-
There (but for the Grace of God) Go I
That’s a quote from a woman going by the (stage) name “Bridget Phetasy” — which she repeats time and again, mostly on podcasts she publishes.
I enjoy listening to her opinion. I especially enjoyed an episode she published (together with her husband) on the podcast named “Factory Settings” earlier this month — episode 10, titled “Gratitude”.
Bridget also mentioned that quote in this episode (@ ca. 19 min.), but that isn’t what intrigues me about the chat she had with her husband. I think the views I want to share here regarding the episode have a lot to do with some of the ideas I am puzzling over these days, but I recognized while listening that it is also very much tied up with issues discussed by Bridget and Jeren.
Personally, the way I think about gratitude right now is that when people feel grateful, they recognize that the world is ordered in a particular way … and they are happy that according to the way the world is ordered, they come out “on top”. Yet I also recognize that I am very aware of my view that the order of the world is actually quite arbitrary. I also can imagine a world which is ordered differently. Thus, “fair” and “unfair” are quite malleable. As Bridget and Jeren were closing their discussion, they touched on the topic of religion, and this seemed to be quite similar to my own thinking (perhaps especially because of my own fascination with Quakerism — insofar as [in many / most cases] Quakers also tend to be very welcoming to other points of view).
The result of my thinking along these lines may seem quite odd to many / most people — namely: that gratitude is not inherently good, but it almost seems simply opportunistic. To be grateful that you are not sick or poor or in any way not well off is actually in a way an ignorance of the notion that the cards could have been shuffled differently, or that the laws of nature could have resulted in a different world plan.
Today, it seems like humans dominate the world, and bugs, rats and snakes seem to have less esteemed reputations. What will happen when humans no longer exist? What will come out “on top” then?
-
All Your Data Are More Free to Us
Information doesn’t want to be free. Information never wanted to be free. Free is worthless.

I have for quite some time found the expectation of free to be immoral. Anyone who expects free is actually expecting someone else (or something else) to be enslaved. Slavery and sweatshop labor is supposed to be free (at zero marginal cost). Such expectations are wrong, in my humble opinion. Likewise, pollution of so-called “freely available” resources is also wrong.
Yet even without such moral arguments, let me return to the fact of the matter: Information simply isn’t free. It’s not even simply “too cheap to meter”.
My hunch is that some people have simply confused “information” with “data”. Indeed, the price of data processing did indeed sort of “fall off a cliff” in the latter half of the Twentieth Century. Esther Dyson’s analysis of the situation decades ago was pretty much spot on.
Why is it so important to distinguish between information and data? What is the difference?
On its own, data is / are pretty much meaningless. It’s only when we consider what the significance of the data is, that we create — by means of intellectually interpreting data — meaningful information.
One example I return to time and again is the notion of pattern recognition. There cannot be any pattern to recognize without a pattern first being identified — and such patterns basically boil down to natural intelligence defining the significance of patterns. Machines can only “recognize” (e.g. cats vs. dogs) when intelligent beings first define (i.e., “cognize” what we refer to as “cats” vs. “dogs”) … and even also not until intelligent beings codify machine-readable algorithms to recognize … stuff which intelligent beings had previously detected in the first place. This is also why the most basic information technology will always be the stuff we commonly refer to as “natural language“.
So What?
Natural language was a very significant step forward, and it remains fundamental. Its significance is even attested in the Bible, which states (in English translation) something like: “In the beginning was the word, and the word was God.”
As a sort of variation-on-a-theme version of the importance of natural language, I now present you with Socio.BIZ Rule #3:
Meaningful is valuable, meaningless is worthless.
Socio.BIZ Rule #3This is the key that unlocks the supposed paradox described by Stewart Brand at that “hacker’s conference” decades ago, which is so often quoted, especially the concept “information wants to be free”.
