July 6th, 2010 was His Holiness, the
Dalai Lama's 75th Birthday.
I had known about it, I just didn't think about mentioning it here, until now.
Thus, a Belated Happy Birthday to you!
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Friday, July 9, 2010
Ever do something you later regretted?
There's probably a lot of those kinds of movies, but one for sure, has to be, "Fear City" (1984). No Lady Gaga, no Britney Spears, but some of the more "interesting" babes of the day. Anyway, I was just checking it out. There's so many babes in that film. Oh my God. Naked women everywhere. "Fear City". Sounded like a good, intense, crime thriller. Or something. But no, not exactly.
Tom Berenger stars and I can see why he took the job. But I have to wonder, did he asked for pay? But, then I would have to wonder about Billy Dee Williams. And Jack Scalia, Rossano Brazzi, Joe Santos, and Jan Murray. Well. Jan Murray. No real thought needed there, he kind of in that film. Or maybe not. He fits even better in softer flicks.
These were babes in their prime, too: Melanie Griffith, Ray Dong Chong (daughter of Cheech & Chong comedy team's Tommy Chong), Maria Conchita Alonso, Ola Ray, Emilia Crow (as Emilia Lesniak, there's someone who changed their name), Helen McGara (Ms .45), Janet Julian, Great Guns there's some babes in this thing. And set in what? Of course, a strip club.
I think there is a plot. I'm trying to remember. Something about Tom being an ex boxers (There's a little something in this for the ladies too, evidently). This is Abel Ferrara's follow up to the far more interesting, if you rape me twice in one day I'll go on a killing spree flick called, Ms. 45 (1981), that got him much attention leading into other things for him. Such as Fear City. Abel wrote and directed The Bad Lieutenant and the cult film, New Rose Hotel. So its not like he can't turn out a good, at least, interesting flick.
This thing has a bizarre slasher freak who thinks he's Bruce Lee's untalented cousin or something, Mafia types (or at least Italian tough guy types), hot girls (no real complaint there), but a shaky plot and script. Also, I don't ever remember there being a martial arts slasher type. Typically, martial arts is a good healthy outlet. There's been bullies, but usually its a good outlet. Maybe its too much hard work for a personality that is so into easy satiation of their bent impulses.
So, if you're sitting around looking for something interesting to watch on a Friday night with no great options available, feel free to watch this flick. But, keep a few things in mind first. Like, drink vodka, effusively (or hey, your choice). You should probably be attracted to naked women, or at least watching their naked forms dancing around a stripper pole with lots of old guys jeering at them. There is some tough guy stuff and some untough guy stuff that is even more interesting; and the slasher guy is kind of funny in a warped sort of way. Just keep the remote handy. It has a fast forward button.
Tom Berenger stars and I can see why he took the job. But I have to wonder, did he asked for pay? But, then I would have to wonder about Billy Dee Williams. And Jack Scalia, Rossano Brazzi, Joe Santos, and Jan Murray. Well. Jan Murray. No real thought needed there, he kind of in that film. Or maybe not. He fits even better in softer flicks.
These were babes in their prime, too: Melanie Griffith, Ray Dong Chong (daughter of Cheech & Chong comedy team's Tommy Chong), Maria Conchita Alonso, Ola Ray, Emilia Crow (as Emilia Lesniak, there's someone who changed their name), Helen McGara (Ms .45), Janet Julian, Great Guns there's some babes in this thing. And set in what? Of course, a strip club.
I think there is a plot. I'm trying to remember. Something about Tom being an ex boxers (There's a little something in this for the ladies too, evidently). This is Abel Ferrara's follow up to the far more interesting, if you rape me twice in one day I'll go on a killing spree flick called, Ms. 45 (1981), that got him much attention leading into other things for him. Such as Fear City. Abel wrote and directed The Bad Lieutenant and the cult film, New Rose Hotel. So its not like he can't turn out a good, at least, interesting flick.
This thing has a bizarre slasher freak who thinks he's Bruce Lee's untalented cousin or something, Mafia types (or at least Italian tough guy types), hot girls (no real complaint there), but a shaky plot and script. Also, I don't ever remember there being a martial arts slasher type. Typically, martial arts is a good healthy outlet. There's been bullies, but usually its a good outlet. Maybe its too much hard work for a personality that is so into easy satiation of their bent impulses.
