll wager there’s a good many stories about a good many good people doing good things. There are many stories of people who are actually engaging this relief effort and the people of Haiti. They care. There are lives touching lives. And let’s be honest, they couldn’t do what they do if it weren’t for all of those impersonal dollars that came rolling in via text message.
Did I mention that my point in this post is not to approach giving as a cynic?
And yet I think that there is still something important to ponder. I think my suspicions are not entirely without cause. The fact is that we forfeit blessings when we live fragmented lives, when we isolate ourselves from the poor and needy, choosing to live most of our lives in the office, with our friends and family, and with neighbors who have the same values and financial means as ourselves. We forfeit blessings because there is a certain human experience that can only be had when we stop for the anonymous stranger in need. We forfeit the opportunity to know love.
When asked by a man-in-the-know about what to do to attain “eternal life,” Jesus replied in a simple way: love God, love your neighbor.
Well said.
The man-in-the-know wanted to push the issue a bit further, to specify and parse words: who is my neighbor? Jesus tells the tale of a certain Samaritan man who found an anonymous stranger laying on the road side (left for dead and passed over by some of the more religiously inclined).
Emmanuel Levinas was a French philosopher who made ethics central to all of philosophy. He talked about “the face of the other.” The other is not just any other, not just any other person. It’s the other. The other that we are suspicious of, the other who threatens us and our way of life; the “Commie Bastard” of the fifties; the Muslim, fundamentalist terrorist of today who wants to destroy the “American way of life”; the meth addict who strips to support her habit, not take care of her kids; the alcoholic beggar in the ghetto who has no intention of changing and just wants to draw welfare. Yeah. That one. That’s our neighbor.
There’s a blessing in knowing those who are in need, those who are broken, those who are poor. There is a blessing in knowing them, in engaging their lives and seeing their face. To do so unconditionally, if that is possible.
Jean Vanier talks about Saint Francis of Assisi. Saint Francis hated lepers. They stunk, so he hated them. Then he visited them and his life was changed. He no longer wanted to live his life for his own esteem and riches. He walked away from a comfortable life in his father’s textile business.
Says Vanier, “We don’t want a God who is hidden in the dirt, in dirty people.”
Loving our neighbor means digging in the dirt for God. What does this mean? It seems to be a blessing found when we do our best to really identify with the other, with the dirty people, with the weak, with the poor. This is not a love based on the powerful helping the weak. This is a resignation of our superiority; it is identifying so closely with those who are in need that we realize how needy we all our. That is, there is a certain blessing only found when we look into the face of those who are most desperate and weak and we see ourselves in them. This is the moment when we are incarnated, like Christ, when we realize that we are that which we have always feared and despised. In this moment, we can then experience the greatest blessing, because we can be set free from what we have always feared and despised in ourselves. As Vanier puts it, we can at that moment welcome our own weakness.
“We don’t know what to do with our own weakness except hide it and pretend it doesn’t exist. So how can we fully welcome the weakness of another if we haven’t welcomed our own weakness?”
It seems to me that when we can fully love a neighbor, in their greatest moment of weakness and brokenness, we can love ourselves. We have engaged the other to the point of identity with them, and at that point our judgments and prejudices against them fall away, along with the many ways that we judge ourselves. This is the beauty in humility.
Okay, here's a quickie....uhm....I mean, a quick post.
I came across a blog by Julie Clawson, Why N.T. Wright is Wrong about Social Media. (N.T. Wright is a prominent New Testament scholar who writes for academic and general audiences.) As the title implies, she takes issue with Wright's view of social media, believing that his take: "I was disappointed to hear someone so knowledgeable about history and faith jump on the 'caution people about the perceived dangers of the Internet' bandwagon." She also cites a Pew study that busts the myth that those of us who engage in social media will steal time away from "huggable" (N.T. Wright's term) people, that is, folks in flesh-and-blood. Says Julie, "The study also found that people who spend time on the Internet are actually far more likely to go out and be with real live people than those who don’t use the Internet. The point – social media actually builds community, even of the huggable people sort."
I initially found Clawson's blog helpful, but then I watched the short video of N.T. Wright and found that his position is a good deal more nuanced than I read in Julie's blog. And in fact, I find myself more in agreement with N.T. Wright's warnings.
Wright says that the internet can lead to isolation....that relationships need bodies....that too much internet time dehumanizes communication....he recommends implementing personal rules to spend time with "huggable" human beings and not to be spending too much time in front of a screen; internet is a good deal like tv in this regard.....it is important for online interaction to translate into action....if we are isolated from others, this can produce "cultural masturbation" where the internet becomes a forum for personal gratification (gratification intellectually, in terms of entertainment, in addition of course to sexual).....the internet can become a form of "gnosticism".
Wright says he welcomes the technology as long as we are reflecting on the "meta-issues" that stand behind the technology.
My position on the internet, social media, blogging, etc. has always been that this is a new form of communication, a new form of language. I try not to get caught up in the kind of high-minded, intense debates about whether it is "good" or "bad," "harmful" or "helpful." Instead, I tend to prefer discussing how new forms of language change the way we think, engage each other, perceive ourselves, etc. Perhaps these are the "meta-issues" that Wright is talking about.
While I tend to favor Wright's view, I think Julie Clawson's short blog post is thoughtful and useful to the discussion of the value of the internet and social media.