He was wrong. His naïve view of information blinded him. He didn’t realize he was mistaking raw data for meaningful information. Similar mistakes have been repeated time and again — even by well-known academics. Take Hal Varian, for example: he thought that by counting up bits he might arrive at a number that might describe the amount of information in the world today [1]. This is, of course, ridiculous, ludicrous and simply stated: utter nonsense which is completely laughable. Nonetheless, in some circles his opinion remains revered, carte-blanche (by Google, for example).
Speaking of which, as irrational media (like Google) are meaningless, they are worthless. Even though since time immemorial, this has not been widely known (or recognized 😉 ) [2], it is now on the advent of becoming as clear as day. As literacy becomes more and more widespread, intelligent people will increasingly shun irrational media, and they will also increasingly prefer rational media.
[1] (at the time) I can’t remember when I read that press release — maybe over a decade ago? It certainly made me much less proud of the fact that I had previously studied Hal Varian’s work in information economics
[2] it may actually be even more appropriate to say “technologically feasible” (compare the seminal article describing the technology which has in the meantime become the “World-Wide Web”, Vannevar Bush’s “As we may think”)
-
Self-Made World

I want to describe a storyline that I notice is used time and again … indeed, so much that it seems as if it were repetitive enough to come across as suspicious … .
This is the myth of the “self-made man” (or woman? why not person? probably because it lacks the alliteration 😉 ).
In its mild form, it may simply be the story of and individual who made it — they succeeded at something. The main thing, however, that makes up this story is the story itself: it satisfies the popular hunger for a happy ending. Besides that, the saccharine gingerbread-house setting makes for lots of promotional opportunities for both the backdrop and the main character.
Few people will focus their attention on the backdrop directly — and therefore it seems like child’s play to bring on some products and/or services into such a fairy-tale placement opportunity. Since few people are so utterly naive as to actually believe the “self-made” story, the corresponding placements will be readily interpreted as optimal circumstances for the successful outcome.
There are also more extreme versions of such “self-made” stories, which are embellished with concepts like outright independence and / or widespread celebrity. If these concepts have already been adopted in the “Human Brain Conditioner” (see also “Human Brain Conditioner“), then accordingly conditioned brains may accept these more extreme storylines quite willingly.
I had originally intended to consider whether other aspects of the world we live in are also “self-made”, but perhaps this “celluloid-hero” version may be more appropriate for the festive holiday movie viewing season. Maybe I will return to the other question at a later date (and maybe I will even be able to tie a cute bow around an answer by then 😉 ).
-
Questions & Answers vs. Conversations
Adam Curry has a very particular pronunciation of the word “conversation” — if you listen to the “No Agenda” podcast, then you may be familiar with it. I wonder what Adam might think about what I intend to write here.
I’ve got a million friends
Bob Dylan, “I Shall Be Free No. 10”When I was in graduate school, I did some so-called empirical research about how library school students thought about (the meaning of) titles. While doing the review of literature for this study, I found an article that had a quite significant influence on the way I thought about titles. The concept was quite simple, but the name for the concept was quite academic: it was called (something like) a “theme-rheme” approach — the idea was that the title poses a question (“theme”), and that the text is supposed to answer that question (“rheme”). Since a lot of my thinking at the time was similarly oriented towards what might be referred to as algorthmic approaches to information, this pitch went down like melted butter.
Now, decades later, I drag my weary eyes through a vast flatland of tundra, looking for
an eskimo piea blog post that might interest me. Only a fraction of 1% pass the test. The rest are some sort of cosmic debris I have no stomach for.
Frank Zappa, “Don’t Eat the Yellow Snow” The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation
Henry David Thoreau, “Walden”Most of these titles sound more or less like:
The quick & easy solution to all of your problems
or maybe
How to be happy in 12 steps (Step 1)
Are these questions or answers … or invitations to have a conversation?
Step 1 usually boils down to SIGN HERE NOW and hope that the schmuck giving you this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity will actually deliver what’s promised (or a least an all expenses paid cruise on a yacht to some sunny island with primitives dancing around in circles on the beach and free drinks delivered to you, chillaxing on a recliner chair, enjoying the gentle breeze under an umbrella providing shade from the burning hot tropical sunshine).
