Cephalopods!

I wish I could say that I haven't posted a blog in 10 days and I've been missing because I have been asleep. Unfortunately, today is not opposite day. Now here, I will address some random points in Lanier's argument that I find lacking, fitting, or making me wish I was in Palo Alto with him during the 1980s. This will happen in no particular order; I take medicine to help me organize my thoughts but this box and all the tabs I have open in Chrome negate any of that influence on my writing. And the music that's playing has lyrics, I'm distracted.
I think it makes Lanier sound like my grandfather when he complains that our culture's fascinations are any worse than the ones preceding it were. Preposterous! The kind of art I like most, in fact, involves the juxtaposition (often times through mashing...) of elements of our culture as a critique of it at large. I find it both aesthetically and intellectually pleasing. [Please click me and me - couple of my favorite artists' works]
Interestingly, it is for the same reason that draws me to these types of expression that allows me to sympathize with his despair over the state of culture today. The difference is that he takes the old systems seriously and yearns for an improvement over the status quo pre-internet. I don't see the status quo as improved, either, but I don't see it as diminished in quality because of the internet. It's always been bullshit, it's still bullshit (Thus marking the third use of that word on the blog so far). So what? It isn't any easier for an artist to get paid for his work, but is it actually any harder? I find that argument lacking.

He is applying his own arbitrary judgement of quality to a whole host of things, including the creativity and expression that he wishes to espouse. Much of his issue with internet culture is based on the potential that he and his colleagues had imagined for it. I don't necessarily agree with the cyber-totalism of his contemporaries, but I respect that they are looking forward instead of backward the way he seems to be. On the other hand, I actually really like his idea for payment of each other based on our ideas, but I don't see it as a realistic alternative unless there's a nuclear holocaust and we're allowed to start the world over from scratch with computer networking technology in waiting.
But I actually really dig it. Let's do some digging. I find his writing on the peasants of the cloud really fascinating. Millions of people post their creative works, opinions, information, etc. online for everyone to see; drives traffic to sites like Facebook, Youtube, Blogger and with very few exceptions the people making the money are not the people creating the content. For now we will pretend that the data mining portion is a separate issue and look only at this idea of free labor that makes us the peasants and the owners of the cloud spaces our lords... We post these things for a variety of reasons, but most of it seems to stem from some form of self realization big or small. I want someone to read my post and think, 'Sweet deal, I like your words.' or watch my video and comment to say that I inspired them, etc. There are way too many examples, but I think it's easy to pretend that there isn't a positive impact occurring here as a result of these spaces being created. I recognize that there are forces that stifle creativity at work here, forces that work to maintain a sometimes oppressive status quo in our world, but I can still get a sense of pride from my work even if it goes to benefit the pockets of someone else... I never asked to get paid for it in the first place; it makes me feel good.
It might be the case that this is precisely the trap, and I wouldn't even disagree. The only reason the evening news is on television is because it helps the network sell advertising. And just like we don't assume that the bottom line for each person reporting on the evening news is this idea, it's still the only reason they are there.
Lanier seems to expect people to have filled in these gaps without the introduction of pre-defined spaces that social media websites provide, but I don't think that would have happened. I think most people are boring (sorry, most people) and they're boring online and offline. I don't think that it's the internet's fault that they are boring but I can blame them for making bits of the internet boring. I ignore those bits!
I do think, though, that he makes a ton of very interesting and valid points about the way that software developers are shaping people in ways that they don't realize but I'm not sure that this goes past their interactions with the technology in question. He makes it sound like people listening to music without geeking out is somehow a loss of an important aspect of our culture. I'm not sure there are any important aspects of our culture that it would matter to modify. Sure I'm nostalgic like anyone else, but he points out that software is a construction that affects our behavior; and so is everything else methinks.
I could spend more time on these topics, but surely people will have responses that can further the discussion. And of course I could address lots and lots more of them, too. Too bad, I am done writing that now.
I want to get to my favorite part of the book: wherein he talks about virtual reality and cephalopods. Absolutely killer stuff to think about. The idea of the sense of smell being the predecessor for speech blew my mind to bits, but mainly I just really wish I could A) Use some of his VR on a daily basis and see all of the things he describes about our adaptability to strange stimuli and B) hang out with some of those bad ass octopi. Do any of them go to school here?