I’ll be late blogging today because I agreed to participate in a session on “The Future Workplace” at the Collaborate conference this morning. I agreed because it’s local and I’d be going anyway to see what’s up. More important, I like the company — eRoom — that put the panel together, and I’ll get to spend some time with co-panelists Jessica Lipnack and Jeff Stamps, the urbane authors of “Virtual Teams.” I did somehow manage to ignore the fact that it is a four hour panel. Oy veh.

So, this is a meta-blog entry. Which works for me because last night I had two meta-dreams. In one, I analyzed the dream of a friend. My advice to her: When she says that the fire in her dream probably did not stand for orgasm, she should take the “not” out of the sentence (and maybe the knot out of her orgasm). In the other, I was writing an apologetic note to the organizer of the “Future Workplace” panel. Not only was a I a no-show at the panel, but I couldn’t even remember how I spent the morning I missed it. But then (in my dream) I realized that this was because I was only dreaming that I missed the panel.

Must have coffee…

Be the first to comment »

Steve Yost writes with regard to what Halley has termed my Unfuck gesture:

I wonder if it’s best made clear that your palm should be facing away from you — at least that’s the way I see it, as a sort of blessing/peace sign. Palm toward you looks too much like its negative to catch on as obviously benevolent.

Actually, I initially posted a photo showing the back of my hand, but it just lacked the impact of the full frontal. I have assumed that the proper gesture is palm toward the gesturer, with a quick upwards thrust. But I claim no special authority on the matter.

3 Comments »

Jeneane points us to the Greenpeace weblog, as voice-y as you’d expect.

1 Comment »

Jacob Shwirtz got to hang out with Cameron of
BlogDex. If you want to read the sorts of things
these two guys talk about at a party, go to
Jacob’s blog. Pretty durn
interesting.

Be the first to comment »

If you are confused about Slashdot – a site that’s become a verb – but are ashamed to admit it, here’s an interview with the site’s founder that will explain it all to you in the privacy of your own bedroom.

Be the first to comment »

Halley’s Comment has made a surprise (and welcome) return, well ahead of schedule. Bless those unpredictable elliptical orbits!

(BTW, I like Halley’s verbalization of my proposed gesture as “Unfuck you!”)

1 Comment »

AKMA blogs an article he’s written on
cyberspace’s effect on our relationship to the
Bible. Wow! AKMA, recently-tenured theologian at
Seabury-Western Theological Seminary, is the author
of one of the best introductions
to postmodernism, What is PostModern Biblical
Criticism?, and is a serious multilingual
scholar, as well as being one of the most
interesting (= insightful, entertaining,
compassionate) bloggers around.

He suggests two major effects the multimedia
world of the Net will bring to biblical
interpretation:

… first, a
demystification of words as means of communication,
and second, a relaxation of what has been the
constitutive hostility of modern academic biblical
studies to allegory. At the heart of both these
proposals lies a sensitivity to the explosive
breadth of means for communicating information in
cyberspace.

Fascinating. But for me, as a Jew, its fascination rests in part on
seeing how matters look to a thoughtful, scholarly,
imaginative, playful and ultimately serious thinker
from a different tradition.

For AKMA, demystifying words is a good thing, for we
believe too naively in the possibility of literal
translation and we exalt printed words over other
forms of meaningful communication and expression:

Though the Word became flesh and
dwelt among us, the Word was not manifest as a part
of speech or a siglum; the Word effected communion
with humanity by becoming human, not by becoming an
inscription.

As a Jew, we were given a set of words. They come
from the mouth of G-d, but they’re written in human
language. We get over the translation problem by
learning Hebrew and Aramaic. (When I say “we,” I
mean them other Jews; I don’t know either language
and I only believe in G-d enough to feel that if He
exists, He’s got a lot of ‘splaining to do.) Yet,
the Jewish tradition from the beginning has been aware of the hermeneutical problem of translation, for we don’t believe that even in the
original language there is a one-to-one relationship
of word to meaning. When G-d speaks in human language,
we still need to engage in an overwhelming task of
“translation” and interpretation. That’s why there
are no (?) fundamentalist Jews who believe you can
understand the scripture just by reading it out loud
in a firm, scolding tone of voice.