Such is the context of textualization online — and although the kids are alright, they have by and large not been taught about the dangerous adventures of skating around on thin ice. In a world based on the philosophy of “there’s a sucker born every minute”, profit-maximizing companies are now breeding suckers like wildfire.
This is anything but equality. This is definitely not any basis for conversation. This is very basic exploitation. This is same-old, same-old.
Whether the kids will survive swimmingly or whether they are in for the shock of their lives, I guess time will tell.
This past week I had a conversation with a kid who actually told me that they prefer ignorance because it enables them to enjoy themselves more than the prospect of having to face a bitter reality — and this is a person who has just graduated from college.
-
Inter-Reliance, Self-Dependence & Responsibility

I feel I need to revisit this topic. I don’t know when I first visited it (yet you might want to check out the homepage @ Wants.Blog [ https://wants.blog ] ) — maybe the whole idea of revisiting something was introduced to me by F. Scott Fitzgerald — I enjoyed a lot of his stories, and the whole notion of “Babylon Revisited” had intrigued me immediately when I first read the title. I can’t even remember if the biblical city played any role in it.
Ralph Waldo Emerson is beyond the shadow of a doubt another key influencer of my thoughts here, particularly his essay on “Self Reliance” which ought to be required reading for anyone expecting to achieve a high-school diploma.
But perhaps the most influential of all influences was an idea I learned about in one of my college economics classes: “inter-dependence” (and yet again undoubtedly a precursor to this notion was the mathematical concept of dependent vs. independent variables). Dependence and independence are quite heavy issues, and they are sort of in contrast to Emerson’s very well-written treatise.
Over the years and decades many other influencers have off and on appearances — for example, Mark Twain’s “throw off the bowlines, sail away from the safe harbor, catch the trade winds in your sails”. All in all, I’m also confident that anyone with just a speck of interest in such topics will be able to quite easily discover vast amounts of more literature on these and related topics.
It ought to be no wonder that since I am so much about language, responsibility is also an important cornerstone in my own world-view. Being a responsible person means (more or less) to be able to respond to questions.
Note that insofar as here in Germany there is all-of-a-sudden a great awakening towards an awareness of a wide variety of “environmental” issues — such as … not only global warming, but also stuff like the price of fossil fuels, and also global energy sources, other natural resources worldwide… — the overall environment within which I am writing is characterized by nothing short of a quite generalized alarming shock.
Whether innocence or ignorance or maybe even a surprising amount of belief in propaganda are to blame is not the issue here per se. The most important issue is that people ought to acquire enough literacy skills to realize that everyone is responsible for their own beliefs. This is the first and most fundamental step that Emerson described so well in his appeal for people to become self-reliant (and I am quite sure he was not neglecting Immanual Kant’s contribution [“What is Enlightenment?”] ).
I think my own contribution to this general field will be the idea of inter-reliance. I remember once seeing a film about Pelé (the soccer player) in grade school in which the narrator commented that he felt that Pelé seemed able to recover from almost any difficulty by using not only his legs but also his arms to get back on his feet and thereby to mesmerize the crowds of fans watching into a state of astonished wonder. I feel this image underscores very well the way we ourselves choose to rely on something (or not) — and how our abilty to distribute our reliance judiciously will ultimately be crucial to the survival of our species (and also likewise for any species).
Otherwise, I expect nature will at some point consider us to be “disposable”.
-
My No-Know Freeze-Frame World
This post is yet again quite “media” related. In this case, the focus is on a very nondescript split second (or maybe like 1 or 2 seconds) “in between” scenes from a decades-old movie called “Wayne’s World” (you might want to contrast that title with the somewhat longer title of this post 😉 ).

