Right. Which is why I offered a definition, after rejecting the essentialism implicit in Sam's original message.
-----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Christian Nelson Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 4:47 AM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] A definition of the internet
One need not give up on definitions to give up on essentialist definitions. Words are like tools, but tools that cannot be shared with others, and that produce things that are incompatible with what other people need or find useful, are useless. --Christian Nelson
On Oct 16, 2006, at 11:16 PM, Ellis Godard wrote:
We might each have a definition that's "really good" for our own purpose(s), and all have different definitions. Moreover, any one definition would be useless for at least one other person, and no definition would be "really good" for everyone. Words are tools. Meanings are contextual and strategic. Essentialism is hollow. :)
That said, I define it (much as Nancy has) as a network of TCP/IP networks to distinguish it from cyberspace (social life distributed through/on/as/in the Internet), but with an explicit awareness of hardware, software, and otherware convergences.
-eg