SO, my plan is to make a blog post for each corresponding book that you assigned to us as I reread them in an attempt to prepare for our final project. Within each blog, I shall be posting my notes regarding what specifically I am reading. These posts may be a little less informal due to this, but again, I think you’ll appreciate the amount of thought and notes I put into each post, especially considering how they’ll affect my train of thought within the last music project.
Chapter 1:
‘Whether I’m online or not, my mind now expects to take in information the way the net distributes it: in a swiftly moving stream of particles” (31, The Shallows)
Right after this quote, Carr mentions that he himself could be an abnormality in this way of thinking, especially in light of his less focused attention towards deep reading. I want to agree with him, but he pulls out a substantial amount of anecdotal evidence. This has lead me to wondering if perhaps I’m the normality. My saving grace, that which pulls me away from this sort of thinking, flies true in the fact that I believe there’s an empirical difference between those who grow with progressive technology versus those who are thrust into the new and expanding world. Carr’s opening chapter swings wide the door to my psyche, and I allow questions to flow out of my mind in regards to my own ability to focus. Specifically, I had a long room mate discussion on the concept of concentration in correlation with interests and non-interests. I’m not entirely sure this is an ability brought about by the internet, or merely a form of analyzation and processing that has existed since the start of time immemorial.
Further on, as he continues, I found that his numerous anecdotal stories were very counterintuitive to his primary arguments. Yes, of course the internet can affect the brain, especially the way that it processes information, but it’s in my strong belief that technological advances are merely a form of allowing a plethora of diverse research forms to emmerge. For instance, I don’t believe books will ever truly disappear, the medium in which they’re available on might, but the concept of ‘book’ is something that I believe is sort of essential to the human condition, internet and computers or not. The fact that we’ve freed ourselves from relying solely on them is sort of brilliant, but by no means are we completely expunging our souls from allowing an author to lead us through page to page.
Chapter 2:
I appreciated chapter 2 for the most part, specifically his opening where he describes how Nietzsche and his writing changed after moving over to a type-writer rather than writing out his work. I struggle to talk about anything in this chapter because to me brain plasticity has always seemingly been a common thought process, but I’m surprised that most people didn’t seemingly find that to be a case for a long while. C’est la vie, we evolve in terms of thought processes it seems like. This chapter also seems primarily to carry on the argument regarding humanities’ ability to become obsessed/molded by technology. Moving on.
Chapter 3:
Ok, this chapter was chock full of a lot more stuff than the last one, especially for someone like me who is/was taking ancient philosophy as a class right now. I’m actually fairly certain that we had the discussion regarding Plato versus Socrates in regards for the importance of reading versus memory. It’s almost reflective of the debate that we had earlier in the semester regarding ideology and realism(why do we find the sun beautiful?). Socrates is on the end of arguing that reading merely perpetuates the learning of knowledge that is only a mimic of the actual recollection, and he’s not wrong, but I find that this is kind of the same in terms of oral tradition. I find it extremely difficult to differ the two in all honesty.
I also really enjoy the debate between instrumentalism versus realism, though I find that instrumentalism kind of dominates the debate. Human kind’s basic ability to deny technology is a strong counter argument to what realism hopes to express regarding technology merely evolving past the limits of humankind. After all, if you want to take 2001: Space Odyssey as an example, the author and evidently Stanley Kubrick seemed to hold to some idea that humanity would learn to evolve past technology. And that’s an interesting concept in terms of evolution you know. I’d be hard pressed to say that animals don’t use tools, and I’d be hardpressed to say that humans don’t have the ability to think abstractly without creating ‘intellectual’ machines, aka Harriet Tubman knowing that the concept or ‘north’ is symbolized . This means that I really think that tools are merely a byproduct of human evolution, and I guess the grand debate is whether or not they hider our physical evolution or advance it? Do we evolve with tech, or do we evolve past tech? It’s something I’ve always really wondered.
One of my other big contentions with the authors claim is regarding language. I understand what he’s saying, but language in any species(if animals truly do communicate with each other in some sort of formalized language) isn’t really inherent. Separating a human from observable humans will keep him from learning how to speak until he’s introduced to other humans. Human language in itself is very abstract, I mean you’re talking about humans being able to interpret certain pitches and formations of mere molecule vibration. It’s rather incredible. There’s more stuff in the chapter, but again, I think it’s just author providing more proof for what he believes might be a causation attention being split due to the evolution of technology. It’s like a theory of mind evolution.
Chapter 4:
Ah, the infamous chapter regarding the general and private self. Now having read the entire book, I find this chapter to be especially interesting in it’s build up, and I wouldn’t be surprised if this one happened to be one of your favourites prof. I’m glad that Carr acknowledges that humans by nature are naturally scatterbrained(135), and I’m not gonna lie, I immediately thought this would ruin his entire book’s credibility, but thankfully he explains more about the true affects of books towards the brain than the internet to the brain.
