| | |
|
ReadingandThinking 9 - 01 Apr 2010 - Main.KalliopeKefallinos
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="AListOfInterestingLinks" |
|---|
As I was reading the Internet this morning, I came across a post on the Daily Dish that articulated some concerns about reading and thinking that have also come up in LCS class discussions, albeit briefly. | | | -- MatthewZorn - 07 Mar 2010 | |
<
< | Devin, the comparison you draw between technology and our reading load is very interesting. Regarding their respective “firehose effects,” you mention the major cognitive consequences—poor reading skills/ non-creative legal thinking. I would emphasize the psychological consequences—apathy, dependence. Having all this information coming at us at all times makes us care about each additional piece of information less. At the same time, we have come to depend upon the constant stream of info such that its sudden disappearance would traumatize us. We are becoming weaker, feebler animals, in my opinion. | >
> | Devin, the comparison you draw between technology and our reading load is very interesting. Regarding their respective “firehose effects,” you mention the major cognitive consequences—poor reading skills/ non-creative legal thinking. I would emphasize the psychological consequences—apathy, dependence. Having all this information coming at us at all times makes us care about each additional piece of information less. At the same time, we have come to depend upon the constant stream of info such that its sudden disappearance would traumatize us. We are becoming weaker, feebler animals, in my opinion. | | |
Regarding the reading load, I think it engenders the same feelings of apathy and dependence. The assignment of heavy reading is one tool by which CLS controls what we think, but this occurs on multiple levels. Consider, for example, the way in which the casebook authors select and excerpt cases. First, a few hundred cases are chosen out of the universe of cases because they best fit into the authors’ tidy paradigms. These authors then sculpt the cases down in various degrees to fit their agenda perfectly. By “their” I refer, not merely to the agenda of the casebook authors, but also that of those who control the casebook authors—Foundation Press and the like. Now, we have so much reading that few—if any—of us actually go look up the full opinion after reading the casebook version to see what the case is really about. Here, then, is where I locate apathy. |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |