Molecular Media in 2005, Part II

[Continued from Part I]

Collective Intelligence

In his book, 'Collective Intelligence: Mankind's Emergence Into Cyberspace', Pierre Levy discusses differences between molar and molecular forms of information dispersal (as well as many other aspects).

...Editorialized on CD-ROM, a hyperdocument, even though it bears some of the characteristics of "interactivity" inherent in digital technologies, provides us with less plasticity, dynamism, or sensitivity to the evolution of context than a hyperdocument that has been enriched and restructured in real time by a community of authors and readers on a network...

- Collective Intelligence: Mankind's Emergence Into Cyberspace, Pierre Levy, Page 49.

The main difference between Molar and Molecular communication, in this regard, is the feedback mechanism. With Molar communication, feedback is to an entity through a process - try getting the editor of the Wall Street Journal on the phone. With Molecular communication, the feedback mechanism is less impersonal and more human.

The proliferation of radio and television channels has produced a wilderness of cave-dwellers instead of the promised Global Village - Philip Howard, The Times, 1992

Through trackbacks and comments and editing of Wikis, we've shown the potential to go beyond cave dwellers. But we are at the brink, a generation of people remains who still seek the comfort of these intellectual caves - having the newspaper delivered by Dino, and turning on the television every night at 6 p.m. so that they can be told what is happening in their world.

Then we have the younger generations who still cling to similar beliefs, though the name of the Newspaper delivery system is now Astro. Every morning, they check email and perhaps a few news websites. They still read newspapers, they still watch television, and the information that they receive is a cornucopia of the latest and greates molar media. They are disassociated with the news; they are not a part of what is happening. They are voyeurs in modern caves.

It makes one think about why the best things aren't adopted, until you start thinking about the relative meaning of best. What's good for 'John Q. Public' isn't necessarily good for the empires built upon information distribution to caves, modern and otherwise.

Humanity has the potential to be so much more, yet we are afraid of change at a societal level. We resist it. We are angered by it. At some point, people will just have to accept it - and it's a matter of time before people DO accept it. What's up for debate is how much time it will take.

And what's this really about? It's about becoming a part of the world we live in instead of passive automatons who would rather be people peering out of the cave, seeking news. The Truth is not something that sometimes has to be found, and that requires coming out of the little caves and finding things to draw on the insides of the caves.

It's about credibility of the news we get, credibility of the sources - it's about being able to read and write alternative opinions on the same topics and being able to share them. It's about something so simple and so very human. It's about discussion. And it's not just about internet technologies, either - HAM Radio operators do the same in disasters, and are probably one of the groups which helps the most during trying times. You'll rarely see that on a weblog though.

cont'd