Re: Oh! The pain!

[as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Tree of Schnopia)]

In <27192d$8mi@bradley.bradley.edu> pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman) writes:

>In <1993Sep13.032652.2187@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Tree of Schnopia) writes:

>>..no.  Let me be clearer.  I hate to reopen a old discussion as you've done
>>here, but I did *not* mean to say that human skill *atrophies* as a result
>>of new technology.  I meant to say only that certain human skills do not
>>develop if they have technology upon which to rely.  Some of these skills
>>are unlamented; some are very sorely missed indeed.  E.g., the use of
>>spelling checkers may seem to be a convenience, but it rarely encourages
>>people to learn to be observant and careful about what they're typing in the
>>first place.  (Note the word "brain's" in your remark above, which is
>>incorrect.)

>While we're being grammatical, how about "reopen a old discussion" as you've
>typed above.  I mean, you have to draw the line between stupidity and

An excellent point!  :)

>habitual (fingerwise) typographical errors.  Had I NOTICED "brain's" I
>would surely have corrected it because I'm quite particular about using
>editors to EDIT, not simply type.  I assume the same about your own
>mistake, until given reason to believe otherwise.

Touche, my dear sir.  But consider: there are people who believe "brain's",
and other plurals formed by adding "'s", to be correct.  Not being
acquainted with you, I had no clue as to whether that group claimed you as a
member.

>>		Another example, quoted directly: "fully automated cameras that
>>take the art out of photography."  Sure, everyone will come out with nice
>>pictures (in theory)...but they'll all be the same.  Photography will become
>>mechanical and bloody boring.  How about microwaves which render the owner
>>helpless to cook a "real" meal without one?

>Are you trying to say that because 35 mm cameras are now nearly fully automated
>art photography is dying out?

To be sure, I say nothing of the kind.  My housemate, who happened to be
observing the discussion, tossed in the example.  A convenient cop-out,
perhaps, but 'tis he with whom that bone of contention must be gnawed.

>I think Mapplethorpe would have wanted to argue with you about that.  Not
>to mention any number of photo majors at the university of your choice.

Oh, please try not to be so quick to react.  As I believe I explained below,
it is not the case that *no one* develops the skills which technology
purports to replace.  It is the case that the technology fails to encourage
non-photo majors to develop good picture-taking skills.  But this is a
piddling little example which doesn't even belong to me.

>>Here's the big one.  The glass teat.  The TV.  The human skills of original,
>>complex thought and imagination is being ripped to shreds by the crap that
>>shows up on the screen.  After nursing at Ellison's Bane for an hour or two,
>>everyone's brain is a little less puissant.

>And if they stop nursing it and go read a few books, or if they read a few
>books after turning it off, they get back to something like where they
>were.  The only damage I can say I've contracted for the Teat is poor
>original visualization, and that would be rectified if I took the time
>from a busy life to work on it.

You have seized upon my point precisely: there are those of us who *will* go
read a few books.  (Hopefully good ones.)  There are, fortunately, those of
us, who rarely turn the idiot box on to begin with.  But there are hordes of
people who read nothing more complex than Reader's Digest.  And why should
they?  "Full House" gives them all the entertainment they need.  Poor saps.

>Don't get me wrong, I hate the lowest common denominator enforced by the
>Teat as much as anyone, but it's certainly not something that is a
>forceable bane of civilization.  Civilization is waning quite voluntarily.

Again, precisely my point.  The technology is a crutch to that decline, a
prod--not a coercive influence.

>>>You seem to be mistaking technology to deliver a wider range of dreck
>>>with technology to make music.
>>There's no difference, sir.

>And here you are wrong.  The technology for any idiot to make music
>has been around as long as the guitar and the bongo drum.  The technology
>for said idiot to let the world know what an idiot s/he is has only been
>around since Marconi invented radio, and has only become widespread in
>the last half-century.

And here I am still correct.  Any idiot can deliver a wide range of dreck
with a guitar.  A musician can also make music with the same instrument. 
Substitute "synthesizer" or "sequencer" for "guitar" and you get a similar
truism.  What machine allows an idiot to produce "dreck" but confounds the
musician from creating music?  Or were you arguing that there are machines
which allow a musician to make music, but prevent the idiot from producing
dreck?  I do believe that one can...

...ah, now my sluggish tortoise of a brain catches your drift.  You refer to
the distinction between the output and the input devices.  This is not a
colossal leap in reasoning.  Do you seriously mean to tell me that it isn't
easier to make something appealing to the common horde on a synth or
sequencer than it is on the guitar?  I speak from experience that it
requires a good deal of practice to be able, even, to play crap on the
guitar, much less to play music.  I daresay, though as I say I'm treading in
uncharted territory for me, that even something as tiny as the Casio PT-1
allows for a separation of melody and rhythm--one can record the melody in
sequence, and use the one-touch playback to put it in rhythm.  But we're
getting hopelessly silly here.

The original argument is lost in shadow, and I close the book on it here. 
We agree, I'd surmise, on most points, and the distinctions that mark our
departure points are best argued in E-mail.

>>>Pete Hartman		       Bradley University	pwh@bradley.bradley.edu
>>> "Mommy mommy, turn on your headlights!  Daddy's car is parked in your garage!"
>>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>Normally, I am above making disparaging comments about .signatures.  But a
>>quote from a "dirty" joke whose variants were first told to me by third-graders
>>is very slightly tasteless, n'est-ce pas?

>1) You started this with a disparaging comment about Jon's signature, how
>am I to judge the veracity of your claim to avoid them?

Incorrect.  The person who started the argument did so with a disparaging
comment about Jon's signature.  I am not that person.

>2) Pardon if you miss the point.  My sense of humor is none but my own,
>and if you don't like it, neither of us is really in any kind of pain
>(at least not I).

Fair enough.  I suspected that I probably remained on the outside of an
inside joke.  Furthermore, that remark was quite uncalled for and
immature...might I offer a humble apology?

Drewcifer

>         High-tech trickery is USELESS with your COLON on the sidewalk.
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This quote, if I may be permitted to continue observing your .sigs, sounds
somewhat familiar.  Guesses: Robert Anton Wilson (can't remember which book
is more likely), Clive Barker (but then where would the first part be
relevant?), William Gibson (the most probable of the three).
-- 
----  Andrew D. Simchik ? as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu ? Tree of Schnopia
\ ----  HAIL ERIS!  ALL HAIL DISCORDIA! ? BITE ME, IT'S FUN!  ?   shade
 \\bi/  Go to sleep, little earth...and Dream of the Endless. ? and sweet
   \/  "Words weren't made for cowards."--Happy Rhodes        ?   water