I have written a stack of articles about the Internet, and they are all written with a minimum of specialised concepts and special language, because I wanted to see the whole thing from a viewpoint close to the ground. Computers looked straight in the eye, so to speak.

I meet IT people, even people who run their own IT business, who claim that having an overview of the field is not possible.

I am sure that this is wrong, but it is a common problem.

I also know people with a clearer view of what they are doing. They can actually give totally relevant answers to all my questions, and make clear what are the choices in this world and what is necessary, unavoidable.

This knowledge has not spread wide enough, for instance all the way to people working with support and sales. They speak to me pretty often as though I had no concepts, and I suspect them of having none, or too few.

You can at least say, we don’t speak the same language.

This actually ought to be fixed right away, and not only in the talk about computer matters, but in the programs themselves.

They should be examined, for instance by language teachers, to establish real communication between the developers and the rest of us, actually between the computer world and the general public, and the settlement should include clearer borders between normal, everyday language or other professional language, and the computer world’s lingo, which often climb in or cling to established languages.

The lack of overview is a problem in the general public, and it has been like that for a while. You could say that this is normal anyway…but the computers have created some new confusion.

Giggling from the boys and girls who make the things is a spice of life when strange things with strange names are let loose over the heads of all of us. They are not data viruses, but you could call them mental viruses. Journalism has maybe already made a word for it.

I believe this creates trouble in all kinds of administration and in politics. The situation in media is a thing in itself. Remoteness is an important concept, which does not always originate in the computer world, but can be aggravated by the use of computers. Reality is blurred in new ways.

The screen is by many conceived as a reference for truth, and I believe you must be fairly well grounded already to find out what’s right and what’s wrong in this way of seeing it.

Confusion hits “the rest of us”, people who are not computer insiders, because it is a business in amazingly quick development, and because it has beginner’s problems.

I sometimes meet computer people who are rather on the edge. You can feel the vibration of the computer being part of them, and it looks unpleasant. As a teacher I sometimes feel the need to create human presence there and then, to calm down their system or soften the thinking.

The problem with the computer world is also connected to language. Their language – not programming languages, but the words that are used – are actually invading all other languages, not least everyday language, with a small epidemic of professional expressions that are new, and pretty often is destroying or changing mainstream concepts and often also mainstream ways of thinking. Also sometimes there is internal humour which should not be spread…without explanation.

I have been talking about an unconscious “programming” of us all through our use of the machines. I am talking about unconscious NLP-ish things and simply habits, in which we are trained through the use of the machines – and I think I believe that these things easily make you think actionsinstead of thinking concepts. I wonder whether this can make a habit of instrumental thinking, that we see problems only as practical problems and maybe easier confuse situations where you have a choice with those where you have none.

Automatisation of all sorts of…actions… – it is worth considering what it does to us and our ways of thinking.

Simply put I think I believe that the computer world as it appears today favours practical ways of thinking to theorybased ones. This is a coarsely formulated idea, which certainly deserves closer scrutiny, but I think there is something to it. Maybe it is also a question of humanities vs natural science or math.

I have a certain level of knowledge in music and literature, and all my writing about computers is probably also a reaction to what may be of thinking in terms of “natural science”, or mathematical ways of thinking, or engineering-ways of thinking. The whole project of making a computer is to create an artificial brain, right? – or an artificial human…and the principles of this world is to a great extent the principles of machines, or of making them. In many ways this isa machine, with no movable parts, but with a lot of the processes resembling movements.

Maybe this one-sided way of thinking is also only a stage in the development of the IT field, parallel to the first cars, and steam engines, where the mechanic parts in the beginning were more or less out in the air.

I am not updated on the field of “humanist IT”, there may be interesting things there.

The computer world, the education too, at least produces a new type of engineering consciousness. It may produce other things too…

The engineers themselves have always been a little annoying, for instance in their tendency to think in numbers – important when you build something, not as important when you deal with people.

Human and administrative systems built on too many figures also sound unattractive, in my mind. I don’t quite like the idea of society as a machine either. It is part of the picture, I agree, but other metaphors should supplement it. One-sided thinking is maybe not so wise if you are a leader somewhere.

Freedom is after all also an issue worth addressing or considering.

When I write music I am also not in the world of numbers, but many composers are these days, I believe.

What comes out of artistic creativity you don’t know, either, until you have finished making something. I guess the way of thinking is not everything either – the experience of the piece of music or whatever you have made – is still the proof of the pudding.

I sometimes dance all night long to the sound of dj-genres, the harder the better, and find Bugge Wesseltoft’s electronic playing even more interesting than his acoustic piano playing, which I am also a fan of.

I am not one-sided – no, no…I just want control over my work.

You can turn slightly psychotic from trying out the wrong type of program, unless you think that way already. It is surprising to what extent we can cut concepts into two or more pieces, turn them upside down, mirror them, reinterpret, use them for gymnastics or other movements, but I am not quite sure how useful everything is. I could probably enjoy a little more of the different possibilities than I do today, but hardly all of them. I enjoy entertainment, but not all the time.

It would maybe be nice to have a computer which stopped developing. I think I would like that. It feels like we are past the peak of creativity in many of the updates that continue to invade me, the feeling that there is actually not more to be done, but still the work goes on.

On the Internet there are also many charlatans, sorry to say, they are after your money, basically. For instance there is the habit of asking for monthly pay all the time, a subscription, sometimes for products which I think should be sold to us as a thing.

I prefer anyway a clear head, when I want to think, as far as is possible.

Things that move my world around, the whole time, is…usually annoying, at least when I am working.

Edited after publishing.