| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
This was originally planned as two 1000-word essays. Putting everything on one page seems more appropriate because there is one central theme. | | | Part Three: Jeremy Bentham's Body Lies A-Mouldering On A Chair | |
<
< | The motivation for the prior two parts of history is the present. A new box is emerging. It contains not only our regrets and fears, but also our hopes and dreams. The scope of the priest in confession is prescribing a particular penance, one specific behavior that can lead to absolution. The tracking search engine, on the other hand, plumbs the psyche and aims to produce desired results that lead to a never-ending loop of behavior and consumption. On the other hand, the search engine, like the confessional, has real positive effects in society; Exposing as much of the knowledge in the world as possible to everyone is a a re-enactment of Wycliffe's translation of the Bible into English on a secular and cosmic scale. Consequently, the first demand in the context of the search engine may parallel the first demand relating to confession in English law: if a man desire it, may it not be denied to him. Already, the Indian state of Kerala has declared that internet access must be denied to no one, and free WiFi? must be available across the land in the same way parishes open to hear confessions were made available, and not the pseudo-internet walled garden of Free Basics. Perhaps, to recognize the sacredness and inviolability of the box, the first step is always to recognize it is so indispensable for our certain form of life and character that access must be granted to everyone. We may even come to recognize doing generally expected research via search engine to fall under a duty of due care, in the way the Councils of the 13th and 14th centuries sought to declare confession obligatory. Perhaps we already have, as the idea of performing research without search tools is viewed as obsolete and insane. The idea that everyone ought to have access to the box is a relatively easy sell, but the box itself, in a way, exists in a state of Anglicanism. Nominal state control and the government being allowed inside the box is an accepted compromise for the protection and non-liability of the owners and the operators of the box.
Notes
:
:
| >
> | Does recognition of the Sacred precede its regulation?
The motivation for the prior two parts of history is the present. A new box is emerging. It contains not only our regrets and fears, but also our hopes and dreams. The scope of the priest in confession is prescribing a particular penance, one specific behavior that can lead to absolution. The tracking search engine, on the other hand, plumbs the psyche and aims to produce desired results that lead to a never-ending loop of behavior and consumption. On the other hand, the search engine, like the confessional, has real positive effects in society; Exposing as much of the knowledge in the world as possible to everyone is a a re-enactment of Wycliffe's translation of the Bible into English on a secular and cosmic scale. Consequently, the first demand in the context of the search engine may parallel the first demand relating to confession in English law: if a man desire it, may it not be denied to him. Already, the Indian state of Kerala has declared that internet access must be denied to no one, and free WiFi? must be available across the land in the same way parishes open to hear confessions were made available, and not the pseudo-internet walled garden of Free Basics.
Perhaps, to recognize the sacredness and inviolability of the box, the first step is always to recognize it is so indispensable for our certain form of life and character that access must be granted to everyone. We may even come to recognize doing generally expected research via search engine to fall under a duty of due care, in the way the Councils of the 13th and 14th centuries sought to declare confession obligatory. Perhaps we already have, as the idea of performing research without search tools is viewed as obsolete and insane. The idea that everyone ought to have access to the box is a relatively easy sell, but the box itself, in a way, exists in a state of Anglicanism. Nominal state control and the government being allowed inside the box is an accepted compromise for the protection and non-liability of the owners and the operators of the box.
Do the old masters have lessons for today? | | | The best stepping-off point from the recognition of the box as sacred and owed to everyone seems to be the development of a set of understandings, developed through both practical social and philosophical reflection akin to the ecclesiastical councils of the 12th-14th centuries. If a box is sufficiently sacrosanct to be owed to everyone, ideas about what make it sacred and what about the relationship is so essential to make it inviolable even by the secular force of the state are necessary. This is because without a theological perspective on what is sacred and inviolable about the relationship, exceptions for what serves the interest of the state will be made, and those exceptions will have no real boundaries to prevent them from overrunning everything. For the priest to disclose by sign or word the confession, to blame or accuse in courts of the King, undermines the ability of the priest to serve as the direct conduit to the forgiveness of God. The practical infinity of information available through the box is, in its own way, the mind of God. Jeremy Bentham thought the chilling effect of every word not confessed to the priest was an epistemic injustice upon humankind, where the great mass of evidence for all things would be permanently lessened if the box did not keep its secrets. Perhaps a correct tactic moving forward is to hold that learning is so sacred it cannot be chilled by the prospect that what one sought to learn should be used against them later.
Notes
:
:
|
|