Steven Johnson Strikes Again

I'll take a quick second to point to an extremely important article by Steven Johnson. Why is it so important? Because in the digital/intellectual property conversations, in which so much debate over control is at stake, attention is rarely paid to media other than music and movies. But Johnson highlights another "invisible" form of control with Apple's new iPad (and not Kindle). Succintly, the iPad does not allow you to cut and paste material--or, in the case of online publications, to even select and highlight text.

What I appreciate about Johnson's article is that he doesn't oppose such a limitation in contemporary, digital terms, but rather in a far more classical matter. He connects the practice of cutting and pasting to the Enlightenment practice of the commonplace book: a running collection of interesting, inspiring, or important material from which to draw. I do this myself with a number of technologies--this blog, delicious, facebook, and even evernote. Technology should make this practice easier--but we can see how reactionary concerns over intellectual property are leading to design/technology decisions that impinge upon this potential.

Now I have even more reasons not to buy an iPad.

Clinton on Johnson is Really about Rhetoric

Stephen Johnson has a neat post today on Bill Clinton's reaction to The Invention of Air. I haven't had a chance to read this one yet, but I am looking forward to it this summer. Anyways, in his praise for Johnson's book, he makes an argument for the contemporary importance of books:

I spend all my time in the "how" business now. I predict to you that there will be a big demand in the future for books that deal not with how to become a millionaire in 36 days or two and a half hours. Not those. Serious "how" books. Books that answer the "how" question. How do you turn your good intentions into positive changes in other people's lives so that our common life is better for our children and grandchildren? The "how" question…

Unfortunately, the rest of Clinton's response falls into some fairly shallow and commonplace critiques of the web as a narcissistic cult of immediacy. The problem here is of treating internet users one monolithic entity--there's a diverse collection of social-intellectual practices developing around media technology, and not all of them are as opposed to extended thinking as Clinton implies (linear is another story, but I don't feel like getting into that right now).

I do think Clinton's "how" offers a nice contemporary description for the task of rhetoric: "how do you turn your good intentions into positive changes in other people's lives so that our common life is better for our children and grandchildren?" Notice the sentence doesn't rely on truth--I don't know concretely if my intentions are "true." Notice, too, that I do not necessarily have to "persuade" others of the validity of my intentions, nor do I have to persuade everyone. This, like Obama, is a localized rhetoric of small changes and social complexity.

Ignorance is Bliss

Last night our dulah said "The more civilized you are, the harder it is to give birth." We we talking about Lamaze, breathing strategies, and how to remain focused during labor. The key seems to be to shut your consciousness off. Let all of our civilized cogito fade away. Trick your consciousness to turn off. Let your body do its job.

The more I learn about delivery, the more I appreciate SJ's Mind Wide Open. Our conscious mind is such a small part of our total intelligence--our body is thinking in ways that our consciousness can't imagine.

Steven Johnson Interview

While his new book doesn't sound as appealing to me as some of his other work, one of my favorite writers is back. Found a link to a very cool interview today. Good stuff.

I like Johnson's work because he makes me think about stuff I otherwise wouldn't. Of particular interest in the interview:

1. First, I like how he discusses his relationship to science--framing it as a positive one rather than a deconstructive one. I'm working toward that. I hope.
2. Second, I like his response to corporate/cosmopolitan development of third world cities--building them in London's shadow. As the interviewer points out--he's not going to win many post-colonial, humanities friends. But his one line response to the accusation that he's enacting the very imperialism that we spent almost an entire century deconstructing is priceless:

   “Be like London. Do it our way.” I mean, wasn’t that sort of the original imperialist mission?
   Yes, that’s right, though it depends on what “Be like London” is. If “be like London” is, “separate the drinking water from the waste,” then ...