(Edited from an essay Computers, the Internet, and the Abdication of Consciousness by Stephen Talbott - square brackets indicate my addition.)
Freedom only seems to make sense as a name for the movement towards responsible wakefulness, and not as a name for a presumed ideal state.
The ideal of freedom applies only to a state of [directional] transition. We are works in progress.
Every move towards health is also a move towards wholeness and integrity. Insofar as the Net succeeds in distracting us from ourselves, it will prove a personal and social disaster.
The temptations for distraction and sleepwalking [our lives away] are on every hand. But we should not forget that these temptations are also invitations to discovery within ourselves a higher power of wholeness and integrity.
The computer is our hope if we can accept it as our enemy. As our friend [i.e. if we trust it] the computer will destroy us.
http://natureinstitute.org/txt/st/jung.htm
**
Stephen Talbott is an Anthroposophist (follower of Rudolf Steiner) whose work was much appreciated by Owen Barfield. He is indeed extremely insightful and interesting, and makes many vital suggestions which ought to be adopted; and I would recommend browsing his copious writings.
http://natureinstitute.org/txt/st/index.htm
However, Talbott is also one of those frustratingly incomplete writers - because he restricts himself to epistemology (the philosophy concerning knowledge) without ever clarifying his metaphysics (his fundamental assumptions); in particular - he apparently never references Christianity or even God.
Therefore, ultimately, Talbott's only argument for changing 'the way we know' is that this would be better for our here-and-now health and happiness - as when, above, he references our ultimate goals as integrity and wholeness, and our ultimate ills as personal and social disaster (implicitly suffering).
Lacking a basis in metaphysics, and indeed God; this is all that can ever be argued in favour of anything.
And modern people will simply, and rationally, be able to respond that they, personally, happen to feel differently about their happiness and what they need to do to avoid suffering.
But a Christian discussing epistemology or any kind of fundamental philosophy can and should reference to the fact that we are God's children and we inhabit God's creation - and our ultimate purpose in life (our reason for living) is not, therefore, health and happiness - but the co-fulfilment of God's purposes for creation.
Only thus can we get outside of the modern ethic of utilitarianism, with its absurd assertion of arbitrary, labile and manipulable personal feelings as the bottom-line justification and purpose of everything.
