Perhaps there is no disintegration of thought at all, rather an emergence of a new way of thought yet unclassified. What was the lament of Neoclassisists or PreRaphaelites at the birth of Impressionism. What they saw as a corrosion of technique was just the birth pangs of a new style searching for the vocabulary, distinct and unique, to discuss itself. Is this but a generational lament whose only new aspect is the speed at which it arrived? Is the only new and frightening thing the ever-shortening periods between tremors of communicative evolution? Maybe the hazards at this end of the pool are not in the effects of the internet on us as much as it is in our own unpreparedness with the medium of the internet. Did Gutenberg or caxton receive the same criticism for promiscuously publishing so much as to distract young minds from their memorization of classics? Afterall, THAT was what set the bar for worthwhile knowlege then. Chris Dede spoke to FETC of the redefinition of what is worth knowing. Perhaps these are the directions we should be asking.