Ralph Waldo Emerson once asked what we would do if the stars only came out once every thousand years. No one would sleep that night, of course. The world would become religious overnight. We would be ecstatic, delirious, made rapturous by the glory of God. Instead the stars come out every night, and we watch television. -Paul Hawken
An ironic scenario these days might be to have a father criticize his son for having wasted his time playing video games all day, even though the father returned home from having spent his entire day staring at a computer screen.
The Girls Next Door is a reality television show that takes viewers behind the gates of the Playboy Mansion and into the lives of Holly, Bridget, and Kendra, the three girlfriends of the iconic Hugh Hefner. The show is sexy and sensual, taking the audience into the bedrooms and behind the scenes of nude photo shoots (with all “unmentionable parts” blurred out, of course); and yet the show is not the typical flesh-hawking reality tv. Far from it, actually. The show is actually quite, funny, and adorable.
The appeal and focus of the show is on the lives of Holly, Bridget, and Kendra. “Hef”—the girls’s nickname for the gracefully aging Hugh Hefner—is often seen on the show. He interacts with the girls, conducts business, and generally lives a life of leisure; but mostly the show centers on the personality of the girls as they live their lives and pursue the various things that interest them.
In short, even though the show is sexy, its appeal is not sex. Most of the show is not about sex. Most of the show is about beauty and personality. The girls are interesting and adorable. Holly is ambitious and holistic, taking initiative to spearhead various projects and photoshoots. She also makes no secret of the fact that she has a maternal instinct and wants to have a baby with Hef. Bridget has a master’s degree in communications and a deal with the Travel channel for a new tv series. Kendra is a carefree tomboy who loves to play sports and party.
The girls live a charmed life. Accordingly, they talk about how “blessed” they feel to “live such a special life.”
What makes the show unique and worthy of discussion at Theos Project is that The Girls Next Door subjectifies the sexuality of porn stars. The girls are not objectified as sex objects. They are not merely flesh for the consumption of the lustful; rather, their sexuality is linked to their subjectivity—they are first people. Their career is sexual—one might call it their “calling”—but there is no sense that their sexuality degrades them or holds them back from exploring their full potential as people and as human subjects.
Briefly, I think The Girls Next Door illustrates three mergers. These mergers represent things that have been traditionally separated and dichotomized.
First, there is a merger of porn with pop culture. We now live in a porn culture. It is part of the electronic evolution of humanity: porn is now quick and easy and not "dirty." One need only log on to the internet to find a world of whatever entices desire. This merger of porn with pop culture is perhaps not as integrated as places like Hong Kong or Japan, but still a reality. I remember hearing in the last year about a Japanese baseball player who recently came to the States to play in the MLB. He casually began publicly describing to reporters his extensive pornography collection. For all intents and purposes, it appears that it is not uncommon for reporters and ballplayers in Japan to discuss pornography and even to exchange dvds with reporters! Pornography is no longer a back-ally activity with an exclusively negative connotation.
The second merger is porn with art. Regardless of how one feels about the moral ramifications of pornography, the fact is that porn is now artistic and may even be "beautiful."
Third, porn has been integrated with authentic personal expression. Not only is porn generally considered an authentic form of personal expression for those who view it, but porn is now also a form of self-expression and perhaps even a “calling” for the porn star. This is similar to the merger of porn with art, but in this case, the suggestion is that being a porn star is a vehicle to achieving occupational fulfillment. Porn is not just a badge of shame for girls who are looking to make money—it’s not just an economic exchange—there really seems to be something deeper and self-authenticating.
I see all of the above mergers and integrations when I watch The Girls Next Door. The show is porn in pop-culture, an artistic production, and the girls of the show live a charmed and fulfilling life.
Traditionally, both those on the right and the left have vehemently opposed pornography. On the right, the religiously conservative, concerned with the morality of sexuality. On the left, those concerned with the degradation and exploitation of women.
Noam Chomsky expresses his objection.
Chomsky brings a black-and-white perspective: pornography is degrading to women, therefore pornography should be eliminated. “Women are degraded as vulgar sex objects,” says Chomsky, “That’s not what human beings are.” Chomsky finds this to be even beyond discussion, kind of an axiomatic given.
I certainly find a lot in Chomsky that I resonate with: degrading women—or anyone—is something that is worth fighting. I would certainly agree with Chomsky and others who oppose porn if pornography is embedded in a social context where those who produce the porn have very little (if any) other options and therefore reluctantly resign themselves to degradation and humiliation in order to survive. Such a system is sick.
What makes the 21st century discussion a bit unclear, however, is that pornography has merged with pop culture, art, and personal self-authentication. The girls from The Girls Next Door don’t have to shoot porn. They could walk away at any time, and at some time they probably will.
So, if the conditions for exploitation has been eliminated, is there still an objection to porn?
An argument might be made that human beings, by nature, are degraded by participating in pornography. That is, porn is degrading, even if it may feel self-authenticating to be a porn star and even if the porn star is unaware of the fact that they are being degraded. Similarly, those who participate in watching pornography degrade themselves, regardless of any personal satisfaction they receive. Pornography cheapens sexuality. Human beings were called to something “higher,” and pornography holds us back from something “more noble.” Such an argument, I think, might be difficult to prove. I think it would have to come from some sort of inner sense. This does not make the argument less potent, but perhaps such an argument really isn't an argument but rather an internal sense that sexuality is cheapened if it is made available for public consumption.