So, if you're sitting around looking for something interesting to watch on a Friday night with no great options available, feel free to watch this flick. But, keep a few things in mind first. Like, drink vodka, effusively (or hey, your choice). You should probably be attracted to naked women, or at least watching their naked forms dancing around a stripper pole with lots of old guys jeering at them. There is some tough guy stuff and some untough guy stuff that is even more interesting; and the slasher guy is kind of funny in a warped sort of way. Just keep the remote handy. It has a fast forward button.
Hell and Insanity - A Diatribe
Hell, hath no fury, well...like Hell.
And, its never ever what you expect.
There is nothing to edit here except the story itself.
And if it could be divulged in the last remaining moments of Human History, this would be the most appropriate of times and places to share of this story.
After all, no one will be interested after all are dead.
And the madman screamed so all would listen:
"Succor and abandonment are the vestiges of a well spent life
and there is nothing to stop the innocent from leaving the stage before the end."
Or, so said the Sage that lost his way along the Path, and expired from lack of drink and experienced that, so great of a loss of energy, that we call it Death.
And so it is, to all that won't listen' and I send this warning:
Accept the truth, or die in knowing that the falsehoods prevailed.
The end is neigh and only Milton has seen the future.
Bacon's paintings are only a brief prelude to the actual events, as they will unfold.
And so, I wish you all the warmest of receptions and felicitations...in Hell. Or where ever you may land, in the end.
Socrates, will not be there to greet you. So be sad, yet fear not. However, a singing troupe called, Hitler's Henchmen, will play their penultimate set. They all sing in soprano and dance gaily around a freezing fire, that is at some point, to be the rest of your Eternity.
Praise the Righteous. As they are the ones who shall have had prevailed on Earth and will eventually be the most condemned in the After Life.
Little to their understanding, I might add.
The first of the wrestling matches will lead to the decision of which of the blind will be leading the blind.
It will be a tag team match between:
The Buddha, his contemporary, Confucius,
the recent favorite,
Jesus (don't you know that carpenters have strong arms and backs), and
Mohammad.
Vs.
Genghis Khan,
Vlad the Impaler,
Nero and
Goering (Hitler, will so typically excuse himself saying that his back is bothering him again; strange as it is, he fancies himself JFK).
And this will be what will in the end decide who will be the followers and
who will be the leaders, all in that great hall across the river Styx.
Do I hear the cheer?
Let the games begin!
And, its never ever what you expect.
There is nothing to edit here except the story itself.
And if it could be divulged in the last remaining moments of Human History, this would be the most appropriate of times and places to share of this story.
After all, no one will be interested after all are dead.
And the madman screamed so all would listen:
"Succor and abandonment are the vestiges of a well spent life
and there is nothing to stop the innocent from leaving the stage before the end."
Or, so said the Sage that lost his way along the Path, and expired from lack of drink and experienced that, so great of a loss of energy, that we call it Death.
And so it is, to all that won't listen' and I send this warning:
Accept the truth, or die in knowing that the falsehoods prevailed.
The end is neigh and only Milton has seen the future.
Bacon's paintings are only a brief prelude to the actual events, as they will unfold.
And so, I wish you all the warmest of receptions and felicitations...in Hell. Or where ever you may land, in the end.
Socrates, will not be there to greet you. So be sad, yet fear not. However, a singing troupe called, Hitler's Henchmen, will play their penultimate set. They all sing in soprano and dance gaily around a freezing fire, that is at some point, to be the rest of your Eternity.
Praise the Righteous. As they are the ones who shall have had prevailed on Earth and will eventually be the most condemned in the After Life.
Little to their understanding, I might add.
The first of the wrestling matches will lead to the decision of which of the blind will be leading the blind.
It will be a tag team match between:
The Buddha, his contemporary, Confucius,
the recent favorite,
Jesus (don't you know that carpenters have strong arms and backs), and
Mohammad.
Vs.
