Why the distant communication?

It fascinates me to see what can really be done with words, or not be done. In class on Friday we saw that communication can of course be done without the physical act of talking (silent prof.), but this is what I fear our entire society has come to. We understand now that through cell phones, computers, and text messaging, there is no real reason to physically talk with people anymore. I suppose we must understand that yes these new forms of communication are successful ways of getting our messages across, but are they most efficient.

We talk so much about how we are accepting to be misinterpreted when we write instead of speak, because we understand the context in this written communication can be drastically changed. So I suppose the question is why do we as society feel the need to talk less, personally, and is this written communication really doing the same things with words as we could be doing compared to the act of speaking.

This new method of communication is responsible for the foundation of these second personalities we see within people who have “screens” to hide themselves behind. As we discovered in class a person on plurk could be different from their blog page and different from the way they portray themselves in class. Is technology responsible for this in a way? If people only understood one way to be “real” it would be because there is only one way for them to be interpreted, causing less space for taking things out of context, or reading a person the “wrong way”. We continuously find more distant ways to communicate with people. It is now possible to text message a person through your computer. (This is hysterical- directions)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZN7zSDLMosM

Why would you text through a computer I wonder? If you don’t have a cell phone is a phone call so far fetched that we have now created a way to enter this text-messaging world without being apart of the cell phone world? Is it because this is in fact a faster way to contact a person? If so, when did this happen? I suppose I find it interesting that people are more accepting of the possibility to be misinterpreted through written communication, than taking the time to physically speak to a person when possible, and getting things “right” the first time.

There truly is so many things we can do with words, but its strange Derrida says that words can be spoken and received with an absent receiver and the words will still reach the receiver, but is this receiver receiving what has been sent? I have decided that through this distant manner of communication, the receiver is never receiving exactly what is sent, and majority of the time I don’t feel the confusion is necessary.