I really like the descriptions: “overabundance of uncontrolled efflorescence” and “chaotic relational context.” They bring to mind crazy-looking systems diagrams (with their reinforcing and [the other kind] feedback loops) and the sense that one could, given the time and inclination, continue drawing those feedback loops and arrows of influence ad infinitum. And maybe I’m mistaken but Heidegger’s history of being could be appended to embrace this new background understanding of human being articulated by the Net — and also articulated by recent discoveries and perspectives gaining favor in the sciences — because that’s what the Net maybe is: an articulation of a new background understanding. Or to put in Heideggerian: a epoch in the history of being. And after all, doesn’t he finally strike a pretty optimistic note in the Technology essay, when, quoting Holderlin, he says something to the effect that in the danger (technology) is the saving power (the Net)? And I think you pretty well sum up that saving power when you say “…it makes manifest some true (yes, I used that word [a use that seems right especially on the heels of your 'overabundance...' and 'chaotic...' descriptions] understanding of our being in the world WITH ONE ANOTHER [my emphasis, duh!]).

My problem with the enframing is that I’ve always assumed — quite possibly erroneously — that the framework is relatively stable and orderly. That makes sense in the info age when phenomena were reduced to bits and what would fit within schema. But the Net is an overabundance of uncontrolled efflorescence. It doesn’t fit things into a frame but extends a chaotic relational context.

Niclas, I’m going to be too positive about the Web in my talk. I do this because time is short, because I think the positivities are more often ignored, and because the Net’s openness is under threat so I feel a responsibility to advocate for it (especially when time is short). A longer presentation would consider what the Web’s unconcealing also conceals. I do think that the Web is not just self-deceptive, however. I think that it makes manifest some true (yes, I used that word!) understandings of our being in the world with one another.

I think I’ve read enough of your stuff to appreciate your general optimism regarding networks (especially those enabled by digital technology). The problem I’m wrestling with at the moment is the ongoing influence of whatever is behind enframing. And how — to borrow terminology Dreyfus uses — this background understanding of human being also “infects” the Network Age. Simply, the experience of the network age most familiar to this corporate citizen is of a lot of “networked” people conducting commoditized transactions with an increasing number of others. That is, the others networked to me (and each other) are meaningful only insofar as I (and they) can transact business efficiently. Sounds like we’re all still pretty enframed. This in spite of the wonderful (and to me compelling) vision you and others have for digital networks.

Thanks again for your earlier response. I guess it’s the only example I need (for the moment) of how the Network Age has the potential to undo the enframing.

Heidegger has been the thinker who has most influenced me. I find his historical elucidations always helpful — simultaneously sympathetic and radical. But I’m with Thomas Sheehan (and others) in thinking that we need more to explain and understand our history of thought than simply the history of thought. And Heidegger’s concept of destiny — insofar as I understand it, which isn’t far — seems to me to have shown itself to be dangerous. So, despite his many arguments and warnings, I remain distressingly ontic.

Also, I find Heidegger’s concept of Enframing (“Ge-stell”) much more appropriate to the Information Age than to the Network Age.

I haven’t read All Things Shining, but I should. I have long given up any pretense of being an academic, and thus there are many things I should know but don’t. In any case, the last thing I read by Dreyfus was “On the Internet” in 2002, which I found quite unconvincing. (My review: http://www.hyperorg.com/backissues/joho-jul24-02.html#dreyfus) Too bad, since I’ve been a fan of Dreyfus’ work overall, including his work on Heidegger and on the limits of AI.

(Also, fwiw, the most flat-out Heideggerian book of mine is Small Pieces Loosely Joined.)

I suppose you’re familiar with the book *All Things Shining*. It seems to offer a solution to the awful “enframing” Heidegger describes at the heart of technology. Dreyfus and Kelly point to a skillful engagement with the world (and I assume with the hi-tech gadgetry that makes up so much of it, including “The Web”) as I think an antidote to the enframing. They’re careful though to caution that “technology flattens out human life.” I think (hope) they will conclude their argument by saying that there is a way to use technology “skillfully,” i.e., in such a way as to restore meaningful distinction to our experience. Maybe this is what’s also behind your project (including *Everything Is Misc.* and 2B2K?