adactio / tags / book:author=kevin kelly

Tagged with “book:author=kevin kelly” (17)

  1. 003: Kevin Kelly, Photographing and Backpacking Asia in the 1970s

    Technologist, futurist, author, and photographer Kevin Kelly discusses traveling during the golden age of global exploration. We cover how photography has changed over the years, his decades investigating Asia in the 1970s and 80s, and how he self-produced (eventually getting it published by Taschen!) his Asia Grace book in the 90s.

    https://craigmod.com/onmargins/003/

    —Huffduffed by adactio

  2. Kevin Kelly on the Future of the Web and Everything Else | EconTalk | Library of Economics and Liberty

    Author Kevin Kelly talks about the role of technology in our lives, the future of the web, how to time travel, the wisdom of the hive, the economics of reputation, the convergence of the biological and the mechanical, and his impact on the movies The Matrix and Minority Report.

    http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2007/03/kevin_kelly_on.html

    —Huffduffed by adactio

  3. Kevin Kelly on Tech: the Unabomber was Right; the Amish, too. - Open Source with Christopher Lydon

    In considering how to address the issue of theology, specifically the “third grade god,” it occurred to me to share an excerpt from William of Rubruck’s account of a religious debate he participated in between Christians, Muslims (referred to in this translation as “Saracens”), and Buddhists (referred to as “Tuins”) held in the court of Mongke Khan (referred to as “Mangu Chan”), brother and predecessor of Kublai Khan:

    So I said to the Tuin: “We believe firmly in our hearts and we confess with our mouths that God is, and that there is only one God, one in perfect unity. What do you believe?” He said : “Fools say that there is only one God, but the wise say that there are many. Are there not great lords in your country, and is not this Mangu Chan a greater lord? So it is of them, for they are different in different regions.”

    I said to him: “You choose a poor example, in which there is no comparison between man and God; according to that, every mighty man can call himself god in his own country.” And as I was about to destroy the comparison, he interrupted me, asking: “Of what nature is your God, of whom you say that there is none other?” I replied: “Our God, besides whom there is none other, is omnipotent, and therefore requires the aid of none other, while all of us require His aid. It is not thus with man. No man can do everything, and so there must be several lords in the world, for no one can do all things. So likewise He knows all things, and therefore requires no councilor, for all wisdom comes of Him. Likewise, He is the supreme good, and wants not of our goods. But we live, move, and are in Him. Such is our God, and one must not consider Him otherwise.”

    “It is not so,” he replied. “Though there is one (God) in the sky who is above all others, and of whose origin we are still ignorant, there are ten others under him, and under these latter is another lower one. On the earth they are in infinite number.” And as he wanted to spin (texere) some other yarns, I asked him of this highest god, whether he believed he was omnipotent, or whether (he believed this) of some other god. Fearing to answer, he asked: “If your God is as you say, why does he make the half of things evil?” “That is not true,” I said. ” He who makes evil is not God. All things that are, are good.”

    At this all the Tuins were astonished, and they wrote it down as false or impossible. Then he asked: “Whence then comes evil?” “You put your question badly,” I said. “You should in the first place inquire what is evil, before you ask whence it comes. But let us go back to the first question, whether you believe that any god is omnipotent; after that I will answer all you may wish to ask me.”

    He sat for a long time without replying, so that it became necessary for the secretaries who were listening on the part of the Chan to tell him to reply. Finally he answered that no god was omnipotent. With that the Saracens burst out into a loud laugh. When silence was restored, I said: “Then no one of your gods can save you from every peril, for occasions may arise in which he has no power. Furthermore, no one can serve two masters: how can you serve so many gods in heaven and earth?” The audience told him to answer, but he remained speechless. And as I wanted to explain the unity of the divine essence and the Trinity to the whole audience, the Nestorians of the country said to me that it sufficed, for they wanted to talk. I gave in to them, but when they wanted to argue with the Saracens, they [the Saracens] answered them: “We concede your religion is true, and that everything is true that is in the Gospel: so we do not want to argue any point with you.” And they confessed that in all their prayers they besought God to grant them to die as Christians die.

    There was present there an old priest of the Iugurs, who say there is one god, though they make idols; they (i.e., the Nestorians) spoke at great length with him, telling him of all things down to the coming of the Antichrist into the world [J: the coming of Christ in judgement], and by comparisons demonstrating the Trinity to him and the Saracens. They all listened without making any contradiction, but no one said: “I believe; I want to become a Christian.” When this was over, the Nestorians as well as the Saracens sang with a loud voice; while the Tuins kept silence, and after that they all [J: everyone] drank deeply.

    I hope my saying this isn’t too mean or too presumptive, I have not read the man’s book, but as presented in the show, many of Mr. Kelly’s ideas should have the limits of their use stated clearly, or else the conclusions reached begin sounding silly.

