I would like to discuss reality.
Actually, I don't want to discuss reality but I feel compelled to discuss reality in the way I feel compelled to discuss things. A couple of centuries ago Dr. Johnson didn't want to discuss reality either and when informed by Boswell that Bishop Berkeley had written something questioning the existence of reality kicked a large rock and proclaimed "I refute it thusly!" I have always thought Dr. Johnson's a convincing refutation of Bishop Berkeley.
The world has changed in the last couple hundred years however and those who may be termed the intellectual descendants of Bishop Berkeley have descended to make arguments which I view as similar. Has reality changed?
This dreary exercise is compelled by (1) an article today by former National Security Advisor Richard Clarke in the Wall Street Journal (2) recent articles on U.S. Congressman Anthony Weiner (unfortunate name) and (3) some article I read that was cited to in Arts and Letters Daily a couple of months ago. The subject matter of these disquisitions is, in reality, within the personal life experiences of the undersigned. We examine each of these in turn.
Congressman Weiner sent naked pictures of his own self and his own gentiles to women of the female persuasion via internet technology which was not in existence when Dr. Johnson kicked the rock. The transmission of these images is characterized as an extramarital "affair" as none of the recipients was Congressman Weiner's wife.
No. Upon information, belief and personal experience I hold that a necessary, but not sufficient, requirement for an extramarital affair is the use of the human sense of touch. That did not occur here, these "virtual" affairs were not affairs in reality. The rock is kicked. Boom. Done. Weiner.
Richard Clarke recounts the Chinese government's history of hacking into American computers, including the U.S. electrical grid and then writes:
"What would we do if we discovered that Chinese explosives had been laid throughout our national electrical system? The public would demand a government response."
Since I am an American I am necessarily included in Mr. Clarke's "we" and so I will answer his question: I would lay explosives in Zhongnanhai (easier). And they would go off. That was our response to Islam's use of explosives on 9/11. That would be my response to Chinese explosives.
That is my answer to the question Mr. Clarke, what is your answer? Mr. Clarke doesn't give an answer (to his own question) because it's not a real question. It is "real" explosives--like dynamite, nitroglycerin, jet fuel--Mr. Clarke is talking about, right? No. That's not what Mr. Clarke is talking about:
"If, however, the explosive is a digital bomb that could do even more damage, our response is apparently muted--especially from our government."
A digital bomb. Mr. Clarke deliberately segues from "real" explosives to "virtual" explosives, whatever those are. Let me answer Mr. Clarke further. Mr. Clarke, "real" people--the public and our governmental officials--distinguish between bombs that go "boom" (real) and whatever virtual explosives and "digital bombs" do because bombs that go boom, like the flying bombs on 9/11, kill "real" people and the public, our government and, like, the law, distinguish between acts that take life and those that do not.
Mr. Clarke never defines "digital bomb," never explains how it "could do even more damage," provides no evidence that when China "probed our electrical grid" it had "laid" digital bombs. Boom. Done. Clarke.
The Arts and Letters Daily link was to an article on "virtual friendships." Now I can't find it but here is an article that looks similar (I have just skimmed it.) http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/virtual-friendship-and-the-new-narcissism. The gist of the article I read was that the various social media provide a beguiling intimacy that is no substitute for the real thing--sort of the flip side of Congressman Weiner's situation. I think this is a better point. That is, Congressman Weiner would never have gone into a male strip club and disrobed, but showing his weiner via text messages or the like gave the illusion of privacy. We all know that by now. Some of us, like Congressman Weiner, still act.
A variation on this is that people who one interacts with on the internet may seem friendly but not be. Again, this is not breaking news. We have all read the stories of children getting lured, sometimes to their deaths, by other putative kids who turn out to be pedophiles. The author of the article I read went further--(s)he argued that people who don't "really" meet cannot be considered to be friends, or in love. I think I agree with the latter; I know I do not agree with the former. I have been, and am, involved in email exchanges with lots of people. On the China subject I have "really" met one. The rest aren't friends? No. How do I determine who I think of as a "friend" and who not? Based on the quality and quantity of the--virtual--interaction. Zhou Jineng from Red Art? We've been emailing off and on (more off) for four years; he sent me Red Art. Never met him and probably never will. He's a friend for life! (Even though he referred to me, in Chinese, as an "honorable foreign devil.") Another reader who I've emailed with some, Chris, to whom I dedicated a page a couple months ago, sent me a birthday greeting. Meant a lot to me. He followed that up with a very touching email. A terrific friend. Really.
Boom. Done.