Genghis Khan,
Vlad the Impaler,
Nero and
Goering (Hitler, will so typically excuse himself saying that his back is bothering him again; strange as it is, he fancies himself JFK).
And this will be what will in the end decide who will be the followers and
who will be the leaders, all in that great hall across the river Styx.
Do I hear the cheer?
Let the games begin!
Thursday, July 8, 2010
July 24th - You - YouTube - Ridley Scott - Post your Vid!
Footage shot on July 24th and submitted to YouTube for the Lifeinaday project will
be compiled in a feature documentary that will debut at next year’s Sundance Film Festival.
Producer Ridley Scott, director Kevin Macdonald (State of Play), and YouTube are teaming up for Life in a Day, “the first user-generated feature-length documentary".
Check it out:
http://www.youtube.com/lifeinaday
be compiled in a feature documentary that will debut at next year’s Sundance Film Festival.
Producer Ridley Scott, director Kevin Macdonald (State of Play), and YouTube are teaming up for Life in a Day, “the first user-generated feature-length documentary".
Check it out:
http://www.youtube.com/lifeinaday
"Hair", hair, everywhere, War on top....
Its a long time since hair, was really relevant. But there was a time, back in the 1960s and 70's, when long hair, hair that wasn't by the standards of what it was "supposed to be", could get you beat down. You received prejudice, pain, taunting, beatings by police, by those who's entire purpose was to protect us, who forgot, who lost the meaning, of just who "Us" really was.
Now its decades later and the "Us" is we, all of us. What happened was a travesty, it was social commentary, it was a grass roots uproar against war, killing, trauma and terrorism. Because war, is terrorism; State sponsored and sanctioned terrorism, and therefore...its not.
Yet...it is. Isn't it.
Someone on a documentary called "Hair, Let the Sun shine in" said, "We were born to love" and that isn't true. We were most likely born to kill. But we have evolved, to be able to love. We have evolved, to have the luxury, the time to play, to think, theorize, philosophize, relax, and even, to do nothing.
All you had to do at one time, was grow your hair out and it WAS a statement; against the war, the "establishment" and therefore the status quo. Many times, even if that wasn't why you did it, you could still get beat up by rednecks, police, radical conservatives (no we haven't forgotten about you radical conservatives from back then).
My brother had drawn on a piece of floor in our mother's basement, where he was staying back in '67 for a while, where he had written in some black bold letters:
"Hey, Hey, LBJ, how many have you killed in Nam today?"
That may have been the awakening of my social consciousness. I was 13.
Many of us in the 60s and 70's wore our hair long in order to protest the mainstream being against our freedom to grow hair long, to be ourselves. We fought against their fear of us, of our being different, looking different.
We just wanted people to think. Not to judge a book by its cover. To accept differences. Even though he or she looked weird to me, what they had to say, may very well have a bearing on things that are important to me, or perhaps they should be important to me. Maybe they have a different way of looking at things, wherein I should be paying attention. That, perhaps, it was okay to think outside of that box.
It used to be dangerous to pick someone up in your car, with long hair. But usually, it wasn't. Then at some point, it because safer to pick up someone with long hair, than with short. When did that happen? Now, its just not that safe to pick up a human being. What happened?
Where are we? We no longer have something as simple as hair to show a protest. On the other hand, anyone now can wear the clothes they want, and for the most part, have their hair however they like.
One of the Directors of a large Health care insurance company, recently had a Mohawk, with tinted hair. No one paid much attention to it. Why? Because, he is one sharp guy. There was a time though, when he wouldn't even have gotten a job interview, or he would have been fired had he changed like that.
Things, have changed.
Yet here we are again at war. Maybe we need to be there. Perhaps there will always be the downtrodden, the bullies, power hungry regimes. Maybe some things will never change. This time we just picked a completely different part of the world for the killing. Perhaps we're bored with fighting in East Asia. Then again, the way Korea has been acting, we may yet get back to the Asian continent.
How will a new generation protest when they see the unacceptable? Especially now that they don't have so much to fight against, to push against, to change. Perhaps now we're dealing with things on a higher level of being. Still, during the Bush years, I saw protest and a push back from the government that was unsettling. And more accepted by the population at large. Have things changed? Are things getting better?