    I hope I don’t in turn sound too silly explaining myself, although I know my opening sentence will sound very new age: The universe can be understood to be a seamless whole, from beginning to end, in every dimension including time. I am not saying reality is in some abstract way uniform, all I intend to say is one can see that seeing something as a distinct, whether it be what would be understood of as an object or a concept, could be seen as ‘dividing’ it from the rest of reality. (I use the word “can” and “could” with intention, not doubt.)

    A different way of illustrating the same idea is to use the concept of grouping basic units. Category is just division from a different perspective, and I use the words interchangeably. The reason I tend use the explanation I use, even though this bottom-up approach seems more intuitive to the people I talk to is because there is a limit on how inclusive a category can be, but one can always further divide. Greek atomists contended that atoms were indivisible, their critics answered you could divide into left and right. Atomists responded by claiming atoms were dimensionless, their critics questioned how something with dimensions could be made of something without.

    The divisions we make are usually based on their usefulness. We do not have a word for the left half of a potato plus whatever is an inch above it* because, honestly, when would we would ever have the opportunity to use it? But it’s, and here is where I connect this back to the original topic, is important to recognize that that is all that is happening, it’s important not to attribute more qualities to concepts than they actually have. And my feeling is this is what is being done.

    We can refer to a more abstract continuum of organic life, information, and artificial material technology as technology or the technium, we can refer to the contents of our genetic code as information, it can at times be useful to do so. But if what is being said is “this is what technology is,” “this is what information is,” as if there is a correct scope to one’s category, then there is a misunderstanding of the relationship between signifier and signified; no category is necessary, only useful. The technium isn’t a whole so much as it has been made a whole (this is true of every concept, it isn’t a slight against Mr. Kelly).

    I do think there is use in the idea that technologies have bias, both specific technologies and a larger conception of technology no matter the scope of the definition of that conception, but is it right to call it inherent in the technology itself, instead of our relationship with it? I will say it’s useful as a kind of shorthand to say technology has an agenda, but I can’t agree if what is being said is literally true. (I also will say I disagree with those who say “the only goal of life, in evolutionary terms, is reproduction.” The word “goal” in this case seems to be a metaphor that is forgotten to be a metaphor.)

    I will look into this more, I know I have been dismissive without even hearing the argument out. I am always looking to learn to utilize new perspectives, and this one could prove to be useful if I actually look into it and try to understand in detail.

    *Were we to, it would be called a portato.

    http://radioopensource.org/kevin-kelly-on-tech-the-unabomber-was-right-the-amish-too/

    —Huffduffed by adactio

  4. Kevin Kelly: The Next 30 Digital Years - The Long Now

    IN KEVIN KELLY’S VIEW, a dozen “inevitable” trends will drive the next 30 years of digital progress. Countless artificial smartnesses, for example, will be added to everything, all quite different from human intelligence and from each other. We will tap into them like we do into electricity to become cyber-centaurs — co-dependent humans and AIs. All of us will need to perpetually upgrade just to stay in the game.

    Every possible surface that can become a display will become a display, and will study its watchers. Everything we encounter, “if it cannot interact, it is broken.” Virtual and augmented reality (VR and AR) will become the next platform after smartphones, conveying a profound sense of experience (and shared experience), transforming education (“it burns different circuits in your brain”), and making us intimately trackable. Everything will be tracked, monitored, sensored, and imaged, and people will go along with it because “vanity trumps privacy,”as already proved on Facebook. “Wherever attention flows, money will follow.”

    Access replaces ownership for suppliers as well as consumers. Uber owns no cars; AirBnB owns no real estate. On-demand rules. Sharing rules. Unbundling rules. Makers multiply. “In thirty years the city will look like it does now because we will have rearranged the flows, not the atoms. We will have a different idea of what a city is, and who we are, and how we relate to other people.”

    In the Q&A, Kelly was asked what worried him. “Cyberwar,” he said. “We have no rules. Is it okay to take out an adversary’s banking system? Disasters may have to occur before we get rules. We’re at the point that any other civilization in the galaxy would have a world government. I have no idea how to do that.”

    Kelly concluded: “We are at the beginning of the beginning — the first hour of day one. There have never been more opportunities. The greatest products of the next 25 years have not been invented yet.

    “You‘re not late.“

    —Stewart Brand

    http://longnow.org/seminars/02016/jul/14/next-30-digital-years/

    —Huffduffed by adactio

  5. Kevin Kelly: How technology evolves | TED Talk | TED.com

    Tech enthusiast Kevin Kelly asks "What does technology want?" and discovers that its movement toward ubiquity and complexity is much like the evolution of life.

    https://www.ted.com/talks/kevin_kelly_on_how_technology_evolves?language=en

    —Huffduffed by adactio

  6. Kevin Kelly on The Inevitable, 60s Counterculture, and How to Read Better

    This week I was lucky enough to interview one of my favorite people: Kevin Kelly.

