A New Year's Post

In recognition of the dawn of 2009, I have prepared the a year-end list. I am calling it "The Most Important Ideological Questions of 2008."

Unlike The Wire magazine's top 50 albums of 2008 list and Time magazine's list of Fond Farewells 2008, it is not a very practical list. This is because (1) it has only one entry, and (2) it is likely to exist in the same form at the end of 2009 (as it has for 2007 and 2006). Nevertheless and without further ado:

THE MOST IMPORTANT IDEOLOGICAL QUESTIONS OF 2008:
1. Is the world getting better and better or is the world getting worse and worse?*

I suggest that your answer to this very basic question will determine a great deal of your politics and your religion. It will certainly determine your response to the many technological developments in which we are awash.

Greg Ash is a friend from church and a graphic designer. I contributed an essay to the latest installment of the monthly digital magazine he puts out.

You can download it here.

My essay is basically a review and reflection on a recent NY Times editorial by Kevin Kelly, an influential technological-cultural theorist and writer whose name and thoughts have regularly appeared on the pages of this blog. His NYT piece (which I would recommend reading) basically claims that the written word (as located in "the book") is in the process of being replaced by the image (as located on "the screen"). This is a thesis which comes across as either techno-centrically pretentious or really obvious, depending on how you look at it.

Though it undergirds the whole essay, The Most Important Ideological Question of 2008 waits patiently for 800 words to make a cameo appearance in the concluding sentences.

*Granted: If we're looking to get basic, the question "(What) Will I eat today?" is a more influential question in determining ideology. But I have chosen to confine my list to a more abstract or rational kind of questioning.

3 comments:

Jonathan said...

I tried to answer your question.

Jonathan said...

Tim,

I tried to answer your first objection.

Sorry if my initial response seemed a little cavalier. I needed to think about what you wrote in more depth before I responded more fully. I don't entirely disagree with you, and I do wrestle with these issues. I appreciate your perspective and your comments as a wise and godly man, and my brother.

Jonathan said...

Just kidding, here's the real link.