At this point, we are entering the murky waters of speculating on morality and nature. Pascal said that custom is our nature. What is “human nature”? Something we inherit, something intrinsic? Or is “nature” more closely related to the societal and cultural matrices within which we are embedded? Perhaps one of the great intellectual and cultural wars of our day is over human nature. How do we define ourselves as sexual beings? Is it based on something in our nature? Or are we defined sexually based largely on the cultural and society norms/morality that we are taught?
In any event, I find that The Girls Next Door provoke an important discussion of sexuality. It reflects many of the unique realities of sexuality in the 21st century.
I was on myspace tonight and ran across an advertisement for Jesus and salvation. (As an aside, I heard today on the news that myspace was not meeting revenue expectations and so they have been ramping up ads and being more aggressive...like plastering a huge bat across the screen to advertise the new Batman movie.)
Here's what the ad walks you through:
1. God Loves You!
The Bible says, "God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life"
The problem is that . . . 2. All of us have done, said or thought things that are wrong. This is called sin, and our sins have separated us from God.
The Bible says “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” God is perfect and holy, and our sins separate us from God forever. The Bible says “The wages of sin is death.”
The good news is that, about 2,000 years ago, 3. God sent His only Son Jesus Christ to die for our sins.
Jesus is the Son of God. He lived a sinless life and then died on the cross to pay the penalty for our sins. “God demonstrates His own love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.”
Jesus rose from the dead and now He lives in heaven with God His Father. He offers us the gift of eternal life -- of living forever with Him in heaven if we accept Him as our Lord and Savior. Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except by Me."
God reaches out in love to you and wants you to be His child. "As many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe on His name." You can choose to ask Jesus Christ to forgive your sins and come in to your life as your Lord and Savior. 4. If you want to accept Christ as Savior and turn from your sins, you can ask Him to be your Savior and Lord by praying a prayer like this:
"Lord Jesus, I believe you are the Son of God. Thank you for dying on the cross for my sins. Please forgive my sins and give me the gift of eternal life. I ask you in to my life and heart to be my Lord and Savior. I want to serve you always."
Did you pray this prayer?
[end of ad]
You now have the opportunity to click "Yes," which leads you to a Congratulations page with an opportunity to sign up for more info. on how to grow as a Christian. Or you can click "I have questions," which again allows you to submit your personal info. and ask your questions.
I'm a bit divided on this one.
A part of me is offended by the fact that we are essentially selling salvation and making Christianity available at the click of a button. (I'm sure Billy Sunday is smiling down on us.) Does signing up for Christianity really result in life transformation? Do we really need more Christian converts? Maybe we just need to focus on transforming the ones we've got into a living and loving body of Christ.
On the other hand I think to myself, "Don't be such a spiritual elitist, judgmental prick, Jon. Maybe this will transform someone's life. So, who are you to judge?"
Advertising is clearly one of the primary ways not only to sell a product, but as a means of selling a lifestyle and transforming culture. There is no longer a distinction: product is image and image is product.
Advertising just is culture and culture is advertising.
In 1971 Coke produced the "I'd like to teach the world to sing" commercial. As I understand, it is the most successful (or one of the most successful) ad campaigns ever. Though I am no expert on the history of marketing, this ad was a pioneer in abandoning the concept of blatantly selling the product and instead sold an idea: a better world; a world united in song. Oh, but a world also united in drinking Coke. (Ah, so they did not completely abandon the sale of the their product!)
In 2003 Cola Turka aired two very popular commercials with Chevy Chase. Certain elements in Turkey felt threatened by the invasion of American culture and products. Cola Turka seized the opportunity to sell its own cola and outwit the giant foreign mega-brands, Pepsi and Coke. The message of the ad? Cola Turka is not just another American-type cola. Whereas the other brands represented an import of American culture and threaten to Americanize the Turks, Turka Cola promises to Turkize the Americans! So, they used a famous American spokesman to pitch the idea.
Check out these two, highly successful Turkish ads for Cola Turka:
Either way one looks at it, the above ads represent the homogenized global culture now sponsored by ___________. I'm not here to make a value judgment, I think that there are opportunities and challenges. One positive potential outcome is that we can be united around being human beings and not by race, ethnic, or national distinctions. Of course, losing our distinctiveness also seems troubling.
In any case, go ahead and pop open a Cola Turka and celebrate diversity.
I left a comment over at Hesiak's post at Church and PoMo The Machine that got lost in the chatter of CAD software and other far more important conversations. My comment seems to have been dismissed because I challenged the notion that we can distinguish any longer between "human" and "machine." Most Christians seem to want to engage in what I believe is an antiquated notion that human and machine are two distinct entities. They debate whether a "machine" is good or bad, and have nice little sayings like, "the human should control the machine not the other way around." I believe the reality is that these lines are blurring more and more with each passing day.
So, I expanded my thoughts a bit, and I am reposting them here for your reading delight.
We humans are always "embodied." We are embodied creatures. It is our nature to be embodied. Even in the future, the Scriptures say that we will "clothed with our heavenly bodies." Even God, himself, always presents himself in some sort of bodied form, with the possible exception of mystic communion.
If we are embodied beings by nature, then the philosophical question that is becoming more relevant with each passing day is this: what happens when humans become more and more embodied as machines and machines start to become embodied as humans?
For example, as I type out this post, I am assuming a new body. The fact that I am a 6'1" male with a thin frame does not matter, anymore. My "body" is no longer my body in the traditional sense. I have assumed a new body. I use the keyboard to type out a post that I think is rather clever, and I then count on the machine to embody my words and thoughts and take them into an online dialog where I can now conversate with other "bodies" from all over the world.