    Tim Ferriss refers to Kevin as the real-life, “Most Interesting Man In The World.”

    Kevin Kelly is one of the co-founders of Wired Magazine, a co-founder of the Quantified Self Movement, and serves on the board of The Long Now foundation.

    I’ve been endlessly inspired by Kevin. And it wouldn’t be fair not to mentioned his very early beginnings where he spent most of his 20s as a nomad (of sorts) traveling through Asia as a photographer for most of his 20s. He later published a book of his work titled Asia Grace.

    From there, in the 80s he joined Stewart Brand as the publisher and editor of The Whole Earth Review and was influential in both the 80s counterculture and startup movement.

    His writing in the 90s more or less predicted the Internet of today. His first book, Out of Control is brilliant – a few years after it was released it became required reading for all the actors on the set of the movie The Matrix. (which is how I first learned about it).

    He also has one of my favorite This American Life stories where has something of an epiphany about life, decides to live his life as if he will be dead in 6 months… gives away all his possessions, and then rides his bike across the country.

    In this episode we talk about:

    The Counterculture movement of the 60s

    Traveling as an act of rebellion

    Kevin’s latest book The Inevitable in which he writes that, “Much of what will happen in the next thirty years is inevitable, driven by technological trends that are already in motion.” He’ll share some of those predictions with us.

    Lessons on how to read better

    And… a book that Kevin wishes everyone in the world read at least one time.

    http://castig.org/kevin-kelly-on-the-inevitable-60s-counterculture-and-how-to-read-better/

    —Huffduffed by adactio

  7. 50: Shoulda Been Dead

    Kevin Kelly was in Jerusalem. For reasons too complicated to go into here, he ended up sleeping on the spot where Jesus was supposedly crucified. After Kevin awoke, the thought came into his head: Live as if you’ll die in six months. So he did.

    ===
    Original video: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/50/shoulda-been-dead?act=1
    Downloaded by http://huffduff-video.snarfed.org/

    —Huffduffed by adactio

  8. Someone Else’s Acid Trip

    As Kevin Kelly tells it, the hippie revolution and the computer revolution are nearly one and the same.

    http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/freakonomicsradio/~3/uVOduDBYyI8/

    —Huffduffed by adactio

  9. Someone Else’s Acid Trip: A New Freakonomics Radio Podcast

    At first glance, Kevin Kelly is a contradiction: a self-described old hippie and onetime editor of hippiedom’s do-it-yourself bible, The Whole Earth Catalog, who went on to co-found Wired magazine, a beacon of the digital age.

    In our latest edition of FREAK-quently Asked Questions, Kelly sits down with Stephen Dubner to explain himself; the episode is called “Someone Else’s Acid Trip.”

    Kelly argues that there is in fact little contradiction between his past and present. In fact, he says, the hippie origins of the personal computer represent one of the great untold stories of our times. “A lot of the earliest entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley … lived on communes and learned some small business skills, making candles or macramé, or whatever,” he says. “They were trying to augment human cognition, not trying to make a new industry.”

    Kelly believes he may have been the first person ever to be hired online when Whole Earth took him on in 1983. He was a blogger long before that term entered the English language.

    Today, at 62, with his gray Lincoln-esque beard, Kelly still looks more Amish farmer than state-of-the-art. Nonetheless, he spends much of his time pondering (and writing about) the intersection of technology and modern life.

    In this episode, Kelly talks about his big, cool book Cool Tools (and the companion blog), a catalog of everything from a garden fork to the Longform iPhone app; his biggest indulgence: a personal two-story library a mile from the Pacific Ocean; oh, and that one time — just once — that he dropped acid.

    http://freakonomics.com/2015/01/22/someone-elses-acid-trip-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/

    —Huffduffed by adactio

  10. Kevin Kelly: Technium Unbound - The Long Now

    What comes after the Internet? What is bigger than the web? What will produce more wealth than all the startups to date? The answer is a planetary super-organism comprised of 4 billion mobile phones, 80 quintillion transistor chips, a million miles of fiber optic cables, and 6 billion human minds all wired together. The whole thing acts like a single organism, with its own behavior and character — but at a scale we have little experience with.

    This is more than just a metaphor. Kelly takes the idea of a global super-organism seriously by describing what we know about it so far, how it is growing, where its boundaries are, and what it will mean for us as individuals and collectively. Both the smallest one-person enterprises today, and the largest mega-corporations on Earth, will have to learn to how this Technium operates, and how to exploit it.

    http://longnow.org/seminars/02014/nov/12/technium-unbound/

    —Huffduffed by adactio

Page 1 of 2Older