are blogs the devil? - part II
i had a good talk with shawn last night about blogging. it seems that the forum is dying. maybe it has been for a while. or maybe it's not dying, but going through some temporary lapse that will be resolved soon. it definitely goes through ups and downs. but why is it struggling? is it because we're all just growing farther apart and so we're less motivated to communicate? or is it something about that form of communication itself?
the benefit of the blog is that you can write about things you would never write on the forum. you don't just give 'here is what i'm up to today' kinds of posts on the forum, but you can do that on a blog. i feel as though i've been able to keep closer contact with shawn since we've been reading each other's blogs for the past couple of weeks (although, we've talked on the phone, too, so i'm sure that helps).
i've been listening to a mars hill audio cd lately (volume #75, to be exact. by the way, you people should subscribe to this. it's incredible. the topics of conversation are always fascinating and you end up being introduced to new ideas and new books that you'd probably never hear about otherwise. and if you're an auditory learner, like i think i am, listening to the journals is a really excellent way to learn and think.) and i was listening to an interview about the importance of language in being truly human. basically the guy was saying that having a particularized vocabulary* and having a fluent linguistic ability is essential in not only being able to precisely communicate with others, but also in being able to think fully about the world. he then went on to point out that communication technologies often have the tendency to dumb down language and communication. IM would be a fairly obvious example of this.
the question would then become: do blogs dumb down communication? i suppose the best way to answer that would be that they could. because of the speed by which you can type (which is part of wendell berry's argument for hand-writing all of his books) it is much easier to simply crap out words. it would be difficult to argue that the existance of e-mail has increased the quality of writing in the modern age. but it does not necessarily have to do that, right? i could conceivably put as much time and care into a blog entry as i could writing a hand-written letter (although the physical nature of a hand-written letter would make it much more personal and human, i would think). there have been stories of war prisoners who have been able to have significantly meaningful communication with their comrads only through a series of knocks on the prison walls. if meaningful communication can happen that way, surely it can happen online. so although the dangers of this kind of communication should not be ignored (which most people probably do), i don't necessarily think i should scrap it.
i think my idealism is fading with age.
*an interesting point that he made was that thinking Christians sometimes have the tendency to shy away from using particularized Christian language because it comes off like "Christianese," but that while we want to avoid cliches, having a language that is unique and not like the world's language is an important part of being counter-cultural Christians. that precise and theologically founded language (when it is not just empty cliches) actually helps our Christianity to be much more full and meaningful.
the benefit of the blog is that you can write about things you would never write on the forum. you don't just give 'here is what i'm up to today' kinds of posts on the forum, but you can do that on a blog. i feel as though i've been able to keep closer contact with shawn since we've been reading each other's blogs for the past couple of weeks (although, we've talked on the phone, too, so i'm sure that helps).
i've been listening to a mars hill audio cd lately (volume #75, to be exact. by the way, you people should subscribe to this. it's incredible. the topics of conversation are always fascinating and you end up being introduced to new ideas and new books that you'd probably never hear about otherwise. and if you're an auditory learner, like i think i am, listening to the journals is a really excellent way to learn and think.) and i was listening to an interview about the importance of language in being truly human. basically the guy was saying that having a particularized vocabulary* and having a fluent linguistic ability is essential in not only being able to precisely communicate with others, but also in being able to think fully about the world. he then went on to point out that communication technologies often have the tendency to dumb down language and communication. IM would be a fairly obvious example of this.
the question would then become: do blogs dumb down communication? i suppose the best way to answer that would be that they could. because of the speed by which you can type (which is part of wendell berry's argument for hand-writing all of his books) it is much easier to simply crap out words. it would be difficult to argue that the existance of e-mail has increased the quality of writing in the modern age. but it does not necessarily have to do that, right? i could conceivably put as much time and care into a blog entry as i could writing a hand-written letter (although the physical nature of a hand-written letter would make it much more personal and human, i would think). there have been stories of war prisoners who have been able to have significantly meaningful communication with their comrads only through a series of knocks on the prison walls. if meaningful communication can happen that way, surely it can happen online. so although the dangers of this kind of communication should not be ignored (which most people probably do), i don't necessarily think i should scrap it.
i think my idealism is fading with age.
*an interesting point that he made was that thinking Christians sometimes have the tendency to shy away from using particularized Christian language because it comes off like "Christianese," but that while we want to avoid cliches, having a language that is unique and not like the world's language is an important part of being counter-cultural Christians. that precise and theologically founded language (when it is not just empty cliches) actually helps our Christianity to be much more full and meaningful.
idealism goes and universalism comes?
Posted by
Anonymous |
April 26, 2006 4:32 PM