“Things aren’t as bad as they seem” moment in “Wayne’s World” (1992) … I “found” this GIF file ON THE INTERNET (IDK what the correct link is) … you can pin-point this moment in the film by searching for the quote (using Ctrl-F) on any site where the transcript of the film is listed (e.g. http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/w/waynes-world-script-transcript-myers.html ). “Wayne’s World” was published by Paramount Pictures. “Wayne’s World” uses a story-telling technique which is very rarely used in films, but one which is very powerful if the viewer stops to think about the message. I think I first saw this technique used by Woody Allen in one of his earlier films, where he interrupts the flow of the movie to do a very short interview with Marshall McLuhan. The technique basically boils down to this: the actor (usually the main actor) speaks to “the camera”, as if the camera were a person also taking part in the film.
The split-second moment I am referring to happens when Wayne has been complaining about the way his life is unfolding before his eyes (I think while he is walking across a parking lot), and the camera starts turning away from him … which he immediately recognizes, as he drifts off camera — and therefore he suddenly stops complaining, so that the camera-person will not be “put off” by his negative attitude. He talks to the camera, apologizing … and then the view returns to him.
This is, of course, absurd. “Wayne’s World” was not captured as a result of some random camera in some random parking lot reacting to some guy named Wayne. Not even this split-second in the movie was random. It is a very significant moment in the movie, but will probably hardly ever be mentioned anywhere (besides in this post). Imagine if Wayne had not changed his “negative” behavior — through this moment in the film, we are led to believe (yet again) that Wayne is a cool dude, and that the reason “Wayne’s World” exists is because of the way Wayne is (and not because of hundreds of other people or millions of dollars spent in making the movie). The viewer who notices this thereby becomes acutely aware of how surreally absurd this notion is.
The message is this: Moments often pass by without anyone being acutely aware of their passing. “Wayne’s World” is essentially a story told from one person’s perspective. There are billions of people in the world. Each one of these people’s lives is made out of innumerable “freeze-frame” moments, some of which will pass by unnoticed. I remember vaguely when the movie came out — I didn’t watch it then, I didn’t watch it until maybe a decade later. I’ve watched it a few times, and I watched it again a few days ago. This split-second freeze-frame moment in the movie seemed new to me — it had passed by more-or-less unnoticed (by me) for several decades.
Many such freeze-frame moments in our lives are truly momentous, insofar as they involve important life-changing decisions. I wonder, for example, whether the choice of this or that politician may have led to the infamous Corona virus, or perhaps the war in Ukraine. Could some people have prevented either of these events? Did some people play influential roles leading to either event? Did you? Did I?
Probably not. Yet remember, remember the good old story about the flap of a butterfly wing that can cause natural disasters on the other side of the globe.
-
Manufacturing Consent
Today I talked a friend of mine into watching one of Noam Chomsky’s documentary films (in this case “Requiem for an American Dream”).
I have to say that Chomsky’s ideas have influenced my thinking far more than anything I ever thought would influence my thinking … and I also feel there is something unsettling about that statement.
What motivated me to study information, propaganda, media, literacy, … any of the topics I care so much about today?
Our lives and careers become quite path-dependent at a relatively early stage — indeed: I bet a lot of people are shocked when they wake up to the fact that the cart is steering the horse at least as much (if not even moreso) as (than) the other way around.
-
Human Brain Conditioner

Last week’s post seems to have occupied my own brain pretty much all of this week, and yesterday I experienced what I consider to be quite a momentous breakthrough. As usually happens with significant breakthroughs like this, it will probably take several days or weeks for all of the dust to settle. Here and now I want to simply sketch out the general outline (as much as I am able to make it out at this point in time) and perhaps indicate one or two details — all of this no doubt needs to be fleshed out more over time.
