In “Socrates in the Labyrinth,” David Kolb causes me to consider the internet as a means to an end. The internet in all of its fluidity hovers in philosophical limbo, not yet determined as a thing purely detrimental or purely useful. The magnitude and wealth of information on the web, and the fact that control of hypertext interface largely lies with the reader, suggests that authorship may slowly begin to veer away from the individual and be absorbed by the collective. Are we indeed headed toward a more collective existence? Such a notion implies certain unforeseen consequences. Because we may not yet be mentally ready for such a venture, the internet poses a certain risk. This risk threatens to sabotage (or at the very least misrepresent) the collective before it can be fully realized.

In “As We May Think,” Vannevar Bush does an outstanding job of involving his reader in the history of man’s modern inventions and his quest to harness the power of communication by employing various apparatuses. Having spent (and continuing to spend) considerable time in the realm of science, I can appreciate this gesture. The computer and its files, disks, and software components were just primitive forms of utility without the internet. The World Wide Web, however, is the big prize, allowing us to associate more information at a greater rate and bring information together in a more ‘fluid’ manner. Man’s “enlarged intimate supplement to his memory” (6), described by Bush, is a representation of what man has been looking to obtain for centuries, perhaps in a desperate attempt to regain what he has lost. But because man has utilized invention to increase his physical capability instead of that of his mind, technology has surpassed mental faculty, and therefore its full scope of power may not be fully appreciated. In affect, it seems as if we are creating devices that we know not how to use. This presents a concern. Can we truly appreciate and respect the internet with regard to its full scope of virtual power? After all, just as we transition into the virtual world (and subsequently a new dimension of thought) will we also be so ready to leave behind our material minutia and the destructive means by which it is enforced?

Furthermore, if the ease of utility makes more fluidly possible contemplation, communication, and inspiration (in that order), then how will invention be affected if we are no longer bound by linear thought? (This process, in itself, implies a linear utility.) Argumentation (and perhaps all of communication) presently follows a linear pattern and therefore creates a challenge as we enter the virtual age. Kolb reminds us of certain social (and academic) norms that have caused us to embrace “the line” as the only facilitation of argument and thus philosophy. This is clearly represented by the fact that we are meant to immediately locate a conclusion and outline the argument in order to gain a firm position in relation to both the text and the argument. Instituting exclusively linear thought to communication employs the notion that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. By subscribing to this strategy we perhaps fail to recognize the benefit of leaving certain questions unanswered.

So, what of the internet? If we are so hasty to find a conclusion as to how the internet should be used but cannot truly understand its breadth of power, will we be doomed to repeat history? Will such an incredibly powerful force present our relatively infantile mental capability with a utility that is too difficult to control (as did harnessing the power of the atom)?

---