We can apply the same example to other forms of technology: phone conversations, text messaging, artificial limbs, glasses, various forms of repair surgeries. Even the clothing we wear is a form of a machine. No one goes out to kill an animal, skin it, and wear its hide on their backs! We buy clothing made by machines. Shoes, in particular, are very highly technological these days, and they continue to improve everyday. Without the advances of shoe technology, we could not run as far or as fast as we run. Shoe technology amplifies our ability to perform. In addition, there is a real sense in which our technology (shoes) takes us out of contact with the real world: our "real" physical feet do not actually have to touch the "real" ground, meaning that we no longer need to physically connect with the actual, real world.
So, what is "real," anymore? Who knows? Who even cares???
Another example of how the lines are blurring between "human" and "machine" is the Nintendo Wii. It is now possible to take on a new body that participates on an online game. The cool thing here is that we can control the physical movements by making similar physical movements, ourselves. The web creates a virtual world for our virtual bodies to participate with other virtual bodies in a game. As technology continues to progress, this virtual reality will feel more and more real. Anyone care to speculate the moral questions that will arise as the porn industry capitalizes on this kind of online technology?
Comcast had a television commercial about televisiphonernetting: Using the television, phone, and internet at the same time. In this case, a person is embodied in multiple realities simultaneously. The brain is splitting itself into several conversations at the same time. (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? Do we now have the experiential basis for a new theological model for the possibility of "one in essence, three in persons"?)
Along these same lines, I have heard the term "zoning" used: Mentally switiching between very diverse bodies and realities. A person can seamlessly move from a deep relational conversation with a boyfriend or girlfriend into a television show into emailing friends into myspace into philosophical reading into blogging on politics. The point is, if we move our minds quickly between (and sometime simultaneous with) different realities, then the ability to sustain real reflection seems to be a major challenge. We just "zone" from one reality to another.
In sum, it is not at all clear what is "machine" and what is "human." Humans are more and more technological, which means that we more and more resemble machines. Machines are also becoming more human: various machines can now speak, see, taste, touch, smell, and hear. Machines and humans are adapting themselves to each other for a new convergence called "virtual reality."
Skip LaCour, a bodybuilder and motivational speaker says, "Your body is a machine." And he encourages us to think of food as "clean fuel." Yet another example of the union between human and machine. These days many of us even look like machines: just observe a group of people working out; they have wires coming out of their ears and arms and shiny silver feet!
We have turned ourselves into Frankenstein and there is really no turning back. Distinguishing between "human" and "machine" is still important, but it is futile to truly draw a dichotomy that holds. In other words, I am suggesting that there is no longer a pure "human" reality, and as time progresses this becomes less and less the case.
So, the philosophical question is this: is a purely human reality even all that desirable? Perhaps Mary Shelley wrote a good novel, but her warning against "playing God" is over-reacting.
At the beginning of the movie Gattacca, they quote Qohelet, "No one can straighten what God has made crooked." In other words, there is a sense in which God got us into this mess, and there's no fixing it. Perhaps there is no pristine "natural." Perhaps it is all a mess, subject to the unnerving effects of Qohelet's "hevel," and our humanity is somehow defined, in large part, by the messiness and undefinable nature of our existence.
Data, the android on Star Trek: The Next Generation, is constantly trying to find out what makes a human being human. He attempts various experiments and theories in order to understand humanness. One such theory is that a human being is capable of "love." Of course, as someone who believes love is essentially undefinable, I'm not sure that this solves the problem!
Being human means understanding something about humanness that is undefinable. We can't say what it is to be human, but we just kind of know what it is. And we kind of understand who other humans are. So, as humans become machines and machines become human, I suggest the following test for humanness: anything that can understand what it means to be human is human....well, or at least they are something like a human!
I fancy myself a thinker. I fancy myself a writer.
There are certainly deeper thinkers in this world and certainly better writers. But I am what I am, and the world is what it is.
One characteristic of this world is that it is saturated with writing. So, if someone says, "I wrote a book" it is difficult to be impressed. "You and how many other countless billions???"
In a disposable society, the writing and the writer are disposed of. Even writers who make it into the big distribution chain stores, like Barnes & Noble, are disposable: a one hit wonder or the flavor of the day. The worth of the book (and by implication the author) is only as much as the profit to the distribution outlets at any particular moment in time. Books that don't turn a profit are moved out of the way. Books that do turn a profit take their place. The non-selling book is moved to the bargain shelf. What does this mean? It means that the non-selling book is cheap. It's ideas are cheap. It's author is cheap. And anyone who buys it is cheap.
There is so much "originality" that nothing is original.
We live in an era where so many people are famous that no one is famous. Fame is old hat; it is boring. 15 minutes of fame is allotted to everyone, but no one really gets much more. No one, that is, except Tom Cruise and Britney; and they, of course, are insane. But insanity is becoming the one trait that is the most valuable for a celebrity to achieve. Michael Jackson showed us the way.
So, if I fancy myself a writer, why should I write a book?
Affirmation? Not interested.
Fame? Nope.
Money? Boring.
There are only a few reasons I can think of to write a book: 1) To bring more people to my blog to join in the conversations, which I think are quite interesting. But even this is debatable, because too many people commenting can defeat the purpose; a blog can become saturated with comments. 2) A book is still a different media. There is still something unique about holding a physical book in your hands and sitting down with it to read. This is certainly something to consider, but on the other hand, there is a lot that can be done with a blog that cannot be done with a book; specifically, multimedia. I can provide instant links to articles or essays or interesting websites that the reader can instantly access. Also, I can embed youtube videos in my blog, something I particularly enjoy, or I can upload pictures from around the world. My writing, then, can be woven together with links and multimedia in a unique way. It is something new to the 21st century--a historical time for writing.
