“Look, putting a polemicist like myself in the blogosphere is like putting someone with an obesity problem in a chocolate factory.”

Well, that’s just hysterically funny. And how very true.

So, “Seriously, the blogosphere strips argument of logic and rhetoric down to the naked emotion behind it.” I’m not sure I would have said that it strips rhetoric – often what I read is pure rhetoric, fuelled by pure emotion. But I do agree that the comment is often true. I think we see this most in the political ’sphere, which seems like an echo chamber of angry boys and girls shouting at each other. The rhetoric comes in the form of intellectual preening; I say this because there is often no pretence at attempting to win someone over with argument – simply the use of clever words and argument to establish one’s cred. But ultimately, often circularly and without any eventual goal other than self-indulgence.

I’m certainly guilty of it too.

But that is why I stopped reading the political ’sphere. I’ll pick it up again when the adults arrive :)

I’m definitely going to have to buy Siegel’s book.

What I can’t see is sitting there and reading, or improvising, my thoughts or reviews, complete with nose scratches and “um”s. Cold text is infinitely better than that. So vlogging has its place, but it’s NOT doing the exact same thing that blogging already does in cheap, crappy video form.

Are you saying that electronic media threatens to evolve into a venue/tool for a mob? If so, it’s an interesting point.

Television, the first mass electronic media, appeared to have a higher quality of content overall in, say, 1960, than today. Was that a result of it being a new world then, inhabited by the few who grasped its potential and not yet dominated by the masses?

The internet, being interactive, is evolving on a somewhat different path, with the additional difference of the business community having first access, but there are similarities, now that it is starting to bloom as a provider of entertainment to mass markets.

You know my business plans, which aim to create high quality spaces and experiences for communities of more sophisticated users. Business aside, I believe this aim has its own merit in how we develop and build the places that don’t yet exist in this new frontier.

If the only effort invested in building new spaces is to target the highest number of users for the biggest bucks, then those spaces will be mass driven, and the more analytical and contemplative minds are likely to retreat to ‘gated communities’ and ‘private clubs’.
Ironically, the natural evolution of that would see the financially successful builders of these places for the masses taking membership in the sphere of the ‘elitists’. It’s a cynical view, and one that I instincitvely protest.

My personal beliefs are both capitalist and egalitarian, built on a foundation of personal responsibility. It’s my conviction that those of us who wish to see and engage in interesting and sophisticated communities have the opportunity and the obligation to build them.

I’m not familiar with Lee Siegal yet, being pretty new to the blogsphere, but don’t get the linking of logic to rhetoric (unless it’s just a lack of context) …although I’m sure my American husband might. :)

I would, though, like to draw a distinction between naked emotion and instant gratification.
The intensely personal connection that has been made possible by this new media is fascinating. Where we can go from raw emotion is totally up to us.
I don’t believe that intense personal connection is incompatible with complex thought, analysis, etc.

I doubt there will ever (in our lifetime) not be a majority who’s imagination does not move past instant gratification on its own. For those of us not in that majority, IMO we have a personal choice to watch it grow and gripe about it or to do something. We’re not going to change human nature. To me it’s a question of sitting back and watching or diving in and taking an ownership.

You talk about blogging and the internet being where the minds are and wanting to wrestle with what the great thinkers are blogging about.

In today’s New York Times (one of the items you mention above that you like to read,) there is an interesting interview with Lee Siegel the ex blogger of the New Republic who took the pseudonym Sprezzatura and posted by that name to his own blog.

Lee states

“…the blogosphere strips argument of logic and rhetoric down to the naked emotion behind it.”

Putting aside his (1) tactic of anonymously posting to his own blog and (2) his right wing political leanings, I would be very interested in knowing what you think(feel?) about such a statement, basically he believes blogs are where emotions are, not necessarily logical rational thinking minds.

url for NY Times article mentioned is http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/17/magazine/17wwln_q4.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

:)