First of all, this is BIG — we’re talking “ecosystem” here. To give you some perspective: compared to what I would like to refer to here, I myself consider language to be rather “minutia“. I would like to refer to the entire scheme as “Human Brain Conditioning”. I have thought long and hard about this term. Primarily because I want to outline what it is (vs. what it isn’t) that I want to focus on. Yet since this concept gradually synthesized over the week (and perhaps what might turn out to be the crucial piece didn’t “fall into place” until Friday), it may need to be adjusted (though I doubt it, because it really captures the “big picture” image quite well).
It captures various perspectives that need to be mentioned. First and foremost is probably conditioning. Conditioning is a process that happens (or can happen) within a system between parts of a system. There is usually one part of a system that gets conditioned and the other parts of the system do the conditioning. By and large, what I am talking about are “social systems”, and in that vein a lot of my thinking is inspired by the seminal work of Berger & Luckmann (namely “The Social Construction of Reality”). However, I have a hunch that there may in fact be some natural phenomena involved which are not social institutions or even social constructs. At this point there is nothing I can really put my finger on, but my gut feeling is perhaps there are natural systems or natural principles which are leading the situation I am slowly (but hopefully surely) beginning to recognize.
If that sounds very murky to you, please let me say right now: I feel strongly “you are not alone“.
Let me give you some examples of the types of “subsystems” I intend to talk about (which are parts of what I refer to as “Human Brain Conditioner”): government , religion, media (and so on). Now let me give you an example how amorphous such huge concepts are: what does government refer to? Does the term “government” include an organization which is involved in sending military equipment to eastern Europe? Or does it refer to the organization involved in using said equipment for some purpose? Which one is government? Are they both? Or perhaps some third, outside so-called “governing force? Who knows?
Now let me attempt to simplify the very muddy waters with another example (and hopefully you will be able to see how this example is related to last week’s post).
The term “media” refers to a conglomeration of many organizations — let me first split it up into “publishing” and “advertising”. Both of these are themselves complex — no wonder they are usually referred to as entire industries. But please: let’s talk simplified terms here: publishing and advertising. What I recognized is that these two players support each other in a very significant way — but this very significant collaboration is not usually talked about.
Very specifically, it has to do with conditioning. Both publishers and advertisers employ essentially the very same conditioning method: repetition. Publishing uses repetition to establish facts. Advertising uses repetition to establish convincing arguments. Now let me add the crucial secret: both point to each other in order to set themselves apart. The news is not some manipulative hoax (it’s “just the facts”). The sales pitches are harmless, because the consumer (or “user” or whatever) can easily simply ignore them — and not only can they simply ignore them, it is assumed that the consumer indeed thinks that they are actually ignoring them (after all, they are only there for the “facts”, which are of course in the news).
I am quite aware that this is a vast oversimplification. It ought to be obvious that there are many more players involved in such sort of games — for example: government (including education, etc.), religion, … maybe even global warming (or something else comparatively “natural” but phenomenally amorphous). Social phenomena are inherently complex, even if only because societies are complex. What is more, actors may be performing within just one (as in: “plain and simple”) society or they may cross boundaries and become active across social borders (i.e. spanning two or more societies). Beyond that, symbiotic relationships involving mutually reinforcing feedback loops may lead to a sort of exponential growth that may significantly magnify the significance of media — and this is exactly what I am currently imagining is happening between advertising and publishing.
-
More about the difference between ignorance and Socrates

A long time ago (for me personally, maybe like a decade ago) I posted a graphic I made on TEH Facebook (actually, it was already just plain old “Facebook” 😉 ). It showed one of the significant differences between computers and humans (overlooking stuff like “living” vs. “not living”):

I remember mentioning that I didn’t actually identify which represents a computer vs. which represents a human.
The internet is full of such graveyards where ideas go to die within a couple of minutes. Posting on such sinkholes reminds me a little of the image of people lining up in front of mass graves in order to be executed without any need for any extra steps to clean up any mess and / or bury any bodies in a separate step afterwards. But I digress….
