Monthly Archives: March 2013

Noun: A group of people or things having similar characteristics: “all kinds of music”.
Adjective: Having or showing a friendly, generous, and considerate nature: “a kind woman”.

Kind is a word I use a lot. If you have ever sent me a complementary email or have done something nice for me online, I usually will thank you for your kindness. If you say something overly great about me, I may modestly say you are being too kind.

There is a reason I choose this word, specifically. It is because of it’s duality of purpose as both noun and adjective and to encompass both meanings at once.

When a deed is done that is kind, I hope to make such kindness a part of my being as well — to be a person as the same kind of the doer. Its meaning here embodies the word as noun. I also, in the same action, embody the word as an adjective and use it in reply thusly.

Furthermore, from a faith practice perspective, the idea and act of loving-kindness is one that is central to my beliefs.

All of this is to say that I tend to choose the words I use, especially in writing, carefully. If you see me use a word or phrase often, it is likely chosen for its specific meaning.

Your kind donation of any amount helps to support a full-time independent writer. Thanks for reading!

“A respected Swiss scientist, Conrad Gessner, might have been the first to raise the alarm about the effects of information overload. In a landmark book, he described how the modern world overwhelmed people with data and that this overabundance was both “confusing and harmful” to the mind. The media now echo his concerns with reports on the unprecedented risks of living in an “always on” digital environment. It’s worth noting that Gessner, for his part, never once used e-mail and was completely ignorant about computers. That’s not because he was a technophobe but because he died in 1565. His warnings referred to the seemingly unmanageable flood of information unleashed by the printing press.” — A history of media technology scares, from the printing press to Facebook. – Slate Magazine

As I read more and more of the discussion around Google Glass (especially: The Google Glass feature no one is talking about — Creative Good ), the more I’m reminded of the anecdote quoted above. Similar discussions were had around the advent of the first telephone, and radio, and television.

As we venture down some of the paths that things like Google Glass may lead, the social nuances and implications that come with this technology will be an oft debated subject.

Yet, is that any different from what we have now? I think not. There is much ongoing discussion of the social implications of the smartphone. We continue to discuss the etiquette of those who never seem to be able to look up from the screen to have a conversation or eat a single meal without snapping a picture of it. Some have even taken it upon themselves to create games designed to enforce appropriate social behavior in their usage.

The only difference we face going forward, if there really is one, is the increasing oneness we will continue to have with technology.