Rachel Wagner explains the trouble with the digitization of sacred texts resides primarily in the question of authority (22). Now that everybody has unlimited access to sacred texts, alongside potentially heretical texts, she suggests that the real problem is an interpretive struggle between the authorities the be and the unauthorized. In light of last sessions reading (Heidegger's The Question Concerning Technology), I disagree.
It seems to me that the real problem with digitizing sacred texts is the change in approach that necessarily follows. The text becomes a resource that is expected to wait for our time of need, which can then be called upon to reveal itself and its meaning as we require. Many sacred texts are traditionally held to convey the voice of God, but only when read prayerfully and accompanied with other devotional practices. The massive collection of sacred texts, commentaries, and discussions available instantaneously, twenty-four hours a day, gives the impression that God's voice can be harvested and consumed at our convenience.
It's easy to imagine that this problem is not necessarily new to our high-tech world. After all, could we not approach a printed text with the same "challenge" (i'm thinking in heideggerian terms)? Perhaps in some limited instances, but it seems to me that before the internet such an attitude was probably rare. Thoughts?
Correct me if I am wrong, but are you saying that the speed in which we can access texts changes why we access the text and how we interact with the text? The second part I might agree with, but I can imagine that similar things were said when the oral tradition came to a close and things were first being written down. There was quite an emphasis on listening, repeating, and memorizing that no longer exists and has been long lost.
ReplyDeleteSo is it a problem that now our access to these texts is faster? I feel like I spend MORE time prayerfully considering scripture because of the tools of technology than I did before I had the internet.
I interpret your use of rhetoric for "harvesting" God's voice as a negative thing. However I think that the harvest, swift or not, is a good one in this context. I am more curious if there is something deeper that you are concerned about here that you might not realize or have not communicated. Is speed intimidating to you? Do you feel overwhelmed by the rate of data exchange? Do you feel as though you aren't emotionally connecting with God's word?
I see the access to Biblical commentaries specifically as a wonderful and exciting gift. I feel as though I am invited into a massive conversation that is taking place outside of time, in a rather asynchronistic way. I think that the change in access to text does not necessarily translate into a change of purpose for engaging text. Just because access is faster does not necessarily mean some sort of selfish consumption and harvesting are the intention. But of course, maybe those ARE the intentions and always have been... technology has just made that intention clearer and more attainable.
-Frank
You seem on the defensive about your precious internets Frank ;)
DeleteSpeed is not the issue necessarily. It's not the tempo that worries me but the mentality. There is no more listening. All the work of biblical study and commentary, which can be accessed whenever we desire, is mistaken for the voice of God. It's a convenient mistake because theology is there whenever we grasp for it, but the voice of God is something that comes, and so must be listened for. Speed is not the problem. The voice of God can come fast or slow, but it will come in God's time. As for my rhetoric, I thought "harvesting" was good imagery in light of our discussions and reading last week. Another way to put it would be that we are attempting to "enframe" the voice of God. As if God remains suspended on the shelf until we log in to our Logos software; until we summon. In the Christian tradition, God is found whenever he is sought, but can it even be called seeking if we just rub the magic lamp (how do you like them rhetorics)?
–Stephen
The difference between having access to the Book itself, entirely and at once, versus having speedy, somewhat selective access to it anywhere might be that by having a Bible meant something different. If I will take the time to read scripture and find what I seek, I get to know the text as a whole thing rather than as a piece or something taken out. Not only is this 'knowing' of the scripture as one cohesive unit made inefficient by having speedy digital access to any single part, someone who is unlike Frank and who is not interested in prayerful consideration might not even have the chance to get lost in the scripture. They have a map and te;eporting device right to where they want to go and don't even need to walk a scenic road for a time to get to that place. Something is lost when the scripture is available with each verse able to be separated from the others. At least as a written book, all of the Bible is bound together physically and context is more difficult to escape for those who would want to ignore it.
ReplyDelete