One of the statements Socrates is very well known for is that he maintained that (unlike others) he was aware when he did not know something. In modern times, some people (most notably perhaps: Donald Rumsfeld) have turned this into a 2×2 matrix with awareness on one axis and knowledge on the other axis. Socrates, however, was quite adamant about never being completely certain of anything. Instead, he would sometimes mention a sort of “divine sign” — but only when something was amiss, and so he remained steadfast in his overall skeptical attitude.
What I am concerned about today, mainly because I have yet again witnessed such behavior just this morning: two people offered me some tips regarding something about which they have no knowledge whatsoever — and they were actually also quite steadfast in their supposition that the tips they were offering might be useful to me in some way. This was a truly outstanding test of my patience in the face of an all-around completely absurd situation. Good news: I survived (yet another reason not to carry a gun 😉 )!
I ask myself (yet again): At what point can such buffoonery be labelled “ignorance”? When can we say that someone is actually ignoring the fact that they suppose to know something when it is completely obvious to someone with just one single iota of knowledge that they are completely unenlightened?
The way I see it now, people only refer to someone as truly ignorant if / when they actually know something to be true but nonetheless maintain it to be false. For me, this level of belief is unclassifiable — it is nothing less than quite an extraordinary exceptional case.
-
What it means to own different kinds of technology

I guess most people own at least one pair of shoes, and some people own other kinds of technology for mobility — such as bicycles or cars. Many many different kinds of technology exist, and owning each particular technology has a particular kind of significance. For example: owning a bicycle means that the owner values fitness, and also a particular kind of attitude towards nature and the natural environment experienced while riding a bicycle.
In this post, I wish to focus one particular kind of technology — namely “information and communications technology” (ICT). My late father, who was a quite well-known econometrician, was responsible for forecasting the economic conditions for a wide variety of technologies and / or economic sectors, and also quite specifically information and communications technology in particular. He would often comment about things like how it could be quite difficult to differentiate between what is a calculator and what is a computer. I guess there may very well be some people today who have never even seen a calculator, let alone things like a slide rule or an abacus.
Today, things that are usually classified as ICT come in a wide variety of shapes and forms (and “functionalities”). I don’t think I have ever seen a pen or pencil and paper classified as ICT (and I suspect they never will be, even though there have been quite a few handheld devices which included a stylus quite reminiscent of such writing utensils).
Rather than attempting to survey the vast plethora of technological gizmos in the present-day intricate multitude of ICT-space, I now wish to abruptly take 1 giant step back (of course without falling off a cliff 😉 ) to make a sweeping statement about owning any particular ICT gizmo — which will probably be quite general, but also (in my humble opinion) quite significant.
As you might perhaps be able to guess, I am at the moment writing this text using a keyboard (it’s a “wireless” gizmo which is “attached” via a USB thingamijig). I sit reclined in a comfy chair, watching my words appear on a screen usually classified as a “monitor”. At some point in time (probably later today, I will publish this text “ON TEH INTERNET” [as yet another chapter in my ongoing “Social Business” book project] ). One consequence of all of these steps is the more-or-less “finished” text you are reading right now.
Although it is not impossible to publish this text on a handheld device, it is so uncomfortable to do so that it is very impractical. This is (in case you didn’t already notice it) the significant difference between e.g. “smartphones” and “laptops” (and the space in between smartphones and laptops is actually somewhat of a battleground between the two philosophies of these two camps of ICT owners). Although the presence or absence of certain physical features (such as a keyboard and screen size) undoubtedly play significant roles, perhaps the most significant difference is the owner’s ability to control the installed software on the devices.
In the smartphone camp, the owner’s ability to control the software is very limited. These are by and large “consumer” machines (which are used by and large in a fashion quite similar to the way old-fashioned television sets have been used by previous generations). In the “laptop” or “computer” camp, the ability to control the software is normally quite extensive (note that in the “battleground” area, the physical features may be more conducive to writing, yet the ability to control the software usually remains quite limited [1] ). In contrast to the consumer orientation of smartphones, laptops are by and large (at least capable of being) “producer” machines. This capability is something the owner generally actually pays for — whether with money or simply via their willingness to lug around a larger (and therfore more cumbersome) machine.
