Slashdot Mirror
The Virtue of Communal Instincts
The following was written by Slashdot Reader Brian Martin
The Virtue of Communal Instinct With the recent hoopla surrounding Michael Chaney's courtesy to Microsoft, much breath has been given to the discussion of the incident as if there are 'sides' to be taken in some sort of 'battle'. Questions like "Would a Windows NT Admin Have Paid for LINUX.COM" are nothing if not antagonistic. While antagonism has its inherent value, such value is often over-appraised. Most Linux users will preach on the fact that their OS is more reliable, powerful, secure, inexpensive, etc. than the offerings from Microsoft. Microsoft will preach their FUD and usability. Macintosh users sit by and watch the battle with a belief that their OS is better than either of the others. The BSD users stand in the corner with their quiet exclusivity. But this is not an OS issue, it never was.What an unfortunate use of our time and energy to bicker about a commodity piece of software like an OS. Can you honestly say that in the simplest terms your OS matters when using the Internet? I don't believe you can. We as a community are approaching a point where the petty arguments over what OS, browser, e-mail program, etc. are fruitless and mean nothing. The key to the future has never been the messenger, just the message. Sure, it is important that the messenger be fast, reliable, secure, and usable. Sure, it is important that new ideas be constantly integrated, tested, and either kept or dumped. Sure, some avenue should be left for individuals to make a living off of assisting others with a lighter inclination towards computers and the net. But when the messenger in all its glory (or simplicity) becomes the focus of the attention, then the message is lost in the confusion.
We must ask ourselves, as vocal and involved users of the Internet, one simple question: Why do we use the Net? I believe the answer to that question is that somewhere deep inside the bowels of instinct there is a piece of all of us that wants to commune with others. This is not a unique idea, this is not a new idea. If this is the case, then why do we form divisions in the community based on software or hardware selections?
Another more important aspect of this communal instinct is the goal - what do we hope to gain by communing? For some, it is a sense of enlightenment - the perfect end to the infinite search for knowledge. For some, it is a sense of family - the power of belonging. For some, it is a sense of dominance - the power hungry seek for the inexperienced user to prey upon. All of these things lead back to one source - the Ego. All of these things are fodder for the conscious thought. However, when you talk about instinct, you normally think of the id - that part of the human psyche which is the source of instinctual impulses. It seems as if the internet has given us a tool to satiate the communal instinct of the id, but that our Ego hijacks the process.
And what about the superego? What internalized sense of morality is constructed by communing in this way? We see now the uprising of a 'free information' movement. Statements of thought such as "The Cathedral and The Bazaar" have opened many minds to this thread of generosity.
One could suggest that our entire lives, humanity has been growing closer and closer together. The id driving constantly for satiation with a communal sharing of ideas. A rapid spiral of communication where technology is driven by the need for either real or virtual proximity. From the feudal days where you were unlikely to know people who lived further away than a day or two walk, to the age and boom of the telegraph/phone. Add in the invention of the printing press - which provided consistent portability of ideas, not just permanence of those ideas - and the myriad of transportation technologies, and we find this web of connectivity between people. For example, I can be contacted via postal service, telephone, e-mail, pager, instant messaging, or by personal visit. Every one of these methods has seen significant improvement by technology. If we assume that the point of all of this technology is to make it easier to communicate with others, when are we going to adjust our focus from constantly improving the technology to actually using the technology?
This leads us to the natural division of our community rather than some capitalistic ego-driven segregation. The natural order of perception should be understanding what level of balance between computing and communing is right for you, and then reinforcing that with others who seek a similar balance point. Individuals who find peace closer to the computing side of things will be the 'innovators' and 'inventors' of technology. Individuals comfortable at the other end of the spectrum will be the 'enlighteners' and 'internalizers' of idea and thought. With this concept of perception in place, we see that the majority of Internet users are of the 'innovator/inventor' genre. For now, those people who may someday be the 'enlighteners/internalizers' flock to services like AOL - communities that require minimal computing knowledge and experience.
The fact that there will always be individuals at both ends of the spectrum insures the reliability of the medium. It is up to the 'innovators/inventors' to provide the messenger. It is up to the 'enlighteners/internalizers' to provide a concept/idea for the messenger.