How will the younger generations think to change things. Will they even try?
I guess only time will tell.
Now its decades later and the "Us" is we, all of us. What happened was a travesty, it was social commentary, it was a grass roots uproar against war, killing, trauma and terrorism. Because war, is terrorism; State sponsored and sanctioned terrorism, and therefore...its not.
Yet...it is. Isn't it.
Someone on a documentary called "Hair, Let the Sun shine in" said, "We were born to love" and that isn't true. We were most likely born to kill. But we have evolved, to be able to love. We have evolved, to have the luxury, the time to play, to think, theorize, philosophize, relax, and even, to do nothing.
All you had to do at one time, was grow your hair out and it WAS a statement; against the war, the "establishment" and therefore the status quo. Many times, even if that wasn't why you did it, you could still get beat up by rednecks, police, radical conservatives (no we haven't forgotten about you radical conservatives from back then).
My brother had drawn on a piece of floor in our mother's basement, where he was staying back in '67 for a while, where he had written in some black bold letters:
"Hey, Hey, LBJ, how many have you killed in Nam today?"
That may have been the awakening of my social consciousness. I was 13.
Many of us in the 60s and 70's wore our hair long in order to protest the mainstream being against our freedom to grow hair long, to be ourselves. We fought against their fear of us, of our being different, looking different.
We just wanted people to think. Not to judge a book by its cover. To accept differences. Even though he or she looked weird to me, what they had to say, may very well have a bearing on things that are important to me, or perhaps they should be important to me. Maybe they have a different way of looking at things, wherein I should be paying attention. That, perhaps, it was okay to think outside of that box.
It used to be dangerous to pick someone up in your car, with long hair. But usually, it wasn't. Then at some point, it because safer to pick up someone with long hair, than with short. When did that happen? Now, its just not that safe to pick up a human being. What happened?
Where are we? We no longer have something as simple as hair to show a protest. On the other hand, anyone now can wear the clothes they want, and for the most part, have their hair however they like.
One of the Directors of a large Health care insurance company, recently had a Mohawk, with tinted hair. No one paid much attention to it. Why? Because, he is one sharp guy. There was a time though, when he wouldn't even have gotten a job interview, or he would have been fired had he changed like that.
Things, have changed.
Yet here we are again at war. Maybe we need to be there. Perhaps there will always be the downtrodden, the bullies, power hungry regimes. Maybe some things will never change. This time we just picked a completely different part of the world for the killing. Perhaps we're bored with fighting in East Asia. Then again, the way Korea has been acting, we may yet get back to the Asian continent.
How will a new generation protest when they see the unacceptable? Especially now that they don't have so much to fight against, to push against, to change. Perhaps now we're dealing with things on a higher level of being. Still, during the Bush years, I saw protest and a push back from the government that was unsettling. And more accepted by the population at large. Have things changed? Are things getting better?
How will the younger generations think to change things. Will they even try?
I guess only time will tell.
Horror Anthology Anounced - my "Gumdrop City" story to be included
I just found out that one of my short horror stories, "Gumdrop City" will be published in August, in the upcoming anthology by Undead Nation and Zilyon Publishing.
UnDead Nation on Facebook
On "Gumdrop City": the story was based upon a true life serial murderer and his practices, who preyed only on children. Much of the storyline actually happened, with the exception of the protagonist's situation...and some candy. And that is about all I can say without detracting too much from the story. But this is a tough story, not to be read by the faint of heart. The original purpose of having written the story was to showcase the horror of the families involved in such a serial murderer's endeavors. It was not in any way, an easy story to write and required a very careful hand in phrasing and exposition. And that's enough said on that, escept for this response from a happy reader:
"I gotta say your story freaked me out pal in a great way. Loved the characters, especially Sampson. The way you made him seem both harmless while making me feel weird whenever he "appeared" was great. And the fact that it is based on a true story makes you think. Oh, and a perfectly f'd up creepy title, too!"