Blogs are also instant publishing tools. History moves faster now. We live in hyperculture. Commentary can no longer wait. Both for better and for worser, we think and live on the fly. Writing must evolve. We must reflect and write at the speed of life.
Also, blogging provides the opportunity for instant feedback. This allows me to nuance my thoughts with different perspectives, particularly from those who present differing points of view. Or, perhaps I may realize my position or line of thinking lacks any substance, whatsoever. (This last scenario is, of course, completely hypothetical.)
One might think that the old school advocates of "authorial intent" would hail the advent of the blog as an unprecedented opportunity to discern the ever-elusive intentions of the author. Strangely, this has not been the case.
I'm sticking with the blog. It is superior to the book. (And, of course, my writing holds no substantial market value!) Blogging is a better way to communicate, not just to present the writing of an author but to evaluate and judge the self of the author. We no longer read at a distance, with an author that we do not know who exists in our mind as an image of perfection (or imperfection, as the case may be). We can now see the blemishes of the writer; or at the very least we can see their virtual blemishes.
In short, I feel that the book is an item of nostalgia [this thought, like any other thought, is not original, because there is nothing new under the sun; nothing, that is, except blogging]
Watch "The Moment of Truth" tonight: 9pm/ET on Fox
This is my new favorite show--perhaps of all time--but interestingly enough, my friend Nicole was repulsed by the very idea of exposing one's most personal issues to a national audience. A group of us was sitting around chatting about the show, and Nicole was so offended that she didn't even want to hear us discussing it!
The Truth About Fox's Controversial Reality Show By ZOË ALEXANDER TV GUIDE
With 23 million viewers, The Moment of Truth (Wednesdays, 9 pm/ET, Fox) garnered the highest-rated series debut in over a year — and the numbers don't lie. Here are some more cold, hard facts about the new Fox hit that asks lie-detector-tested contestants to put their reputations on the line by answering increasingly more personal (and more embarrassing) questions, for a chance at $500,000.
FACT: To come up with each player's 21 questions, producers dig deep. Contestants' friends and family are interrogated thoroughly. "They research your whole life," says Christie Youssef, 22, who admitted she's a virgin in the second episode. "I didn't have any idea of the scope until afterward."
FACT: No player has been fired because of something they revealed on the show. At least not yet. That could change after emergency medical technician Aaron Dunbar's episode airs. Dunbar, 22, admitted to falsifying patients' medical reports and to not recording vital signs as often as he should. "I don't think I'll be fired because it had no effect on the patients' care," Dunbar says. "I figure if they're sitting up talking to me, then they're OK. It's something that everyone does." Oh, really?
FACT: Truth has torn lovebirds apart. Dunbar's girlfriend Nicole axed him right after his taping. "Hearing me say some things in front of everyone was hard for her," he says. The fact that strangers shouted "Dump him!" didn't help, either. The good news: She took him back after three months of groveling.
FACT: Truth has helped heal old wounds. George Ortuzar, Episode 1's "Hair Club for Men" gambler, had been estranged from his son for seven years because his ex-wife told the kid he'd gambled away his college fund. When asked on the record if he had indeed lost the college money, Ortuzar's truthful "No" vindicated him. Now, he says, "My son and I are close again. We speak all the time now. I have the show to thank for that."
FACT: There are some questions even Truth can't ask. "We don't ask anything pertaining to minors," executive producer Howard Schultz says. "And we have to follow FCC rules, so we can't ask graphic sexual questions."
FACT: Contestants who get caught in a lie really do leave with nothing. That's right. Zero. Zilch. But "if you answer all six Level 1 questions truthfully, you get $10,000," Schultz explains. "Five more: $25,000. Four more, and it's $100,000 and so on."
FACT: The voice of Truth's "lie detector" comes from The Bold and the Beautiful. Or, rather, the actress who owns it does. Her name is Tasia Valenza. She played Suzanne on the CBS soap The Bold and the Beautiful and Dottie Thorton Martin on All My Children. And that's the truth.
Follow up video from our current discussion on the desire of suicide shooters to gain immortality via the fame of the media. I see this as indicative of our American culture's current obsession with fame.
I had a brief conversation with co-worker/internet legend James Spinti on the issue. One thing that came up in the conversation is that it seems as though our culture has lost a sense of Self that we then supplement through fame: we have YouTube ("broadcast yourself"), Myspace/Facebook, American Idol, and other variants of these trends that are avenues for the Self to be noticed and to rise above the Herd (Nietzsche). We are lost in the Crowd (Kierkegaard). With no inherent sense of self-worth and Identity our only recourse is mass recognition. But it is all a mirage. Puddle of Mudd says, Be careful what you wish for Hope that its everything that you dreamed When everythings falling apart at the seams And I know that you never believed in me Don't ever let them fuck with your dreams [Lyrics]
In light of this situation, my question is this: Is the church really all that different? We typically create institutions and cultures with our own pop stars: Pastors, Speakers, Preachers, Teachers, Worship Leaders, Worship Band Members, Elders, Deacons, Counselors, Famous Authors, etc. We put people on pedestals and create hierarchies. Since we lack intimate relationships in the Body it becomes difficult to cultivate the Self in a genuine and authentic way. (The Self always needs to be cultivated within genuine relationship with others.) Without a true sense of Self, we revert to the same avenues as our peers to develop Identity: Become one of the Christian pop stars. Be known in my church as someone who is one of the best Christians in the bunch.