What Michael Chaney did was quite simple, quite noble, and a perfect example of an 'innovator/inventor' providing for the masses. He saw a gap, closed it, and enabled probably millions of people to communicate with others over the holiday because of it.
- The os and assorted programs define what you are able to do with your computer out of the box. People keep saying that if internet users really wanted a X feature out of the box, the market presures would make it happen. Quite frankly, this is just not true. Due to the Microsoft hegemony, people have a skewed vision of what their OS can do. Many people want their own website but feel it is too hard to get server space without the anoying popups and banner adds. If they kewn and felt that a webserver should come with the OS, would a company like Microsoft give their webserver away? Web serving is a fundimental communication principle that the net uses, but is mostly unavailble on the largest user OS and definately not, in the box.
- Users have a skewed view of what services that they can use out of the box. Has anyone tried to use the default Windows telnet out of the box? Compare that to a Unix telnet. How about IRC? These are fundimental communication technolgies that the 'enlighteners/internalizers' cannot use out of the box because of their OS. If communication is the key to the net (which I feel it is) then how could their OS not matter?
- To return to the subject of services, can anyone imagine their Unix box without telnetd? How about ftpd? Sendmail (or related mail tech)? People cannot utilize their machine to its fullest sense because their OS does not allow that use. Ask yourself, if those services came default in Windows historically and the next release they were taken away, would people not care? They would be furious because their ability to communicate.
- If these people are flocking to AOL and MS because of its ease of use, does that mean they should be denied basic computational and communicative power because they chose a path with a low learning curve? Currently, these people's expressive ablity is limited because they have to go out and typically purchase hundreds of dollars of extra software to get these services. They are seen as extras when really they are almost fundimental rights. Their OS has limited them.
If the people who are flocking to the internet are really going to spend time creating ideas, they need to be able to communicate them. You mention several technologies that have tremendously enhanced people's expressive power. Now, because of the tool that they choose to use, that power is limited. So honestly, I do feel that the OS matters. And not just a little bit, but a LOT. Until people use an OS that provides programs that fully utilize internet services and give easy access to contenet serving, they will be intellectually hampered and unable to realize the full communacative potential that we both feel that they have.Crulx
Except that the Prussian state was unstable. And it was unstable for the same reason that Brian's utopian ideal is unstable. It's the reason that Karl Marx (early, pre Communist Manifesto) identified in a statement which was shocking at the time, but so true that these days it's taken as obvious.
Between genuinely opposing interests, there can be no compromise
We can't all work together, because some of "us" depend for "our" existence on keeping code proprietary, and some of us depend on keeping it free. Microsoft can't compromise with free-software, because if it does, it effectively dies as Microsoft. Sure, it could exist as a distro company for FreeWindows2000, but it would no longer be Microsoft in anything but name.
Similarly, it's not possible to say that you want "most" code to be open source, any more than you can say you want "most" speech to be free. Freedom scales in some ways, but not in this way. The existence of the whole copyright/patent/trademark legal nexus is inimical to the free exchange of information. It's a part of "the system" (a term degraded by the dull hippies who coined it) -- the legal and political superstructure put up to serve the interests of those who control the economic base.
Microsoft and free software have fundamentally inconsistent economic interests, so any accomodation between them has to be unstable, and prone to collapse. There's no way around it. Compromises, whether it's a sickly Christmas fairy-story, or the OpenBSD license, are attempts to kid oneself. They are nice illusions, and people like Mike Chaney and the OpenBSD advocates are to be praised for trying to make things good, but the fact is that opposites are irreconcilable. We need to stop kidding ourselves.
Marx said it best himself:
We need to see the copyright/patent/trademark proprietary structure for what it is -- a restriction on our freedom. Articles like this are just attempts to put more flowers on the chain.
Karl Marx ... Between genuinely opposing interests, there can be no compromise.
And Marx was essentially a means by which the ancient enemy of all honorable peoples could continue the essential "we are the world" hypocrisy of JudeoChristianity despite the disruptions of post-Enlightenment forces like Darwin.