On the Anthology: Undead Nation has selected eleven original short stories to be published alongside stories from Alan Gandy (author of Voyeur Dead), Cal Miller (author of Het Madden, A Zombie Perspective) and others in the “Undead Nation” book! This will also include the winner of The Undead Nation/Crypticon Writing Contest. They were originally only going to publish seven stories, but they were so pleased with the submissions that they raised the total to eleven. That is good for we, the reader. Yes, I'm a reader too, I have after all, only read my story. I anxiously look forward to reading the others.
The Undead Nation Short Fiction Contest Winners:
Ryan Clarke - I Will Let The Warm Blood Drive My Thoughts
Rhonny Kachur - Rebecca
Drew McKay - The Eye in the Mirrors
Tracey Mitchell - Silver Moon
JZ Murdock - Gumdrop City
Audy Mytron - Entire Journal
Lyle Perez-Tinics - Dement
Jenna Pitman - I am Become Death
Christina Rause - A Walk Deferred
Holly K. Wood - Decapoda Animusicide
Opal Zushaquon - The Blighted Legacy of Nicanor Lavan
The Crypticon Seattle Winner:
Erik Tavares- Wocka Wocka Bridge
and:
Alan R. Gandy- Satan's Cadaver
Calvin A. L. Miller II- Cold Blood: The End
Undead Nation's Facebook Notes page, has information about various media forms that will be available. Net proceeds from the book will go to breast cancer charity. :)
The book will be published in paperback and eBook (Kindle, Nook, iPad, etc.) formats and be available on Amazon.com, Smashwords.com, BarnesandNoble.com to start.
My sister, a breast cancer survivor, and I are both quite pleased about this.
UnDead Nation on Facebook
On "Gumdrop City": the story was based upon a true life serial murderer and his practices, who preyed only on children. Much of the storyline actually happened, with the exception of the protagonist's situation...and some candy. And that is about all I can say without detracting too much from the story. But this is a tough story, not to be read by the faint of heart. The original purpose of having written the story was to showcase the horror of the families involved in such a serial murderer's endeavors. It was not in any way, an easy story to write and required a very careful hand in phrasing and exposition. And that's enough said on that, escept for this response from a happy reader:
"I gotta say your story freaked me out pal in a great way. Loved the characters, especially Sampson. The way you made him seem both harmless while making me feel weird whenever he "appeared" was great. And the fact that it is based on a true story makes you think. Oh, and a perfectly f'd up creepy title, too!"
On the Anthology: Undead Nation has selected eleven original short stories to be published alongside stories from Alan Gandy (author of Voyeur Dead), Cal Miller (author of Het Madden, A Zombie Perspective) and others in the “Undead Nation” book! This will also include the winner of The Undead Nation/Crypticon Writing Contest. They were originally only going to publish seven stories, but they were so pleased with the submissions that they raised the total to eleven. That is good for we, the reader. Yes, I'm a reader too, I have after all, only read my story. I anxiously look forward to reading the others.
The Undead Nation Short Fiction Contest Winners:
Ryan Clarke - I Will Let The Warm Blood Drive My Thoughts
Rhonny Kachur - Rebecca
Drew McKay - The Eye in the Mirrors
Tracey Mitchell - Silver Moon
JZ Murdock - Gumdrop City
Audy Mytron - Entire Journal
Lyle Perez-Tinics - Dement
Jenna Pitman - I am Become Death
Christina Rause - A Walk Deferred
Holly K. Wood - Decapoda Animusicide
Opal Zushaquon - The Blighted Legacy of Nicanor Lavan
The Crypticon Seattle Winner:
Erik Tavares- Wocka Wocka Bridge
and:
Alan R. Gandy- Satan's Cadaver
Calvin A. L. Miller II- Cold Blood: The End
Undead Nation's Facebook Notes page, has information about various media forms that will be available. Net proceeds from the book will go to breast cancer charity. :)
The book will be published in paperback and eBook (Kindle, Nook, iPad, etc.) formats and be available on Amazon.com, Smashwords.com, BarnesandNoble.com to start.
My sister, a breast cancer survivor, and I are both quite pleased about this.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
The Quality of a "teching"
The Quality of a "Teching"
How the times are a changing....
