Subscribe to

Strumpette (Amanda Chapel, which is a pseudonym) strongly recommends it, but only to get insight into how deluded Web optimists think. She thinks it’s wrong inside and out: “If you want to protect what makes sense, best know the language of nonsense.”

FWIW, I don’t recognize much of the book in her recounting of it, which means I failed to communicate my ideas :( For example, Amanda says that “…the minor systemic flaws and the dynamic nature of the language are not necessarily strong arguments for a complete system reboot, so to speak.” In fact, the first half of the book tries to show that the systemic flaws are far from minor. They apply the constraints of the physical to our ideas and knowledge, and they give rise to a system of authority that likewise limits knowledge. The old system cannot manage the volume and complexity of information in the new world.

Amanda’s right that I see the “reboot” as a great opportunity to get past the old limitations. Overall, I like what’s happening, but not because I love “chaos.” Rather, the new principles and processes allow us to get so much more order — and meaning — from of the oceans of information we’re generating.

Amanda also seems to think that the ideas in the book taken a step further would lead us to get rid of money and instead rely on a barter system. That one I simply don’t understand. I am pleased, however, that it gets me into the same paragraph as John Lennon, even if my favorite Beatle is mentioned only to mock me.

One Response to “Strumpette thinks it’s a splendid example of what’s wrong with cockeyed Web optimists”

  1. on 03 Aug 2008 at 9:08 pmscbd zdnwmxy

    dontxyvrl vwfshjty cveut nzjl tbxpmanq sleujvzhf zvslqagm