The easiest way to reduce inactivity is to turn off the TV set. Now we know that this infinite Good is not more available to one than it is to all. We know that the only limit to it is our capacity to receive. If you had a problem with mathematics to work out, you would hardly gather together the necessary figures and leave them to arrange themselves in their proper sequence. You would know that while the method or solving every problem has been figured out, you have got to work it. The principles are there, but you have got to apply them. Only by understanding that there is but one power — and that this power is Mind, not circumstances or environment — is it possible to bring your real abilities to the surface ad put them to work. Few deny that intelligence governs the universe. In matters not whether you call this intelligence Universal Mindor Providence or God or merely nature.
All admit Its directing power. All admit that It is a force for good, for progress. But few realize that our own minds are a part of this Universal Mind in just the same way that the rays of the sun are part of the sun. Most of what we communicate has to do a lot with language and writing. What the mind thinks is transferred into verbal , written form, phonetic syllable and the auditory realms. Our Minds can grasp these if we are to understand the large quote in the above cited paragraph. Intentionally developed as a decentralized web, the computer networks have already evolved into complex chaotic systems, capable of feedback and iteration on a scale still unfathomable by even their most enthusiastic participants. How this all came to be is significant. Imitating a complex natural system like a coral reef, the ARPANET system depended on the immense interconnectedness of its parts.
So it seems most hierarchically inclined, power-based segment of our culture — the military — developed the most Gaian-spirited complex ever created by human beings. This self-similar map of interconnected nodes is an automatically self-regulating organism. No one individual can control what information spreads where. The network became known as the ‘Internet’ — a meta-networking linking up other networks around the world. Scientist and other researchers used the network to share advances with each other, and corporations used it to send information from one site to another. Meanwhile computer hobbyists had launched their own, more grassroots-style set of networks. 10-a-month telephone line, any kid can gain access to a global communications network, as well as every computer system linked to that network. The grassroots networks began as local, call-in nodes. One person would dedicate a computer and one or many phone lines to be a computer and one or many phone lines to be a bulletin board service, or BBS.
Many users jack in through their computers at work, which are often linked to the Internet through the company’s own node. Needless to say, the Internet is a social anarchy . There is no governing body for the system. Scientists share the network with hobbyists and hackers who share the system with writers, artists, researchers, corporations, and, of course, activists. The Internet is inherently threatening to anyone in a position of power because no one — at least, not yet — can regulate the tremendous flow of information. A hundred million or billion people speaking to one another through computer text and getting their information from researchers,observers, archived material, and just plain other people are impossible to control. They have a reality test. They also have a countercultural weapon. Rushkoff gave us the basic historical background of the coming of, evolving and spreading of the Internet. We will now look at the Internet today. When the twentieth century electronic media of radio, television, and recording tape adjusted these assumptions, and the changes at least still resembled ordinary presence.
In other words, many messages became more accessible over distance or over time, but they retained certain cues of the voice, the human image, or both, that are normally associated with immediacy. Another way of saying this is that as media become more and more “immediate” and sophisticated they are experienced less and less like media. They seem almost to waft, to fade in and away, in a floating environment not experienced as machinelike, but as naturally involving. At the same time, most analysts implicitly assumed writing and reading were more or less non-immediate experiences, involving distant encoding. Reading and writing allow students to learn and even emulate literary or historical works on which the culture presumably depends. Therefore, these tasks were subject to more careful planning, they seemed to depend on “higher” mental functions, and also seemed more important to teach and learn. There were obvious differences of presence too.