Overhead the other day of a young girl to an older friend:
"Oh? You still use that slow, old fashioned "snail" email, rather than simply "texting" someone?"
Sigh...."snail" EMAIL!?
And so it goes. Nothing stays the same. Does it? Technology moves on faster than you can keep up with it. And society moves right along in its wake.
In mentioning the above conversation recently to someone, it led inevitably to the question: is the quality of communications greater with enhanced connectivity, or is it simply more shallow?
The argument rages on. Some feel that with the increased degree of isolation in our environment, people are becoming less people oriented and more technology or "tech" oriented.
"We're simply losing touch with one another." That's the comment I hear most.
Still others say that actually, because of these increased communications capabilities we're now even more in touch with one another than ever before in the history of Humankind. In part, I think it depends on what cohort you are presenting this topic to. The younger, fourteen to twenty-four year olds; the twenty-five to forty year olds; or those yet more mature than that; they all have differing orientations. Obviously.
Think about it. Do YOU "tech" anyone? Do you "text" anyone for instance? Something that was for a while called "texting someone", could more aptly now be called "teching someone". After all, there are more than just text messages passing over the wireless and wired pathways that we are forever now swimming in.
You can of course email someone, or you can text them. But you can also now photo them, video them, audio (the old standard: voicemail). I wouldn't be surprised if there aren't yet other forms of information conveyance that I've yet to hear of. Wait until you hear that someone had "DNA'd" someone, that will be a turning point, I assure you.
Getting back to it, whenever "teching" someone, is it the numerical increase in communications that increases the quality of the interaction with that person; even as the shallowness of each individual communication decreases?
Perhaps there a theorem to be had here.
"As the numerical communications increase, so the quality of each individual communication decreases, proportionately."
Or conversely:
"As the quality of each individual communication decreases, the number of communications has to increase, proportionately."
I find that each communication I have, say a text message to my almost twenty year old son, might be one where I say something like, "Hey, when are you headed home?" Worse still, in order to save space, it could have been more like "when r u headed H?" or, "whats ur eta?" Not very deep, I admit. But fast, easy, and functional as we've built and understand the same lexicon over time.
However, his response might be, "within the hour" or, "shortly". The communication may end there. Consider that in this, I had queried my interest, he in turn had answered succinctly. Otherwise, I would have called him and verbally asked him, then he would have responded. We would have spent some time with hello, how you doing, etc., following an ingrained, patterned interactional format for phone intercourse work.
Whereas, in the text scenario it was quicker, more to the point, and we could quickly move on in our busy day, almost not even breaking a stride on whatever we were doing at the time just prior to the initiation of the communication.
On the other hand, we actually do spend more time teching each other: sending pictures, bantering, kidding each other; sharing information such as, "hey, saw a cool movie, you should check it out, its called The Man From Earth" (on Verizon, you can send long messages if you're both "in network").
And so he responds, "Cool".
He now has a new movie to check out, and he has a record of its title on his phone; he knows that I think enough of him to have shared the information with him; he responded with an acknowledgment that indicates to me his acceptance of that information and a possible promise to check it out; and he exhibits an appreciation of my care for him, as well indicating his appreciation for that attention. On top of that, we both now know about it, whereas in previous to digital technology years, I most likely would have forgotten to ever mention it to him.
So, is it possible that in this finite and brief communication, there really is more going on than at first seems obvious? That these detached, shallow individual communications, really are an indicator of much care for one another? Isn't it said that a picture is worth a thousand words? What does that say when someone cares enough about you, to send you a digital image of something they just shot on their cell phone? Like once again, my son, sending me an image of his girlfriend's car, when she had over shot a turn on our dirt road, spinning into a ditch (no one was harmed, other than her pride and some of the body work).
Maybe, just maybe all this "teching" to one another isn't leaving us to be so isolated and detached after all. In a world that puts us so physically unavailable to one another, so busy, isn't it just possible that it actually is bringing us much closer together? Helping us to maintain much closer ties with friends and loved ones, and a helping us to build tighter bonds than would have ever before been possible?
Think about it. Then "tech" about it to a friend of yours and see what they have to say.
How the times are a changing....
