Joho the Blog
|
|
|
May 30, 2003
Rabbi Rosenberg is talking about the Talmud and the Internet. His question: Is the Talmud just like the Internet? The 6th Century text is printed with commentary all around it. [Illustration] Traditionally it is studied by people in pairs, taking turns reading it aloud and then arguing over the meaning via reference to the commentaries. The Talmud's hyperlinked presentation is like the the Internet. But the Internet is "insufficiently oral" and is much less fixed than the Talmud. Blogging is like commenting on the Talmud, but not every commentary counts as part of the Talmud. He asks what difference it makes whether the Internet is like the Talmud? Are we saying that the Talmud is hip or that the Internet is holy (or both or neither). "Suffice it to say, the Talmud is not just like the Internet." Posted
by D. Weinberger at May 30, 2003 03:01 PM
|
Comments
"Is the Internet just like the the Talmud?"
I'd ask different questions instead.
What are the attributes of a hyperlinked genre, compared to the attributes of a linear genre?
In a hyperlinked genre, the meaning is a property of the conversation, rather than a property of an individual speaking in an omnicient voice.
The rabbinic concept of holiness had to do with the actions humans figure out to perform the will of the God, and glorify the creator. People aren't simply taking dictation from the deity. Neither are they humanist or hedonist.
Can a concept of holiness apply to weblogs whose authors have a secular purpose (think BoingBoing)?
Posted by: Adina Levin | May 31, 2003 03:42 PM
Adina, when you say, "In a hyperlinked genre, the meaning is a property of the conversation" you've hit the.... oh, shucks... I can't think of a cute judaic metaphor that relates to "nail on the head."
Anyway, the approach to studying Talmud is exactly that the meaning emerges from the discourse and conversation and, most often, debate. Remember that the Talmud deals with very practical matters of life, and interprets the holy writings of the Tanach in a way that is applicable to, for instance, whether we put sugar in our tea glass before or after we pour the tea on Shabbat. As I said, very practical stuff. (smile)
The Internet being compared to the Talmud raises an important observation from a media theory ground: Despite the Talmud having been written, it very much captures the oral tradition of learning, and the oral technologies (ie. the technologies of a society based in orality as opposed to literacy) that have been employed from ancient times. (As a sidebar, this embodies some of the work of McLuhan Fellow Twyla Gibson.) Likewise, the Internet has retrieved many of these oral technologies. The fact that both Talmud and Internet are, in their own ways, exemplary of hyperlinking is a useful parallel to enhance our understanding of the effects of one based on our observations of the other. To dismiss the discussion on the basis of "holy or hip" reduces the usefulness of observing processes.
Posted by: Mark Federman | May 31, 2003 05:19 PM
David,
I found an old blog of mine at here, where I mention the professor that I also mentioned in my comment to you about the DM conference and Heidegger. I think there is a link somewhere to an online version of the chapter. I'll pass that along when and if I find that. I'll go off and do a Google on David Lochhead and see if it finds it. I think you'd certainly apprecite the thoughts of this theologian/Heidegger-ian/online communicator.
Dale
Posted by: Dale Lature | June 1, 2003 02:42 PM