I have just read an article on Salon.com, Information Poisoning, by internationally famous author Caleb Carr. It is an apologia for his recent book "Killing Time". Although he does not like the term, this book is a dystopia - which is to say, a dys-Utopia, a speculative vision of a dark future, intended to warn the present.
The dystopia as literature has a long and distinguished pedigree. My life has been personally affected by George Orwell's "1984" and Margaret Atwood's "The Handmaid's Tale". As one interesting twist, "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley is a Utopia, but the book illustrates in lurid detail that the average American of today, represented in the book as the Savage, would not survive in it. Unfortunately for Carr most readers and critics have pilloried his book, saying it would have made a much more interesting essay than story. So much for dystopiai.
At any rate, Carr has finally given us the essay (free of charge, too). Carr draws a distinction between information, which any server can store, and knowledge, which is the proper processing and interpretation of that information:
"It is my belief, for which I offer no apology, that most of that technology is making people dumber: It is teaching them how to assemble massive amounts of information, of arcane minutia, without simultaneously teaching them how to assemble those bits of information into integrated bodies of knowledge -- such integration being the only function that distinguishes the human brain from a mechanical computer."
Carr conservatively believes - as I do - that there are proper and
improper ways to process data; that knowledge is not subjective. The
Internet is excellent for disseminating information, but adds nothing
to the store of knowledge as Carr defines the term; at best it only
conveys other peoples' interpretations. He is particularly worried
that we are in "a downward spiral into a very uncivil state, one in
which the public interest takes a distinct back seat to public
diversion
", and, while the world's Nerones fiddle, "what we will see
is the triumph of corporate interests, the deterioration of
educational, environmental and public health programs, and increased
violence in those parts of our country and our world that are left
behind in the information-generated scramble for wealth and material
satisfaction
".
Personally, I don't care what entertains you as long as you're not
hurting anyone else. But there is another facet which underlies this,
and which does affect my work. "What about material that is just as
dangerous, I think, but is much more difficult to regulate -- which is
to say disinformation, as well as information that is forbidden in
other media but sneaks onto the Net?
" One disturbed by a troubling
datum may easily hunt down counter-data. Which datum becomes a "fact"
in the user's mind will depend more on the user's prejudice than on
the validity of the datum, because after all
everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
Carr dissents. Most of us are not entitled to our opinions: "We
should openly recognize that many Net users do not possess the
technical skills to detect such deceptions; therefore they need help,
just as they need help with radio and television
".
Many annoying articles have cropped up on the 'Web decrying the signal-to-noise
ratio within it. Carr's is just the latest (well, despite this one).
But here, Carr has a point.
In the case of the churches - profit-seeking corporations all - the 'Web facilitates a glut of information, true and otherwise. The person trolling the 'Web for good, scholarly information on the Bible often must settle for general surveys, ideological rants, and book reviews. The best and most detailed rants, I've noticed, currently belong to evangelicals. These prophets of the HTTP port have been able to accumulate a mass of data to support their views. It takes much time and effort to dispel them.
Josh MacDowell's "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" is a classic example. Every reference to Jesus in a classical author appears there, even allowing that Josephus's "Testimonium Flavinium" may be corrupt. It does not hide from the debates on canonicity. At times it seems to allow for downplaying Esther and 2 Peter - which were never important to Protestantism anyway - and for increased respect for Ben Sira, 1 Maccabees, and the Apostolic Fathers.
MacDowell's bloated "fact" summaries, suffused with truths, half-truths, and lies, have proven to be just the beginning. In short, the information glut arms the fundamentalist with a shotgun: his liberal target will probably dodge most of the arguments, but there's bound to be some he can't dismiss, especially since the fundamentalist appears to know what he's talking about and will be able to sidestep some of the rebuttals.
In the academy, one doesn't collect a swarm of dubious assertions challenging the ruling paradigm, and pronounce a conclusion until the establishment counters them all, and even then hold to that conclusion. But the 'Web isn't the academy. Its peer-review is the opinion of the masses. If Joe Blow in the Baptist Church of Sugar Land (home of infamous Rep. Tom DeLay) goes a-hunting for commentaries on Daniel, he may come across my Daniel-Nabunai site. He will find arguments and data (such as: at least three dueling versions of Daniel 4 before 100 BCE) which will shake up his faith. Then he will return to Glenn Miller's massive site and find a slew of data which contradict mine. He will then pick and choose, mine or Miller's, and stick with it.
So there is my reason for writing in a nutshell: to disregard all the rubbish, from left and right, and just get at who wrote what, why, and when. I have wanted to know this for years. This website is firstly a presentation of fact. (e.g. Daniel 4's multiplicity, however you try to explain it, is a fact.) It is also a presentation of knowledge as I have best distilled it to date. I have worked very hard on each hypothesis to fit the data, and to incorporate anything that affects the subject.
I am not a conduit from the Almighty to my HTTP port. I submit that no-one else is, either. Follow the logic or else raise a logical objection. If enough people do this, and not just in this subject, then perhaps Carr's grim yom ha-adonai will not occur.
Started 8 Jan 2001. Then I read the unfavourable reviews of the book, so I had to draw a distinction between that and the excellent essay.
Click here to return to the House of David.
Any thoughts? e-mail me...
zimriel@sbcglobal.net