Overhead the other day of a young girl to an older friend:
"Oh? You still use that slow, old fashioned "snail" email, rather than simply "texting" someone?"
Sigh...."snail" EMAIL!?
And so it goes. Nothing stays the same. Does it? Technology moves on faster than you can keep up with it. And society moves right along in its wake.
In mentioning the above conversation recently to someone, it led inevitably to the question: is the quality of communications greater with enhanced connectivity, or is it simply more shallow?
The argument rages on. Some feel that with the increased degree of isolation in our environment, people are becoming less people oriented and more technology or "tech" oriented.
"We're simply losing touch with one another." That's the comment I hear most.
Still others say that actually, because of these increased communications capabilities we're now even more in touch with one another than ever before in the history of Humankind. In part, I think it depends on what cohort you are presenting this topic to. The younger, fourteen to twenty-four year olds; the twenty-five to forty year olds; or those yet more mature than that; they all have differing orientations. Obviously.
Think about it. Do YOU "tech" anyone? Do you "text" anyone for instance? Something that was for a while called "texting someone", could more aptly now be called "teching someone". After all, there are more than just text messages passing over the wireless and wired pathways that we are forever now swimming in.
You can of course email someone, or you can text them. But you can also now photo them, video them, audio (the old standard: voicemail). I wouldn't be surprised if there aren't yet other forms of information conveyance that I've yet to hear of. Wait until you hear that someone had "DNA'd" someone, that will be a turning point, I assure you.
Getting back to it, whenever "teching" someone, is it the numerical increase in communications that increases the quality of the interaction with that person; even as the shallowness of each individual communication decreases?
Perhaps there a theorem to be had here.
"As the numerical communications increase, so the quality of each individual communication decreases, proportionately."
Or conversely:
"As the quality of each individual communication decreases, the number of communications has to increase, proportionately."
I find that each communication I have, say a text message to my almost twenty year old son, might be one where I say something like, "Hey, when are you headed home?" Worse still, in order to save space, it could have been more like "when r u headed H?" or, "whats ur eta?" Not very deep, I admit. But fast, easy, and functional as we've built and understand the same lexicon over time.
However, his response might be, "within the hour" or, "shortly". The communication may end there. Consider that in this, I had queried my interest, he in turn had answered succinctly. Otherwise, I would have called him and verbally asked him, then he would have responded. We would have spent some time with hello, how you doing, etc., following an ingrained, patterned interactional format for phone intercourse work.
Whereas, in the text scenario it was quicker, more to the point, and we could quickly move on in our busy day, almost not even breaking a stride on whatever we were doing at the time just prior to the initiation of the communication.
On the other hand, we actually do spend more time teching each other: sending pictures, bantering, kidding each other; sharing information such as, "hey, saw a cool movie, you should check it out, its called The Man From Earth" (on Verizon, you can send long messages if you're both "in network").
And so he responds, "Cool".
He now has a new movie to check out, and he has a record of its title on his phone; he knows that I think enough of him to have shared the information with him; he responded with an acknowledgment that indicates to me his acceptance of that information and a possible promise to check it out; and he exhibits an appreciation of my care for him, as well indicating his appreciation for that attention. On top of that, we both now know about it, whereas in previous to digital technology years, I most likely would have forgotten to ever mention it to him.
So, is it possible that in this finite and brief communication, there really is more going on than at first seems obvious? That these detached, shallow individual communications, really are an indicator of much care for one another? Isn't it said that a picture is worth a thousand words? What does that say when someone cares enough about you, to send you a digital image of something they just shot on their cell phone? Like once again, my son, sending me an image of his girlfriend's car, when she had over shot a turn on our dirt road, spinning into a ditch (no one was harmed, other than her pride and some of the body work).
Maybe, just maybe all this "teching" to one another isn't leaving us to be so isolated and detached after all. In a world that puts us so physically unavailable to one another, so busy, isn't it just possible that it actually is bringing us much closer together? Helping us to maintain much closer ties with friends and loved ones, and a helping us to build tighter bonds than would have ever before been possible?
Think about it. Then "tech" about it to a friend of yours and see what they have to say.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)