Important quote to use for future use, “For most of history, the normal path of human thought was anything but linear” 136
You’ll have to forgive me, as I have a lot of highlighted quotes that I don’t entirely remember what I meant to say about each one(wow Carr, I guess you really have beaten me. But, Carr quotes this bishop Issac of Syria guy, he says
“The medieval bishop Issac of Syria described how, whenever he read to himself, ‘as in a dream, I enter a state when my sense and thoughts are concentrated. Then, when with prolonging of this silence the turmoil of memories is stilled in my heart, ceaseless waves of joy are sent me by inner thoughts, beyond expectation suddenly arising to delight my heart.’ Reading book was a meditative act, but it didn’t involve a clearing of the mind. It involved a filling, or replenishing of the mind.” (138)
Ok, my base reaction to this one was in comparison to the sorts of medium that I find around me to today. It’s very interesting to compare because I feel this way when I read a book normally. I feel this way when I lock down the mood for writing, and I especially feel this way for when I’m viewing movies(a medium that’s more important to me than the internet by far). If it was comparable to food, it’s like the internet is popcorn, it’s something to snack on, but it’s never been considerate of me to be my main source of intellectual stimulation. Poetry, books, and especially movies, are fine wine, medium rare steak, and traditional hibachi respectively. The internet is not a primary tool for actual substance, the meat of life, I receive those from other mediums. The mediums that require work and thought are my cup of tea, I’m not sure anyone receives this type of stimuli, or requires the stimuli, from the internet. Of course, I could just be very wrong about this, I’ve over assumed about my fellow man too many times to count.
Another interesting point,
“Working alone in his chambers, the Benedictine monk Guibert of Nogent had the confidence to compose unorthodox interpretations of scripture, vivid accounts of his dreams, even erotic poetry- things he would never have written had he would never have written had he been required to dictate them to a scribe.”(139)
So I originally thought of this quote as a total evidence for me to attack Socrates with this because it’s evident proof that the concepts of books and writing kind of allowed the private self to flourish and create things that would’ve probably never been made in light of the general opinion. THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT OBVIOUSLY. But, I think I’ve come to terms with the fact that Carr seems on board with the fact that books are really important, infact he jives with Plato’s mental thought processes a lot. So all I can really say here is the observation that I’m pretty sure that humanity has not entirely done the opposite. Farther on in the book, Carr mentions how the internet has brought humanity back to the forefront of generality, as almost everything of worth seems to need to be shared(the whole class concept of information needs to be free), but I think it’s a little more complex than that. I find that people throughout history want a sense of satisfaction or a desire to feel like they belong. The internet, it seems, allows for all sorts of people to not hide their privatization, but to share it in smaller communal online groups that hold similar desires and interests. Theres no fear from the public as whole, because the internet allows like minded individuals to find each other. SO does that make their content and information private or public? I’m not sure, theres a lot more philosophy to the internet than I had presumed before.
Another important aspect for this entire chapter is that there are several points in which the discussion of books is relevant to information being free for people to share and discuss ideas. It’s a very strange mix between the private and general self.
A really big point of contention for me, aka I hate this quote would be,
“We cannot go back to the lost oral world, any more than we can turn the clock back to a time before the clock existed. ‘Writing and print and the computer,’ writes Walter Ong, ‘are all ways of technologizing the word’ and once technologized, the word cannot be de-technologized.’
I have to rather disagree with Carr’s strain of logic here. I think it’s kind of ludicrous that we lack the ability to regress as a collective human species. It’s incredibly possible, as we’ve already discussed the fact that general mindsets (private vs general) have a strong ability of regressing upon itself.
One final note, I was watching a movie earlier, and I had the sudden realization that Socrates ironically wasn’t afraid of books, but the internet itself. As we’ll see later on, Carr argues that books strengthen memory whilst the internet utterly seems to destroy it. Safe to say, Socrates was far ahead of his time.
Chapter 6:
I appreciated the latter of this chapter, but, as my room mates could attest to my 3 AM ranting, I utterly hated the start in words of the comparison between the benefits of a laptop versus a book(check out pages 201-205). It actually made me think a lot about our current music project that we’re working on, especially when you think about the advantages of being able to carry a full music studio around with you wherever you go. I kind of believe a laptop actually follows all the same conditions of a book outside of the battery dying, but I mean, if I’m at a beach, I feel like I shouldn’t be reading over the duration of like, 2 hours(the amount of time it would probably take for my laptop to die).
