"Information is indeed the very potential for there to be objects and subjects. It is the medium in which objects and subjects actually come into existence, and is the medium in which their virtuality resides. When information is not free, then the class that owns or controls it turns its capacity toward its own interest and away from its own inherent virtuality." I agree with many aspects of this quote and of the article "A Hacker Manifesto". But I feel that this information that is so readily attainable comes with a heavy price. We have sacrificed experience for knowledge in the sense that anything that peaks our interest is in almost all cases readily attainable. With all of the vast information that we share on the internet alone, we can satisfy anyones visual or hearing curiosities everywhere. You can get video and audio of just about anything happening, whether it is animated or real.
But when knowledge is so entirely ready for you, I believe the mind becomes lazy. When we have all of this knowlege and information at the tip of our fingers, we often will find ourselves constantly not satisfied with what we have. People will go on you tube trips where they will spend hours just sitting and watching random videos on youtube, simply to kill boredom.
-Conor
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I agree.
Cyberspace has expanded a great deal since 'A Hacker Manifesto' was first published. Information, I feel, is no longer "not free" but more hidden among an abundance of information. With a simple google search ordinary citizens have the potential to gain access to the same information the (former)"class that owns or controls it..." once secured. In 2007 it's less of a matter of class and more of a matter of choice. (whether or not to search, and what do with the information)
Shamecca Manuel
"Through the application of abstraction, the hacker class produces the possibility of production, the possibility of making something of and with the world - and of living off the surplus produced by the application of abstraction to nature - to any nature. Through the production of new forms of abstraction, the hacker class produces the possibility of the future - not 'just 'the' future, but an infinite possible array of futures, the future itself as virtuality."- Is Wark basically saying that by taking "nature" or original forms, and abstracting them, that a new world can be formed from hacking? I feel that he is saying that hackers take the virtual world and change things about it, to create this "future" he talks about. Honestly, I'm not a fan at all of virtual worlds. Whether it be the internet, or video games, I believe all of it is changing our society extremely, and not necessarily for the better. It seems to me that Wark is concerned with creating these environments and worlds online, from what has already existed online, which is changing information (that already may be false) and making it even more false. Maybe I got the wrong idea, but either way I think he is placing way too much importance on these virtual worlds. People surround themselves with virtual worlds everyday, whether it be the internet, or video games, people are obsessed with them, and I don't think it is a good thing. Personally I think that people spend way too much time in these fake, and created worlds, and they are replacing the need for a "real" world. People play video games, instead of having human interaction, or talk to people online, instead of in person. When I hear people talk about things like facebook, or myspace like they are the most important thing in the world, I am embarrassed at what our society has become. People believe all of these worlds to be real, and true, and if there are hackers changing them even more, the world is becoming even more fake.
I agree with what you said about the free information coming at a heavy price. What if you told everyone they could win anything without trying? How many people would actually STILL try?
One thing I really liked in the article myself was Wark's definition of virtual; what is real but not actual, or something to that affect. I don't know, it's just a GREAT explanation.
- Alex Patrick
Post a Comment