~That does not means it is correct. – I know, I know, by using~{!0~}correct~{!1~}, it shows I'm not dialectically sophisticated enough. However, that is my point: those material force you to think, and force you to justify your logic/thinking as an everyday techie. For example, the ~{!0~}information~{!1~} view of genetics. It is totally justifiable ("justfiable", another sin like "correct"): information is used because the DNA code is perfectly comparable with computer code.~~ However, why computer code is ~{!0~}information~{!1~}? – because it is ~{!0~}form~{!1~} related. Why ~{!0~}form~{!1~}? because it is related with the application of math. In general, the prestige or bias for ~{!0~}information~{!1~} is from the mathematic-based exact science.

The premises or hidden background of ~{!0~}dialectics~{!1~} is somewhat cynical sociological-philosophical interpretation of concepts. I believe it is an antidote for techies – even it simply means you have~~ to put some thinking on it.

I love it, because it force me to prove it is incorrect!~

The title of this collection gives a clue of what the reader is headed for - the term "dialectic" is most often connected with philosophical ponderings or Marxist manifestos - this is not just another puff piece exhorting the brave new world and global village of interconnectiveness, this is a series of eleven well written essays delving into New Media Theory.

Grouped into four sections: "The Real and the Ideal", "The Body and the Machine", "The Medium and the Message", and "The World and the Screen", this collection explores the new way of being and thinking that digital technology elicits. An important work that refuses to slip into pedanticism; thought provoking and entertaining. A must read for anyone who wants to be a subject rather than an object in the Information Age.

Many times writers will fail to address or recognize the potentail of hypertext as a medium, or will discuss virtual reality in some niavely science-fictioness manner. Peter Lunenfeld embraces these issues and more in a way that is hard to accomplish without chronological distance. Without attempts at all-encompassing rhetoric, he makes strong, undeniable observations of where our culture is, with reference to the digital media that encompass it.

Particularly exciting (for me) is the point that virtual reality is only significantly present as an "object to think with", a sort of prophetic idea which influenced society greatly without ever being fully acheived. Its a more productive look in the mirror instead of the usual look to the supposed future.

Important distinctions are made between traditional chemical photography and digital photography, as well as between the telephone and the world wide web. Also very interresting is the discouse on digital media's influence on architecture, with several eye-opening examples.

Obviously I was most intrigued by the discussions on media, but there are two more sections, one on cultures, the other on makers. The culture part focuses on "technocultures", the demo, and the aesthetics neccesary in this environment; the makers part on the work of specific artists and their cultural importance. Several examples are given to show what results in this electronic culture solidly reinforcing each argument.