Lévy discusses space, from the beginning of time. The first space created was Earth. The second space created was territorial space: our addresses, phone numbers, property, etc. The third space was commodity space: where we work, what we own, who we are outside of work, etc. He then goes on to discuss how society can bring all these spaces together, not to rid society of those former spaces, but to develop a new space with all aspects of space together - Cyberspace.
He states that no one is ignorant, that everyone serves a purpose, and that people should basically be viewed as individual bundles of knowledge. Everyone can learn from the knowledge of someone else about an issue they have no experience with, it does not matter if that person has a degree or not. He says everyone knows about something, but no one knows everything, which I believe to be very true.
"In the age of knowledge, failure to recognize the other as an intelligent being is to deny him a true social identity. It feeds resentment and hostility, the humiliation and frustration from which violence is born." (p. 15)
This is when I thought, wouldn't it be nice? Wouldn't it be nice if we could see each other in that light? Wouldn't it be nice if there were no issues or stereotypes of race, ideology, economic status, sexuality, or dogma? However, everyone would have to read this book, understand it, and believe in it, is that not correct? That is the only problem. People can't see eye to eye on issues to even see eye to eye in general. I think it would be a brilliant idea, to live in a place where everyone can just bring a different knowledge of life to the table, and learn from it. Even if people do not agree on issues, that knowledge can be taken, learned from, and passed on. The world will never view any issue the same though, and that is the sad fact. Cyberspace cannot even fix so many world differences. Countries or places that are less technologically savvy and advanced may not even accept Cyberspace, or believe in the view as a whole to first try it.
Lévy also discusses voting, groups, and protesting. He writes that slogans for campaigns or any protest yelled in numbers are oversimplified, masking divergence and failing to integrate the differences that individualize everyone. I don't think joining a group for an issue someone is passionate about makes them any less of an individual. Being part of a certain group could be part of what someone believes in, making them more of who they are. He says the shouts eventually become monotonous. Many things become monotonous over time, but does that depreciate their meaning or significance? Just because two people have a major issue or concern in common which they are protesting or striving for, they are not masking who they are. Those issues are just something they are passionate about. Not everything in the world can be about an individual, that would be selfishness, defeating the whole purpose of the book. Groups are important as well. Groups unify people and create relationships.
Then I thought, maybe I am reading this wrong, because I have agreed with him up until these points. Or was I just accepting his knowledge as he intended, even though I disagreed, and moving forward without judgment? Does Lévy just imply that those who read the book try this way of thinking, and "pay it forward?" The readings imply many ways of thinking and many directions could be taken to interpret the chapters. Maybe that is the ironic twist of it all. He is trying to demonstrate that just by different people reading this book, different knowledge is created and different ideas are shared about the readings. They are all different interpretations, but they are all knowledge. Clever Lévy, very clever.