In my opinion, then, the deception within church is then worse than the culture at large because we can spiritualize it. We can act as though spiritual stardom is our cross to bear and that pride is our thorn in the flesh. But maybe spiritual pop stardom was never God's idea to begin with. Maybe it is a product of our own fantasy and the recontextualization of the culture's values into the context of church.
(This video is kind of generic w/ pictures of the band. Maybe when the real video makes it on to Youtube I can replace this one. Ironic, isn't it, that a band's song bashing fame will increase their fame???)
Interesting reflections by Puddle of Mudd on generating drama for the sake of writing "passionate" lyrics: “Have you ever heard those lyrics by Nine Inch Nails: ‘I just made you up to hurt myself'?” he continues, laughing. “That's kinda how it is for songwriters I think: you almost create drama in your life just to get some good inspiration! Anything that irks you a little bit, for some weird and unknown reason, is good for really passionate songs. I write a lot of the stuff, but it's like a team – everybody's got their inspiration that they put into it.” [from the band's Myspace page 12/10/07]
I was watching an interview on Fox yesterday evening as I was peddling on the spin machine (pun intended) at the Grace College Rec Center. Fox was interviewing a psychologist (or psychiatrist) in an attempt to understand why the nineteen year-old Robert Hawkins opened fire in an Omaha shopping mall before blowing himself to bits shortly after he began. The psyche expert mentioned two things that interested me.
First, he said that the psychology field tends to lean on meds for its treatment, rather than on therapy. He said that there is a general trend to rely on meds as a quick and easy option. Whether or not that is true is something I do not know. To me, this seems like a rather convenient scapegoat, but it may very well be the case.
Second, and most interesting to me, was that he drew a parallel between the mindset of a suicide shooter like Hawkins and the motivation of an Al-Qaeda-type suicide bomber.
The common denominator? Both seek immortality.
The Religious Extremist enters instant immortality after a jihad suicide bombing: Eternity awaits with virgins and other joys and blessings. For Hawkins, immortality awaits via his lasting fame. In this information/media age, Immortality = Fame.
There is a new "cyber fame" that doesn't seem possible in any other age. If you open fire in a small town or community anywhere in the U.S., your name and face are instantly uploaded to billions of computer screens and television sets across the globe. But it isn't just your name that endures: it's your story. All the pain/anger/hurt/rage/etc. that you feel inside can be communicated to countless billions for all ages, preserved on blogs, youtube videos, and websites for all eternity. This is something of a virtual immortality.
Cho Seung-Hui, the recent gunman at the Virginia Tech shootings, was explicit in his desire to communicate a message to the world, and now even his obscure and poorly written play, Richard McBeef, will be analyzed and taken seriously. Cho was transformed from being a disturbed reject of society to being a disturbed reject who now has something to say to society. He sacrificed his life for sake of his message.
It is interesting to consider the history of media in relation to sensationalizing murder. This from Wikipedia on Jack the Ripper:
The Ripper murders mark an important watershed in modern British life. Whilst not the first serial killer, Jack the Ripper's case was the first to create a worldwide media frenzy. Reforms to the Stamp Act in 1855 had enabled the publication of inexpensive newspapers with wider circulation. These mushroomed later in the Victorian era to include mass-circulation newspapers as cheap as a halfpenny, along with popular magazines such as the Illustrated Police News, making the Ripper the beneficiary of previously unparalleled publicity. This, combined with the fact that no one was ever convicted of the murders, created a legend that cast a shadow over later serial killers.
Some believe that the killer's nickname was invented by newspapermen to make for a more interesting story that could sell more papers. This became standard media practice with examples such as the Boston Strangler, the Green River Killer, the Axeman of New Orleans, the Beltway Sniper, and the Hillside Strangler, besides the derivative Yorkshire Ripper almost a hundred years later and the unnamed perpetrator of the "Thames Nude Murders" of the 1960s, whom the press dubbed Jack the Stripper....
...To date more than 200 works of non-fiction have been published which deal exclusively with the Jack the Ripper murders, making it one of the most written-about true-crime subjects of the past century. Philip Sugden's The Complete History of Jack the Ripper is widely considered the best general overview of the case. Six periodicals about Jack the Ripper have been introduced since the early 1990s: Ripperana (1992-present), Ripperologist (1994-present, electronic format only since 2005), the Whitechapel Journal (1997–2000), Ripper Notes (1999-present), Ripperoo (2000–2003), and the The Whitechapel Society Journal (2005-present).
The point of this post is not to blame the media for school and mall shootings and suicide bombings. But neither can we be naive. The fact remains that our 21st century ability to proliferate information is an indispensable element in granting meaning and significance to these murders. The media guarantees the preservation of the angst. In other words, the media is immortality. And "media" is no longer a group of elites. "Media" is me and "media" is you.
Imagine that a suicide killing had occurred in a small town or an isolated community in the United States some 200 years ago. News of such a killing would not spread far. The general populace would never know. On recounting the event, the locals would likely grimace, shake their heads, and looking down at the ground say, "What a senseless, senseless murder. So pointless."
We can't say this anymore, though. We know the point. It is to proliferate pain, spread one's message, and preserve one's story. The media provides the content for the meaningless to become meaningful.
