Slashdot Mirror
Is Web 2.0 the Advent of the Post-Modern Internet?
jg21 writes "Web 2.0 Journal has an essay on 'The Post-Modern Rhetoric of High Technology' in which the author contends that Web 2.0 is nothing less than 'the advent of the Post-Modern Internet. Will Web 2.0 be a revolution or a mere rebellion?" From the article: "Web 2.0 can take two distinct directions, and it is perhaps the rhetoric of it all that will define the path. Web 2.0 can be the French Revolution of Technology or it can be the American Revolution of Technology. Joseph Schumpeter's winds of creative destruction are blowing especially hard in the Internet technology world today, with remarkable improvements to our daily lives. But these winds can blow too hard too often, and an even older economic law, the Law of Diminishing Returns, begins to take over. Our wild-eyed radical phase must ultimately give way to some replacement. We cannot permanently be the rebels."
Does any half-way intelligent person take Postmodernism seriously? Postmodernism is the String Theory of philosophy, one of those theories that nests itself in a safe defensive position where nothing can really be proven or disproven.
When you get into nuts and bolts stuff, there's no point even exploring PM.
PM can easily be summarized in the grand cliche "think outside the box".
Wow! Maybe we can have postmodern space flight. Better yet, let's have postmodern genetic engineering... at least that would yield results worth laughing at.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
Our wild-eyed radical phase must ultimately give way to some replacement. We cannot permanently be the rebels.
What on Earth is he talking about?
Enlightenment thinking was clear and organized. There were disagreements amongst the thinkers of the Era, but the Era itself was definable.
So he says, but is unable to recognize it's principles as they are applied to software freedom. There's a straight line between the US Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and the "rhetoric" of the internet liberating electronic expression from Government control. Business and economic success are simple byproduct of freedom. We can and must all be rebels so long as others would tax and control us without consent. Making money off the result is secondary.
The name calling is more understandable if he's forcasting the next big company caused IT meltdown. The so called "bursting of the internet bubble" was a direct result of bad laws which allowed public resources to be stolen by the likes of Bellsouth. The laws which allowed them to crush the DSL companies were bought with the promise of shiny fiber to the curb networks which were charged for but never appeared. Other companies, Netscape etc, were crushed in much the same way. As the next set of shitty laws are passed in the name of fighting terrorism and big dumb executives gloat at their expected revenues, I suppose it's time to crank up the "wild eyed rebel propaganda." It would not do to crush "small business innovators" and "mom and pop shops" now would it?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
"Chief Strategy Officer"
And what idiot lists his "campus council" work in his bio once he's gotten his first job?
And for the ultimate humiliation
I do believe they meant post "m-o-d-e-m", since most pages on the "2.0" Internets now require enough bandwidth to make those stubborn "I'll never leave leave my beloved dial-up!" (Most of us know someone like this) users switch to Cable or DSL! Oh, and before you argue - there is no such thing as a "cable modem" or "DSL modem" - those are really bridges or routers.
I don't want to stretch this discussion much further, but I agree with all of your points. Nonetheless:
No doubt the article's statements "Post-modernism cannot be defined except by saying what it is not. It is not modern; it is what came after the Enlightenment" is outright ridiculous.
However, my point was not to argue that a definition for justice CAN'T be given (by Nozick or Rawls or others); The mere fact that we ARGUE about it, means we have some understanding of it prior to trying to define it ("explication" is the technical philosophical term, I believe). My point was that in our everyday life, me, you and lots of others use and understand words which WE can't define, even some remote expert may try to provide a definition for them. I know many religious people who use the word "Religion" perfectly well althuogh THEY would be pressed if asked for definition, and may even argue it can't be given IN PRINCIPLE. The idea that if you can't define something you don't understand it, or that if something can't (in principle) be defined it's bogus, seems to me like typical fallacious "slashdotism" which occurs in many +5 insightful comments I read here.
As regards to Hobbes, it's a whole different issue, because of his nominalism: his thesis that because definitions are given by us arbitrarily, and because all truths depend on definitions, truths are arbitrary. This thesis is in fact a precedent to current postmodernist thought.