Every Company’s Home Page Is …

I just finished listening to Weinberger’s talk and it left me rather depressed. Not out of any nostalgia for an end to taxonomic knowledge—I’m actually suspicious of the neat story he tells and think that in practice, miscellany played a much greater role previously than it does now—but because of his overpowering conviction that hierarchies were being challenged.

How does this square with his contention that Google is every company’s home page—an observation that I agree with, btw?

Do search technologies level hierarchical taxonomies? Or are old hierarchies with known inadequacies simply being replaced with new hierarchies with not-yet-known inadequancies? Or worse—are old hierarchies simply being repackaged?

I figure the latter two possibilites out number the first one.

Weinberger’s comments about “voice” and “conversation” lending credibility left me similarly disturbed. On the one hand, direct and immediate experience is exalted as the source of substantial (i.e., miscellaneous) knowledge, while on the other hand, web-mediated voice and conversation now provide a short cut past direct and immediate experience. I think the first part is wrong in many ways (what, no room for reflection/thought) and then to combine it with its opposite—frightening…

I hope this doesn’t come off as being just nastiness or sour grapes, although goodness knows I’m well capable of being a mean sonofabitch. It’s just that right now, I’m a citizen of a nation where more than 55 million people voted for a guy who wanted to continue an illegal war and supported restrictions on our basic civil liberties—and even more voted for George W. Bush. The forces of evil—corny phrase, but why not call them what they are?—are well organized and well funded. Where Weinberger sees a radical leveling going on, I see a reconfiguration of existing hierarchies—the same ones that thwart progressive/left attempts at reform or change.

It would be great if there were some kind of radical leveling, if the comraderie that Weinberger noted between bloggers could become a force for change. I just think something else has to give before that happens. And while that something else will be blogged, it won’t be something that only happens on line.

A thoughtful sort crtique, between a precis and and anlysis. You’ve made me think about the nuances … and I think there are areas where David went quickly, where there’s ambiguity.

I’ll come back and share some additional thoughts tomorrow morning.

I see a reconfiguration of existing hierarchies’the same ones that thwart progressive/left attempts at reform or change.

Here’s the problem: you think that power has to be concentrated in the government in order to oppose other concentrations of power.

You are, in this, a fool. Like anyone who opposes violence with violence, and is surprised that the result is not peace but is instead more war, you are surprised when the concentration of power is misused. What is wanting, instead, is a dispersal of power. In short, the peaceful future you are looking for is only possible in a libertarian America, because currently, the only people calling for a dispersal of power are libertarians. The only people working for peace are libertarians.

Yes, I understand that this response will disappoint you. Nonetheless, the only road to peace is to live in a world where nobody can accumulate enough political power to threaten anybody else. THAT is the basis of a libertarian society, and if you hate that, you hate yourself.

I am not quite sure who you are addressing here … but let’s say it’s et alia, who’s been quoted in your italics.

Yes. the dispersal of “powre” is likely to be useful, given other conditions. Yes, concentrated hierarchical power has wrought much damage in many ways and many places.

In talking hre and there about wirearchy, i have been reminded, sometimes gently and discreetly, and sometimes harshly and with ridicule, that “hierarchy” is natural. Maybe … but social hierarchies aren’t necessarily so, in my opinion.

I’m pretty sure humans need rules of some sort, and I belive (though I’ve never lived it) that conditions of “anarchy” would lead to some form of searching for some order, some kind of rules … even if they are but commonly-accpeted principles (come to think of it, aren’t those what the principles of religions are … rules for how we ought to live.

I think that the same thing applies with your forceful advocacy for libertarianism. Dispersal of power would probably be fine, as long as there is some commonly-accpeted agreement as to what “power” actually is in the given context, and that there is also some consesnus as to what the purpose(s) of that power are.

And … just my little personal pecadillo … I’m not sure that it’s necessary to label someone else a “fool” … misinformed perhaps, or not sharing the same logic as you, or possessing of an alternative, and in your opinion, misguided point of view, but “fool” .. no.

And you, sir or madam, are less deserving of my respect and attention than had you been more respectful of someone else’s time, attention, interest and view. But it’s telling that you chose to remain anonymous. Anonymous is as anonymous does ?