So, there arises a new cult of suicide shooters in the United States; a twisted brotherhood of suburban terrorists. It is a counter-cultural movement of troubled youths who sacrifice their lives so that their face can be uploaded to your computer screen and so that their messages can be spread across the cable news channels and preserved on Wikipedia.
I only wonder if perhaps there will arise so many of these suicide shooters that their names will become lost in a myriad of suburban terrorists and their acts will ultimately become banal and uninteresting to the public. For example, there is no national publicity if an inner city child is gunned down in the projects. Mall shootings concern suburbia because it hits too close to home.
I haven't blogged much on college football this year, but it has been an incredible year. Yesterday's action typified, mystified, and stupified the college football world, as it has been the case all season long. Both the #1 and #2 teams lost on the last day of the pre-bowl college football season. West Virginia (#2) lost an absolutely stunning game to Pittsburgh, who carried a losing record into the game. But this kind of upset occurs nearly every week, and the #2 team in the nation seems to be particularly prone to deflowering. In fact, the 2007 college football season is the year of the #2 curse.
So, I'm watching Lou Holtz, Mark May, and Chris Fowler discuss the situation this morning. Ohio State will sneak in to the #1 position. But who gets the #2 spot? This is where the debate touches on a philosophical issue: Who decides the #2 and how? Does the computer calculate the statistics and make the purely rational, objective decision? Lou Holtz was asked who should be #2. Lou answered by quickly whipping himself up into something of an emotional frenzy and made a call for those who vote for the #2 team to vote "from the heart." The computers don't watch the game, Holtz said, and the human element is necessary. This drew a pointed criticism from Mark May (which is a rather regular occurrence) who sarcastically suggested that one should not use their brain when voting. The discussion continued as to whether rational/objective measures should be used, or whether the undefined human element should be the ultimate standard for determining the college football rankings.
In some ways this is a debate we will continue to have as the lines blur between "reality" and "virtual reality." College football currently uses something of a hybrid method. The rankings are based both on human voting and also complex mathematical formulas based upon statistics; however, the so-called human element is favored. There are three elements to a BCS ranking: The AP Poll (human voting), the Coaches Poll (human voting), and the Computer Averages. The computer averages are a combination of 6 different computer rankings systems based on objective, mathematical statistics. The BCS tries to take something of an average of these various computer ranking systems to calculate the non-human element.
Why a preference for the human element? Why not just split it down the middle? Or, better yet, just let the computer decide. This is a philosophical question of great importance. As human beings we cannot ultimately choose a purely objective or mathematical means of ranking our college football teams. We still believe that there is a subjective and undefinable element that human beings possess that a computer cannot simulate. Given the choice of which college football team is "the best," we will favor a "human" choice over an objective choice. Most of us relate to Lou Holtz. We want those who cast the votes to choose "from the heart." For the majority, there is something about football that is essentially human and un-quantifiable.
College football rankings are just one of many areas of life where we must question the role of the subjective human being in relation to the objective computer system. Where it gets really interesting is when computers generate virtual realities that simulate the so-called "human element." What happens when we can no longer distinguish a difference between the "virtual world" and the "real world"? I blogged about this in relation to Warcraft and a South Park episode a while back. If one spends their lives in their mother's basement battling in an online video game of Warcraft, then what is more "real"? The virtual world of the game or the world outside mother's basement.
Another intriguing issue regarding the virtual and real world is that of sexuality. If sexual fantasies can be indulged in the virtual world with greater satisfaction than in the real world, then what are the moral implications? In 1 Corinthians 6, Paul says, "The body is not meant for sexual immorality....Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body?....All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body." If there is no other "real" person involved, and just virtual stimulation, where is the sin? Is it a "virtual sin"? Is it a lesser sin to engage in cyber sex rather than to find a hooker on the street? If most of us are being realistic, we would generally say that cyber sex is not as bad as real sex.
The virtual world is becoming the real world, and the real world is becoming the virtual world. It is increasingly becoming difficult to tell the difference.
The virtual/real overlap is also seen in Spielberg's movie A.I., the brainchild of Stanley Kubrick. In the movie, there is a moral dilemma regarding how to treat "mechas." A mecha is an artificial life form. The movie opens with a discussion of the moral implications of creating mechas that can love. There is a sequence of dialog that I have always loved. "Hobby" is giving what appears to be a lecture at a Corporation sometime in the future regarding a new virtual person (robot) that looks just like a real human. In fact, they have even equipped it with the capacity to love. A female team member raises a few questions that are intriguing:
FEMALE TEAM MEMBER You know, it occurs to me... um...with all this animus existing against mechas today, it isn't simply a question of creating a robot who can love, but isn't the real conundrum - can you get a human to love them back?
HOBBY Ours will be a perfect child caught in a freeze-frame - always loving, never ill, never changing. With all the childless couples yearning in vain for a license, our little mecha would not only open an entirely new market, it will fill a great human need.
FEMALE TEAM MEMBER But you haven't answered my question. If a robot could genuinely love a person, what responsibility does that person hold toward that mecha in return? It's a moral question, isn't it?
In this extended A.I. clip, David, the robot boy who is made to love (played by Haley Joel Osment) meets up with Gigolo Joe (Jude Law) and they search for the Blue Fairy (recall Pinocchio) so that David can win his mother's love. Gigolo Joe makes several, very interesting comments relevant to our discussion here on cyber sex. Also intriguing is at the very end of this clip when Joe and David combine "Fact" with "Fairy Tale" in order to find the real existence of the fairy tale character, Blue Fairy.