This distinction between “consumer” machines and “producer” machines can also be observed in so-called “cyberspace”. There are many “consumer” users of cyberspace who willingly accept and even almost hunger for “automatic” streams of data and being willing slaves to menu-driven programming. In contrast, the number of “producer” users is quite small … and perhaps they are so few and far between in large part because the literacy requirements are relatively difficult to acquire (these skills are generally — even in the most “technologically advanced” countries — not a part of a general primary education curriculum).
[1] These limitations usually have to do with the “business model” of the companies which manufacture these devices. For more background, see “Collaborateurs” as well as e.g. posts tagged “propaganda“.
Home
-
All Your Data Are More Free to Us
Information doesn’t want to be free. Information never wanted to be free. Free is worthless.

I have for quite some time found the expectation of free to be immoral. Anyone who expects free is actually expecting someone else (or something else) to be enslaved. Slavery and sweatshop labor is supposed to be free (at zero marginal cost). Such expectations are wrong, in my humble opinion. Likewise, pollution of so-called “freely available” resources is also wrong.
Yet even without such moral arguments, let me return to the fact of the matter: Information simply isn’t free. It’s not even simply “too cheap to meter”.
My hunch is that some people have simply confused “information” with “data”. Indeed, the price of data processing did indeed sort of “fall off a cliff” in the latter half of the Twentieth Century. Esther Dyson’s analysis of the situation decades ago was pretty much spot on.
Why is it so important to distinguish between information and data? What is the difference?
On its own, data is / are pretty much meaningless. It’s only when we consider what the significance of the data is, that we create — by means of intellectually interpreting data — meaningful information.
One example I return to time and again is the notion of pattern recognition. There cannot be any pattern to recognize without a pattern first being identified — and such patterns basically boil down to natural intelligence defining the significance of patterns. Machines can only “recognize” (e.g. cats vs. dogs) when intelligent beings first define (i.e., “cognize” what we refer to as “cats” vs. “dogs”) … and even also not until intelligent beings codify machine-readable algorithms to recognize … stuff which intelligent beings had previously detected in the first place. This is also why the most basic information technology will always be the stuff we commonly refer to as “natural language“.
So What?
Natural language was a very significant step forward, and it remains fundamental. Its significance is even attested in the Bible, which states (in English translation) something like: “In the beginning was the word, and the word was God.”
As a sort of variation-on-a-theme version of the importance of natural language, I now present you with Socio.BIZ Rule #3:
Meaningful is valuable, meaningless is worthless.
Socio.BIZ Rule #3This is the key that unlocks the supposed paradox described by Stewart Brand at that “hacker’s conference” decades ago, which is so often quoted, especially the concept “information wants to be free”.
He was wrong. His naïve view of information blinded him. He didn’t realize he was mistaking raw data for meaningful information. Similar mistakes have been repeated time and again — even by well-known academics. Take Hal Varian, for example: he thought that by counting up bits he might arrive at a number that might describe the amount of information in the world today [1]. This is, of course, ridiculous, ludicrous and simply stated: utter nonsense which is completely laughable. Nonetheless, in some circles his opinion remains revered, carte-blanche (by Google, for example).
Speaking of which, as irrational media (like Google) are meaningless, they are worthless. Even though since time immemorial, this has not been widely known (or recognized 😉 ) [2], it is now on the advent of becoming as clear as day. As literacy becomes more and more widespread, intelligent people will increasingly shun irrational media, and they will also increasingly prefer rational media.
[1] (at the time) I can’t remember when I read that press release — maybe over a decade ago? It certainly made me much less proud of the fact that I had previously studied Hal Varian’s work in information economics
[2] it may actually be even more appropriate to say “technologically feasible” (compare the seminal article describing the technology which has in the meantime become the “World-Wide Web”, Vannevar Bush’s “As we may think”)