But scripture isn’t the only way G-d speaks.
Creation is another. So, while the Torah obviously
holds a special place for Jews in G-d’s creation, it is not
the only source of revelation. But what gives the
Torah its special place? The fact that, unlike the
rest of G-d’s creation, it’s in words. So, yes,
printed (well, hand-lettered) words do have a
special, “over-valued” place in Judaism.

Notice, of course, that having a special place
doesn’t mean having an exclusive place. Not only words convey G-d’s meaning.
So does the rest of creation. So does love. So does science. So does observance and practice and tradition. But
words are special. At least G-d’s words are.

So, if the multimedia Net results in letting some of the air out of words’ tires for Christians, I don’t think it will have the same effect on Judaism. For a text-based religion like Judaism – one that famously anticipated the hyperlinked nature of information – the Web shines as an aid to scholarship and to the conversations that are the way Jewish scholarship proceeds and succeeds. And, more important, for a community-based religion such as Judaism – Jews are a people, and observance requires living with other Jews – the Web enables a connectedness within diaspora that may indeed touch something deep within the collective us.

AKMA writes:

As academic biblical
interpretation moves more rapidly and
comprehensively into domains other than the printed
word, practitioners will need to learn how to
evaluate interpretations on unfamiliar terms. Under
present circumstances, the dominant critical
question posed to (verbal) interpretations consists
principally in whether they appropriately honor the
historical context of the text’s origin; such
questions well suit a discourse of interpretation
that trades in propositions as its currency. When
interpretations involve not only verbal truth-claims
about interpretive propositions, but also shapes,
colors, soundtracks, and motion, the matter of
historical verisimilitude recedes among a host of
other questions.

By rattling this cage, AKMA is making the cage
visible. Our idea of truth is all wrapped up with
our understanding of words. Truth pertains to words,
we believe. When it comes to pictures, we talk about
“accuracy” or “realism” but not truth. (That’s why
AKMA’s reference to Magritte’s “This is not a pipe”
is so apt.) But if truth has instead to do with
revelation — un-covering, in Heidegger’s sense
— then confining truth to the realm of words
cages us. Words may have a special
place in uncovering our world, but they are not the
only shovel in the tool shed.

[NOTE: Anything I write about Judaism
constitutes an act of arrogance since I know little
and believe less.

1 Comment »

Norman Jenson of OneGoodMove writes:

I just saw your post on CYC and the link to Andy Clarke’s book “Being There.” I would agree with your comments; it was an eye opener for me as well. Since you enjoyed Clarke’s book so much let me recommend Flesh and Machines – How Robots Will Change Us by Rodney Brooks, on the off chance you haven’t read it yet. I read this several months ago and made a few comments about it on my site . Clarke also has a new book titled “Mindware An Introduction to the Philosphy of Cognitive Science” that is quite good.

Thanks for the links and for the cogent comments on your site. I’m a fan of Brooks, although I like his critique of AI (“The world is the model”) more than what I’ve read of his positive comments about the nature of the mind. But I should read more before Issuing Pronouncements … not that ignorance has ever stopped me.

Be the first to comment »

When the light turned green, the car ahead of me just sat there. I gave it a good five seconds (i.e., 0.5 seconds) and then blasted my horn. “What did you do that for?” asked my wife. “The light is still red.”

So it was. I hadn’t noticed the righthand turn light.

So, how do I apologize to the driver ahead of me? We lack a gesture by which we beg forgiveness. I propose the following:

Use it often.

Be the first to comment »

I didn’t blog anything today because I had nothing to say.

Be the first to comment »