There is a reason why Drawin's theories and study of genetics were suppressed in the empires spawned by Marx/Engels, and it is essentially the same reason they are taboo in in much of JudeoChristiandom as well as the newest religion of Empires, Political Correctness:
The real and enduring opposing interests, until we take responsibility for them as a technological civilization, are genetic self interests. Within JudeoChristianity, Marxism and Political Correctness (not to mention lesser forms of hypocrisy such as Nationalism) we are all supposed to identify as one people so that those instinctively less prone to having their kin-altruism abused can exploit us at their leisure -- until there are no people left who are capable of morality.
That means the end of the moral animal: Man.
I don't think Open Source is therefore working against the existence of Man, but I do think we had have to start paying a lot of attention to studies of altruism and communication in the presence of the Prisoner's Dilemma predict for Empires built on over-extended kin identification -- as well as the history of moral systems that condemn open dialogue about genetic tendencies to defect within our global Prisoner's Dilemma.
Seastead this.
Personally, I prefer the Triune Brain and variations thereof. The "power" which the original author ascribed to high-level conscious thought would be low-level reptilian preservation and domination instinct. The "community" is from the mammalian brain, whose emotions often are wired for herd or wolf-pack behavior, depending upon the species.
This article has some interesting observations, but I think they are pigeonholed in some obsolete psychological technology.
I gotta disagree on this one. For those who have access to a computer, the internet, yes, is quite an equalizer. But not everyone has access to a computer. Sure, libraries and schools have computers that are "Open to the public", but this simply does not pan out in reality. The guy sleeping on the street cannot walk into a library and log onto a computer unfettered (of course, the more important fact is, he will not, he's too busy fighting off hypothermia).
Point is, while the internet provides an interesting case study of human communalization, it does not remove the economic barriers. The people who were outcasts yesterday are still outcasts today. If we form communities on the net, it is largely because we are already in communities in real life - most of us are employable, mildly educated, and well fed.
Judge Pag, the Learned, Impartial, and Very Relaxed
Open source has made it possible for people with ideas and a message to build tools that either embody it or enable it if they have the talent.
The net will not be what we demand, but what we make it. Build it well.
Here is my theory:
/forcing/ us to increase our number of connections. I think this is having the effect of making each connection less meaningful. Humans and communication and the relationships founded thereon are commoditized now - when's the last time you said something meaningful to the cashier or guy behind the counter?
/more/ isolating, and suffocating. You walk accross a street downtown and may see hundreds of people...but you know not one...they are just a few faces out of billions. It's sort of like being suffocated by oxygen (it can happen). There is so much that you are unable to make use of it. I also think it may be having an effect physically. Animals need space. We are imbued with a sense of our range and a sense of how much space, either physical or emotional, that we need. Increasing our interactions with other so much, I believe is creating a new emergent behavior. Everybody is too close, driving too slow, or talking too much or too loud.
I've always thought that the ideal human grouping is the "clan". For hundreds of thousands if not millions of years, man (and woman) developed and gravitated towards this grouping. A clan is small enough that everybody knows each other and can agree on mores, but not big enough that a separation needs to be made between the "people" and "government". I think the "clan" is the basic unit we still gravitate towards. Numbering hundreds and hundreds of thousands, there are still Geek clans, Musician clans, etc.
Technology has forever been enabling us to communicate more easily, and expand the horizons of the world we live in. Our realm of acquantaince is not a few square miles anymore...it is the whole globe. In a clan, the person to person connection is tight because there are a small number of people. Technology is enabling, and
We are all "guys behind the counter".
I think this is actually having the reverse effect of what we expect an increased ability for communications via technology would provide. We now have many many many more connections with people, but they are less and less meaningful. Pervasive communications I think is having the effect of being
I hope I am wrong...because it is sort of sad. One of the things I think illustrates this "pseudo-theory/feeling" of mine, is, for example, the music and cover art of Radiohead...coldly nihilistic, and nostalgiac. ("let down", "uptight", "lucky", "tourist", etc. on OK Computer, but also The Bends and Pablo Honey...)
I guess to sum it up...pervasive communications is commoditizing us...Marx predicted technology would commoditize us physically...I feel communications technology might be commoditizing us emotionally/spiritually/mentally.
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?