Here at the Theos Project we track the current shifting of culture by observing the change of language - or vica versa. This is particularly true in relation to how technology over the last 100+ years has changed the way we live and think.
Our current word is "snurfing." I take it from a recent Comcast commercial. Comcast is currently running commercials where they coin terms (like "televisiphonernetting") that relate with how we use technology. "Snurfing" is surfing online when one is supposed to be on the phone. This most often occurs by members of the male gender when talking to their significant female other. Or is it???? Regardless, I must raise my hand as being guilty of this quite often. Even as recently as last night. (Sorry, Mom!)
Over the course of the last month or so my bbff has asserted various comments regarding the statistics of his blog, i.e. how much traffic is coming through in terms of hits and page loads. Usually these are somehow associated with his perception that my blog is becoming a super blog, on par with Super-Christian-Blogger, Scot McKnight, or that I am in some way stealing his traffic.
I interpret the comments variously, but usually I take them as passive-aggressive manifestations of personal angst. The charges are completely groundless. For one thing, my blog gets enough traffic to make things interesting, but I will never be a Super Blogger, nor would I want to be stuck with such a curse. Imagine leaving a post and then finding within an hour you have a hundred hits: That would suck! How would a blogger ever encourage serious thought and dialog on a post if it becomes a mess of comments like that?
But what has struck me was that my bbff seems to be sliding down the slippery slope of capitalism and slowly descending into the muck and mire of consumerism. Yes, my friends! The blogosphere cannot escape the inevitable fate of consumerism. In fact, it is already all around us. Blogging becomes about generating hits and pageloads and traffic and no more about content or substance: In short it has been turned over the fickle masses.
The "success" of a blog is now dependent upon what you can give to the consumer. Don't want to give the Consumer God her due? Fine. But you'll suffer with low traffic. Muuuuuuhahahaha! (That's code for a sinister laugh, something that comes from deep in the chest finish, rises up in the voice, and finishes back within the chest.)
Thus this post continues my explorations into blogoneutics, and in light of the evils of the religious Consumerism that has taken control of the blogosphere and tainted her pure heart and chaste mind, I suggest the following words of Jesus:
Admittedly, I have taken a bit of liberty in my translation in order to make the verse relevant to our current topic of discussion.
The above "Golden Rule" applied against American culture shames us for our rampant Consumerism, whereby "I" comes before "neighbor." It changes the mindset and flips the paradigm in a culture obsessed with desire.
Yet, bringing things back to the blogosphere, what might it look like to apply the above variation of the Golden rule to blogging? A few suggestions:
Resolved: A blog needs to be more about the dialog that follows a post than about the post itself. On the surface, this may sound like consumerism: That a post is more about generating and stimulating the consumer. But au contraire, my good friends! For a loving blogger must find satisfaction in allowing his or her neighbors to write and interpret, contributing to the over-all growth of the community, rather than becoming obsessed with becoming a Blogging Super Star.
Resolved: Invest as much in the blogs of others as I do in my own. Learning of and from my fellow bloggers to develop a community of care and concern.
Resolved: To never dish out more "fill-in-the-blank" than I can take in return, and to always deconstruct with love.
Perhaps there are more resolutions of a Golden Rule Blogger to be added to the list. These are just the ones that I need to work on so as to be "blameless and pure."
Ebay is said to be Capitalism at its finest. Buyers pay for a product based on what it is worth. What is the worth of a product? Well, the consumer decides. It is supply and demand at its finest.
But notice that when Capitalism is extrapolated (as in the case with Ebay) the essence is competition. The marketplace is a battle field. This is war. The competition is on, and the good shopper is the "victorious" shopper. But every winner has at least one loser. Ultimately, then, it sets us against each other in a marketplace of consumption.
Interesting, though, that when it comes time to market itself the slogan "Shop Victoriously!" conjures up the image and perception that I will never lose. The reality, of course, is that someone must lose. Many bidders bid, and only one gains the coveted prize. But what if there is only one bidder? Surely then no one loses??? Ah, but then the seller loses, because he must undersell his product beneath market value.
So, we, the American faithful march on: Shop victoriously, America! And beat the living daylights out of anyone that stands in your way!
Mark Cuban is the owner of the Dallas Mavericks, a graduate of Indiana University, and a frequent blogger. (His greatest accomplishments having just been listed in reverse order.)
I believe it was Socrates who expressed fear that writing would relax the mind and it would not have to recall. Humanity was once a culture of oral communication, and then gradually writing became mainstream via technology. Now technology has reached a point where our stream of consciousness can be recorded with little thoughtfulness. Thought translated straight into the electronic format of your choice. Thought into text. In the blink of an eye.
21st Century writing: Thought disappears as soon as it becomes.
Where does thought go? It becomes an electronic trace. Where is the trace? On some server, somewhere. Or on a harddrive. Or in a phone.
Thoughts are then shared with the world. An endless process of each person recycling thoughts and manufacturing new thoughts. All thoughts disappearing nearly as quickly as they are formed. We are building a matrix of thoughts - a tapestry of communication. But who is in charge here? The thoughts of the people? Or the communication matrix?
"Theos" is the Greek word for "God," making this blog something of a God Project........A project that we all collaborate on, that we all share in, saying what can't be said.......different faith traditions in dialog, believer and nonbeliever in conversation.......Please feel comfortable joining the dialog, each perspective is valuable and beautiful in its own way, because all of us "know in part."
