I like what Terence is saying here… it is important! Until philosophers open up and truly engage in this new media our culture is doomed. We no longer live within the older framework of books, why not accept that fact, begin to adjust and use the democratic medium of the internet to begin healing the nations, and each other? Why do academic philosophers feel afraid to use every means they have available to open up and engage those to whom they aspire to communicate?

In fact I’ve often wondered why philosophers haven’t taken advantage of such new applications as TeamSpeak, Ventrillo (applications that allow for hundreds to listen or exchange in dialogue; hold lectures, etc.); online collaborative tools, etc. I almost think that most philosophers are too tame, to unadventurous, too grounded in the older book based world view to explore these newer technologies, much less actually use them to engage with each other or the world.

Yes, yes, I see video and you-tube, but that is passé and one-sided, we need more open collaborative dialogue. And, I hate to say it, but the young are light years ahead of such staid philosophies. Even at my age I have explored the gaming worlds of Eve Online, Lotro, Secret World, Rift, Guild Wars and used both TeamSpeak and Ventrillo to communicate with the denizens of multivalent guilds collaborating toward objectives and binding each other to friendships across thousands of miles, working with people from Russian, China, Africa, Australia, Europe, US, South America… if philosophers were as adept at this type of cooperation and engagement as these young and old gamers are we would begin to formulate some sound alternatives in this world….

I’ve often thought we need a sort of RadioLivePhilosophy blog, something like what Figure/Ground is doing but with actual live instances. Easily done with such things as Internet Radio or Podcasts: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/

Are collaborative sites like Zoho, Huddle, GoToMeeting, etc.

AGENT SWARM

Is dialogue possible across the gap of intellectual, spiritual, and social incommensurability? Is any desire of open exchange in philosophy doomed to frustration due to the sociological determination of the conditions of academic status and communication? Do digital media change nothing in terms of the cliques and lobbies and clubs of mutual admiration that constitute much of the academic milieu as a closed society? Or can the internet favour acts of enunciation, and thus of individuation, of a new and more democratic nature?

I find the “one-sided dialogue”, a Feyerabendian concept, where one goes through the moves of a dialogue with someone who is incapable of exchange on free and equal terms (except with respected peers, selected “cronies”), in the hope of furthering the discussion of ideas and of continuing one’s own individuation and that of one’s readers, a very interesting idea, and a useful spiritual practice.

I think philosophical…

View original post 1,592 more words