We've been told that much of what makes Web 2.0 so '2.0' is the aspect of interactivity. The word itself implies an 'action between' - which implies two actors. Web 2.0 typically is defined by a layer of new technologies that are intended to make this interactivity easier. But like many things that claim interactivity for the sake of marketing, there often are not really 'two actors' and if we experience it as interactive it is because we are being cleverly hoodwinked.

The idea of something being 'interactive' arises originally (it would seem) with being able to act on the thing that is acting on you. For instance, a video game compares to a movie sometimes only in this way: the video game is an interactive movie. The watcher is now a 'player' and may act within or on the game itself. Sometimes however, when advertising and marketing gets out ahead of reason, it might be claimed that the consumer's ability to change channels on the television makes it 'interactive'. I think this is sloppy use of our language, and that anything which is by its nature a push medium - in particular any mass medium is by default - does not pass the sniff test for interactivity. Lets put it this way - in order for something to be interactive you need two parties, and both need to be active - during movies and television (and even when in the grocery store) most of us are passive. If someone tells you otherwise obviously they are selling you something.

Then video games, which are a mass medium, must do something over-and-above mere button pushing to achieve interactivity. We could call them interactive because the player does not merely act on the device (the game system) but on the content itself: the story or action in the game.

By degrees, the vaunted interactivity of Web 2.0 is supposed to be not just interactivity but human interactivity. That is to say, it is supposed to mean that no longer is the web merely man reading information across the world or man interacting with machine, but man interacting with man via the web. Of course, this idea of 'social media' being new is apparent nonsense given the long history of usenet and forums, and by-in-large Web 2.0 seems more like a set of technologies which open up human interactivity on the web to a larger audience. For usenet, IRC and forums certain barriers existed (though each presents less) to participation. The Blog however, is less of a technology and more of a doctrine or form. It risks perverting human interactivity with the mass popularity of journalism, but at the same time 'makes sense' to people both old and young, a delicate balance that is daily being straddled more or less successfully across the internet.

Even further though, we could say that Web 2.0 actually consists more of a doctrine about how to develop on the web than any kind of technologies. The trouble we have defining it is that we find the need to represent something very important as a technological advance, when Web 2.0 is a change of perspective that if looked at very soberly, will not meet the criterion for 'advance' or 'innovation' that we typically look for. Social Media has existed long before, but it is in the doctrine of the human interactive web (Web 2.0) that you find it has equal importance with traditional media such as press releases, brochures, company listings, journals and periodicals, research data and so on. Naming it '2.0' is quasi-technical jargon and in all likelihood anyone who has actually versioned things - a programmer for instance - would never have named it thus.

Even with the lower barrier of entry still many people prefer the phone over email or Facebook or chat. Is this old-fashioned, interacting voice to voice? Or is there something deeper going on? For one, I think that Web 2.0's new criteria of human interaction clashes with the internet's main strength: anonymous information sharing. But in human interaction, the less anonymity the better (or the worse, depending on whom you are interacting with.) On this count, the phone wins: email and chat are fast, but the medium is thick. By this I mean that the normal flow of a conversation is constrained very much by both: emotion and tone are not present and thus the invention of the emoticon. On this count, we can tell that even the phone is inferior to real interaction, and it is possible that even video-chat and voice-chat over long distances will fail because of simple delay. Video chat even more because the presentation is bandwidth-heavy and only approximates seeing the person. The phone system is more direct than TCP/IP and streaming services often randomly lag. Phone service cutting out is bad enough, but the foibles of voice over IP are countless. I think we can agree that the older technology is more perfected: phones are better for human interaction.

What does this mean for the web (by which I mean web sites, the world of the http://www) and its future based on the new doctrine of Web 2.0? It may mean that the web itself becomes less influential, but without a restoration of influence to traditional mass media such as newspapers, television, radio, etc. Web 2.0 points away from itself: The web is by in large a way to cheaply present the same information to numerous people in disparate locations. Now we are trying to use this vehicle to instead display different information to each of those people, automatically. In this case, the phone already does this: you get exactly what you're looking for - the other person.

The web is currently the best way to cheaply present identical information to numerous people in disparate locations. Radio, newspapers and television do this as well: the web is destined for superiority. But what if people finally recognize human interactivity over the web as the chimera it really is? Only so many can be popular, and personal security is an issue in less lawful areas. The new doctrine of human interactivity on the web is an uneasy fit, but it need not be. Perhaps though, the website is the wrong vehicle for it.

Listening to the Bridegroom Matins services, I've got an impression I've got Monday a bit wrong. But first, I wanted to note the apocalyptic character of Holy Week - there is a sense in which the Revelation of John maps to Holy Week, which is sensible when we think of the same Father's comments in his general letter: 'Surely the end times are here because there are many anti-Christs among us.' The 'dichronic' (twofold or two-dimensional) time has to be taken into account when looking at his Revelation, and with Holy Week.

I've been informed by Father Tom that the verses which come between the Entry into Jerusalem and the Last Supper are sometimes called the 'Apocalyptic Verses.' From what I can tell this is partly because there is a lot of talk of the Last Judgment - but also these passages are read during Holy Week specifically and even the ones which do not directly reference the Apocalypse (such as the 'call no man Father' one) only make sense within this framework.

Anyway, there's a lot that is coursing through my mind about those verses (I had trouble paying attention during the service because connections were firing off) I wanted to offer a few thoughts on these first three days.

