When we raise questions today, we have three options to meet an answer: using the Internet, consulting a book, or talking to another person. The driving force behind questing l’état donné is our personal, creative and spontaneous interest, which depends on our insisting labours to arrive at an artful answer. How often have I been asked to GOOGLE something I have not heard of before, instead of that my dialogue partner considered it worth while to tell me about it her/imself. Consistent in questioning, I often have had to come to terms with microanalytical and often imprecise answers. Merely because my dialogue partner was too lazy to discuss my question, or – even worse – because s/he was not willing to invest one moment in thinking about a plausible answer.
This implies that people basing their knowledge on the Internet, communicate less with others off-line; and instead, they shit chat and rely on wikipedia. Owing to GOOGLE’s politics, WIKIPEDIA is globally promoted as a top search result. Of course, asking a computer and the WWW is easy, quick and will always provide us with an answer, but with what kind of an answer? What are we expecting to find on the Internet? The truth? Well research knowledge? Or even a form of art?
We might expect to find a little bit of everything, but reality shows that on-line content still lacks a traditional form of preciseness in order to be considered as verifiable. Do we consider on-line content as our virtualised data, only because we can find it on our mobiles: in our pockets?Does this virtually traceable selection of facts and opinions represent a truth-gathering process?
Hardly, since the majority of the web’s content disregards real-life aspects and does not credit personal viewpoints. As a result, we – the internetophile generations – base our arguments on literally self-virtual grounds, and at the same time, our choice to invest in time in front of electronic gadget shows that we tend to flick through as many image-pages, or face-books, until we reach the highest amount of satisfaction through surfing through social webs.
If, however, we choose to consult knowledge published in the haptic version of books, we have already decided to spend more time with understanding the argument of one, or a selection of authors. Thus, the authors’ opinions and gatherings of facts serve as a starting point, as an appendix, to develop our own arguments, since you simply cannot take on his argument without citing her/im – or can you do that as well?
The above outlined juxtaposition shows that the danger of working with books versus the Internet, confronts us much clearer with the question of authorship over already materialised answers and hypotheses, as well as with how much time we devote to research. To what extent can we challenge the published concepts of others with the means of the Internet in comparison to edited, printed editions? Does it make sense to be radically against gridlocked opinions? Is it better to keep our thoughts to yourself? To create a pseudonym on-line?
Well, all over again, with insufficient possibilities for empiricist falsification and increasing opportunities for incorporated marketing objectives, the Internet and social media remain a spamming worldwide web of artful arguments, which speak out against the traditional status quo. It can still be used to create new connections and to join forces with others around the world, as long as we do not prioritise them over the exchange of each other’s authorised questions and feelings, located in our off-line daily performances. Because, only an emotional + intellectual + physical connection to others provides us with infinitely many options to gather new knowledge, individual perspectives, and to join forces with incarnated active movements.