Another interesting contradiction, to quote,
“When a printed book-whether a recently published scholarly history or a two-hundred year-old Victorian novel-is transferred to an electronic device connected to the Internet, it turns into something very like a Web site. its words become wrapped in all the distractions of the networked computer. Its links and other digital enhancements propel the reader hither and yon.”(210)
I’m not sure this is true. I literally read Carr’s book on my phone, and I’d say I was able to ‘deep read’ the book and be able to actually to implement it’s content into not only this blog, but also my planned thoughts in the upcoming paper. I find that the ‘links and digital enhancements’ that he refers to, could certainly be synonymous with natural sounds. If I was reading in the year 1770 out in the forest, whose to say I wouldn’t get frightened by a bee flying around my ears. That stretches the attention about as much as me checking apps or hyper links or what not.
Carr brings up an interesting point about reading and writing(or the privatization-relationship between writers and readers) and I think it could be an interesting topic point regarding the displacement of music in favour of technology. He says,
“But the cost will be a further weakening, if not a final severing, of the intimate intellectual attachment between the lone writer and the lone reader.”(217)
This also brings into the question of privatization versus general viewing as a whole experience, but again, I shall discuss this later in the paper.
Around 220, he discusses people of the past making the basic prediction of audio books, it’s incredibly interesting, but I also think it makes a larger case to say that we sometimes overestimate the dangers of current technologies, but again, I seem to be very adamant about defending the concepts of the internet and new computer technology. Again, I’ll bring up this case as he continues to mention how various mediums have all been a threat to the idea of a book itself. And similarly to memory, you have such things as the song ‘Video killed the Radio Star’. I think Carr overvalues the power of old ideas over the current medium. Hell, if you want to, you can consider the comeback of vinyl records as a cultural phenomenon in accordance to what I’m referring to. I need to reiterate the fact that I firmly believe the mind can stretch in ways that are parallel. To say that I can’t learn both deep focus and customary focus(that is to say in accordance with the internet) is lightly absurd.
Chapter 7:
‘Try reading a book while doing a crossword puzzle, that’s the intellectual environment of the internet.” Yes and no, it’s the same thing as texting and driving. Yes, it’s inherent that you can’t do both safely, but I mean, just because I have my phone in my pocket doesn’t mean I’m gonna instinctively pull out my phone and text just to text. Just because the option is there, doesn’t mean I’m going to partake in it. Same goes with the copious amounts of stimuli that accompanies anything that you’re partaking in within the internet.
This chapter in general is mostly about the mind’s ability to not concentrate, specifically why it can’t concentrate. It’s mostly self explanatory, and if I really struggle to concentrate throughout my project, I’ll be sure to cite the many experiments and people cites as proof in this chapter.
Chapter 8:
This chapter should’ve been named the cult of google.
If there’s one thing that scares me, it’s the corporate control of the free space of living that is the internet. It’s not the European Union(looking at you Article 13), it’s companies like Google that claim to be wanting free information for everyone. Especially, when we decide to give companies like Google all of the power. It’s a fearful thought to know that there are a plethoric scale of people internationally who don’t have a full comprehension of the Internet. I mean, I don’t mean to preach about the Deep Web, but it is a thing. It’s a dangerous thing, but so was the wild west. My point in this small rant is that I have a lot of trouble giving all of the power to one company in allowing what things are to remain prevalent versus what things need to be hidden. I sound like a serious conspiracy theorist, but it is something that’s I’m incredibly terrified of. The spread of information in a free environment is threatened by large companies who seem to control how people are drifted towards information.
Oh an interesting observation that this chapter made was actually connected to media output and the actual quality of media output. He says, “These companies are dedicated to providing their millions of members with a never-ending ‘stream’ of ‘real-time updates,’ brief messages about, as a Twitter slogan puts it, ‘what’s happening right now.'”(308)
This is actually a pretty correlated effect of how I’d argue that a lot of people would say that media has seriously gone down the drain over the past x amount of years. Mediums focused way too much on just getting as much content out as possible rather than worry about the actual quality of said content. I know that Hollywood has seriously run into this problem in the 2000s. Theres defiantly an argument here that the two factors of internet and bad content as relative clauses.
Chapter 9:
Two really touching comments about this last one, one I really like and the other one kind of makes me mad.
“What makes us most human, Weizenbaum had come to believe, is what is least computable about us- the connection between our mind and our body, the experiences that shape our memory and our thinking, our capacity for emotion and empathy.”(398)
This is one of the more well worded ways to describe humanity, and I really appreciate it. On the other hand, Carr describes the life of the guy who wrote Sleepy Hollow, and how about he describes his experience in nature vs when it’s ruined by the progressive technology of man. Anyways, Carr makes this observation,
“There is no Sleepy Hollow on the internet, no peaceful spot where contemplativeness can work its restorative magic.”(421) I don’t agree with this. I think that people can get into the zone on the internet when they have a set mindset. It’s all about focus focus focus.
Not gonna lie, Carr kind of gets on my nerves, but that’s probably because I’m the targeted demographic. I’m very curious what it must be like for someone else older to read this book in general response. I’ve very sorry that this blog post in itself was about the same size as a small paper, pray tell I hope the next three are not the same.
Leave a Reply