Svetlana,
Thanks for your comments and continued engagement. I like what you have to say here, and you are right that my ending questions are all leading questions. In fact, in my original version I actually wrote a sentence at the very end to the effect of "...but my position is made clear by the way in which I have loaded these questions", so I completely recognize what you say.

At the same time, Prokofieff seems to have an equally strong opinion on the matter, and doesn't openly or obviously entertain (at least in this article) multiple points of view; he clearly favors the idea that the internet is irredeemable and brings in supporting thoughts and arguments to bolster his case, without presenting contrasting points of view in a similar light... which is the whole reason why Eugene Schwartz wrote his essay and why we are having this conversation now. So I would say that we really don't know whether the internet or digital forms of storage and communication are irredeemable or not. And thus my response is: let us not write them off as such without making a concerted effort to use them in ways that further progressive spiritual unfoldment. It may fail, but my sense is that the effort itself is what is important, not only the result. The other option seems to be one rooted primarily in fear, and seems to lead to letting the ahrimanic forces have their way with human will and attention. I'm still not sure what Prokofieff would actively advocate--what does he think our task actually is with respect to the internet and related technologies? I simply don't know, and thus have to infer based upon his essay. With this in mind, I stand by my position that human beings can use their will and attention through the internet in ways that are beneficial to each other in a spiritual sense.

As to the point of how information is stored, this is very interesting. In my response above I indicate that all information is "information for", which is another way of saying that the notion of "exformation" vs. "information" is, while on the one hand pointing so something very important, also potentially misleading, particularly if we take the difference ontologically, rather than epistemologically. My sense of this is that any kind of communication or transfer of information from one complex system to another involves some kind of "translation". That is, steps are taken -- the information is not directly passed between systems in an unmediated and direct way, but always operates through various channels appropriate to the system in question.

In the case of human beings we are primarily talking about sensation, and therefore the activity of the astral body. Even face-to-face speech between humans is a far cry from "direct" -- so much is involved in the process, and information can often be misconstrued, ahrimanized, taken abstractly, and so forth; we all have this experience. So what I'm saying is that in any situation where information is being transferred between systems, a process of reconstitution (it would be more accurate to say re-creation) necessarily takes place. This process is the manifestation of the activity of the system as a whole, and it is in just this activity where spiritual development can take us further. This means working to transform the astral body, i.e. the transformation of the sense life.

Now, I agree with the general thrust of Prokofieff's stance, in that digital media and the mode of information transfer made possible by the internet does make a difference in this process, and that it is easier for ahrimanic forces to gain a foothold when these mediums are used. For this reason we should be more careful about how we use these technologies, because the "seductions of Ahriman" are greater in these realms, and it takes a correspondingly more developed human being to do the transformative work necessary to work towards a Michaelic impulse.

But this is just my point; that greater spiritual work is asked of us precisely in this realm--not that the whole realm is irredeemable in principle. Like Prokofieff indicates from Steiner: we should be wary of "dualizing" -- my sense is that it would be a mistake to consider this in terms of exformation vs. information, as if these two concepts are not actually quite interdependent and interwoven through and through.

But at the same time you point to something profound, in that there is a real link between form and content. Some forms are less suitable for penetration by transformed human will than others, some forms do not carry content well. This is why I recommend working with Goethean observation; it is explicitly a method by which the way form and content are linked in complex systems becomes perceivable, thinkable, and actionable to human beings. It provides a development of spiritual capacities that increases our ability to 'redeem' what we involve ourselves with perceptively through our own activity. The transformation of our perception constitutes the basis for this redemption--it is my understanding that this is part and parcel of Michaelic schooling.

Svetlana,
Thanks for reading and commenting. To address your concern, I guess I am uncertain as to what makes you feel like the question is closed... In fact, I am in complete agreement that the question must continually be re-asked (otherwise it's no question at all, just a mere curiosity). Circumstances continually change, and our questions--if they are asked over and over--will necessarily shift and change as well, revealing new facets and letting others fall away.

But the whole thrust of my post is not about what the internet will morph into in the future, but what we do with it now. You are completely correct that "some things just can't be explored and nurtured in this virtual box." It would be ridiculous to try and squeeze all of what is potentially available for human experience into any virtual environment--but nobody is doing that here. :-)

The thrust of the post is meant to be a call to 'do what can be done' -- in the present -- to use the technology of the internet in Michaelic ways, and that it is a mistake to abandon the internet as "irredeemable" without making the effort to penetrate its activity with our own transformed wills. This means--right now, in this very conversation!--that we must work towards a higher impulse, and not fall into the patterns of objectification and judgment of the other, the little power struggles which are anathema to the Christ-being, because they dissolve "the space between", and keep both Ahriman and Lucifer happy.

The challenge to the soul is direct; it calls for a certain suffering. But it is a suffering that bears with it an inner steadfastness and awakeness, a suffering that has the potential to become a healing salve. What will happen if we--individually and collectively--shirk this task? What will fill these spaces when we remove the ability to manifest Love within them?

Joel,
Thanks for pointing out your channel... I'll check it out!

What is retro-active is the way that the 'whole' of the water molecule changes the properties (read: potential relations) of the 'parts'. What used to be just a lone hydrogen atom is now expressing something new on the basis of its relationship with another hydrogen and an oxygen atom. "Retro" is meant not as 'backwards in time' but as 'applying back'; in this case back to the part from the whole. So a retroactive effect is that a hydrogen atom bound in a water molecule has different properties (read: potential qualities of activity) than one that is unbound. Emergent effects come forth as expressions of relational activity that were simply not possible before, for example, the bonding angle of water; a property (read: dynamic expression of continual relation) of the molecule, not of the individual atoms. Higher-level emergence such as membrane formation and distinction between an 'inside' and an 'outside' are possible when multiple water molecules begin to dance...

Francie, alchemy and theoretical physics, huh? Definitely an interesting avenue to explore; I'll keep it in mind as a potential topic for a future post... (the topic could probably use a book...)

Wow, Francie, thanks for your wonderful comments!
I can't wait to see your dissertation... :D

Thanks for the comment--it would be quite the honor to help Bateson dance! I am somewhat familiar with Gendlin's work... amazing and deep stuff to contemplate. He's someone who I think understands the importance of the meta-process level; quality, tone, gesture, 'sense'...

This is great news... I have The Secret Life of Plants, but I have never read it. I like to think that I gain something of the content of the various books I have never read but which I keep on my bookshelf through some sort of osmosis... maybe it's working!

...now with minor edits! feels better this way. :D