Best Wedding Dance Faction

Should be a little aristocrat? The wall

Eric Fottorino for Le Monde and reprinted in Le Devoir, asked some questions to Umberto Eco to the launch of its latest in French Book (From the tree to the labyrinth. Studies on historical evidence and interpretation, Grasset). One question caught my attention.

Q: Do you think that knowledge and understanding will always output from the writing on which it dwells, or conversely that the culture of speed, the Internet, will eventually affect our ability to judge?

Umberto Eco: I think we need to restore the culture of the monasteries, one day or another - maybe I'd be dead before - he'll have to read those yet to retire in large phalansteries Perhaps in the countryside, as the Amish of Pennsylvania. Here we keep the culture, and the remainder allowed to float as it floats. With six billion people on the planet, we can not pretend that there are six billion intellectuals. It must be a little aristocrats that point of view.

( source)

outset, one is struck by this question that bisects culture. On the one hand, the "culture of learning and knowledge" that transmit (and defined) by the vehicle of choice (written) and the other a "culture of speed" that affects the organ itself rationality ("ability to judge") to represent the point of not even knowing, or knowledge (otherwise we would not have been in opposition) and that would be defined by its mode (transmission speed) .

I do not know if he implied Wikipedia, Twitter, and forums in the culture of speed, but as the vehicle, there is no more "written" than those. So where is the opposition?

The danger of "immediate", a concept brought to its climax, and at arms length, by Paul Virilio (haunted by the "integral accident" of the information society - and I do not share conclusions as expressed in my post in 2009, Virilio and fear of the immediate ) is probably overstated, but relevant enough to ask at the Eco.

How should I take offense not only that Eco is not the rhetoric of the question, but he defends it almost ("There must be a little aristocracy of this point of view")

L aristocracy, in my opinion, refuses status and other tools for emancipation. Web 2.0 has democratized access to tools for pros and amateurs alike. The elite refuses to see the advances because it considers that the populace can neither use it well or do something noble - usually on the basis of criteria that only the aristocracy "control" (definition tautological): culture is what it says culture.

And the "culture" is the "book". Giving statements like "To allow people whose job it is to think [for providing in-depth analysis, a space for reflection] on what happens on our planet. In 140 characters, it does not have much time to do that. "(Dixit Patron Book Fair 2010 from Montreal ). A bit like if we reduced the literature Harlequin. To TVs or TV-truth.

Yet, Twitter, who focuses much (again.! An action verb that is not reserved for the book!) On good sources, "allows people whose job it is to think [for provide in-depth analysis, a space for reflection] on what is happening on our planet. "

Proof: this excellent article on the opening Christian Liboiron (Ambivalent) the Book Fair on the twenty-first century Montrtéal .