First, I think it is clear that Holy Week represents the 'time when no man may work' - which is represented variously, but the Revelational images are also strong in this regard - thus Holy Week anticipates, through Christ's actual life, four 'ends' (as Fr. Tom has said) death, the end of human history, the end of Jerusalem and its Temple, and the end of the world. Taking dichronically, they are both things which have already happened for the Christian, but also have yet to happen. Our own death in some sense represents always the end of all things - (like a 'game over' in a video game, right?) since whatever happens, it's not for us. But also it is always the case that Christ will come soon, yes, even this generation will not taste death until they see him in his Glory. This is simply to say, in our dying we pass ahead unto the finality of all things; though we no longer believe (as perhaps some of the first Christians did and others still often do) that time itself will end for all within this generation, nonetheless the scripture is always true; our death brings about for us, a meeting of the Lord.

I don't think the Church has specifically painted symbolism into each of these first three days; partly because she in her wisdom has employed artisans to elaborate as needed. There is a lot to work with.

I think however, that before, my work was weakened in that I chose to anchor my forward reading of the seals and trumps as starting with Palm Sunday: rather, they begin with the nights - whereas the reverse ones begin with the days. In terms of the world in which morning marks the beginning of the day, this would work out, but since liturgically the evening begins the day, this little shift pushes the forward reading ahead a day. The 'conquerer' (first horseman) while being certainly emblematic of Christ's entry, is the dream of the night of the first apocalyptic day. The second, war, and the third, famine, come at each night, and at last, death, on the night of Judas' agreement to betray Christ. To ourselves as dreamers, the nights would be seen as days and the days nights; much as Lewis describes outer space as 'alive' and the planets 'dead' for the dwellers therein.

I've written some verses in which I imagine the domes of heaven crashing down - Moon, Mars, Mercury - which represent human affections, imaginations and desires - moods and muses. I think it is possible to interpret the Revelation in this way, and that we start with the moon (for Monday) which represents virtue or discernment, is very apropos. And on that following night, to herald Tuesday, we find the unwise virgins struggling against the wise virgins - but having no ability to purchase or bargain for more oil. Many Fathers see the connection between the oil and almsgiving - a quintessential act of virtue (and perhaps the root of active virtue altogether) in that 'having mercy' in greek 'eleison' is like the act of applying healing ointment or oil. What they have sought to collect before now is theirs, but with no 'moon', there is nothing left to get; there is only to keep the lamps trimmed and burning. The cosmic disturbance from the worldly perspective (stick with me here) is from the 6th seal. True night begins and the moon is gone (turned to blood.) Christ is really 'unleashed' here upon the worldly, and although he arrives on a white horse, (as a brightly countenanced conquerer) things are going to change. But the important commemoration is the cursing of the barren fig tree: It's lack of virtues is 'sealed' with a curse.

Tuesday for Mars we see Christ harrowing (for he is riding the red horse here if you will) the Pharisees and others for their stunted understanding and selfishness. But after that time, no one tried to engage him in war; war himself is undone. The severity of his answers reminds me of a doctor amputating a limb or the use of an executioner's blade (usually a two-handed greatsword of some kind.) The corresponding worldly perspective sees the Martyrs crying out and being given their robes; I'm recalling Christ's upbraiding the Jews of the time who said 'we would not have slain the prophets' (isn't that us? We would 'not have persecuted the confessors'!) - this is part of his harrowing. The world sees the ihidaya (the pure and chaste and virginal) as being given to unfairly and allowed to rest while the rest suffer. With worldly eyes when we read these passages this is what we feel. How come they get white robes? We wouldn't have persecuted them... The important commemoration here is of the wise and unwise virgins. No struggle will grant the unwise virgins oil from the wise.

Here on Wednesday from the world's perspective, Hades has been released; that is, with the fall of Mercury we are 'shut up and cannot come forth' - on the other hand, we see from Christ the metaphor of the grain of wheat falling to the earth and dying. There is even some kind of spiritual famine here; as those who believe in him do not confess it. This marks the 'passing point' - the famine which comes can be spiritually thought of as the drying up of fleshly things, with the sinful woman repenting of her harlotry - the very expensive spices are poured out. The human reserves are totally spent; and yet, we continue. The scales remind me of the balance we're presented between the woman who is a sinner becoming justified in her faith, while Judas who is a partaker of the ministry throwing it away for 'some bread' (money is sometimes called 'bread' in slang.) Looking at Revelations 8 (for the Third trumpet going forward, and the Fourth going backward) I see Mercury falling into the rivers (tis a smaller planet, see:) and makes the waters bitter. This is to say, from the spiritual perspective, gossip and bad report are done for (as they are when Christ's reaving from the day before are finished) and the demons die trying to consume the waters (people) who are chastened in tongue to the point of bitter repentance. I think from the worldly perspective the sun, moon and stars are representative of all varieties of important worldly lights - priests, wise men, generals, kings, etc, being shut up. This is from the 4th trump. The important commemoration is of the sinful woman repenting with tears and the breaking of her jar of ointment.

Apologies if these thoughts are a bit unorganized. An appendix is as follows:

Monday: Moon representing discernment, or active virtue, the peak of which we see variously as solitude, true individuality, uniqueness, purity, virginity. The verses for the night leading up to it are Matt. 21:18-43 (reading from Sunday's Bridegroom Matins), the synaxarion reading is a short comparison between the barren fig tree and St. Joseph the All-comely, who was in contrast a great bearer of grain for his brothers. I have borrowed Revelation 6 and 8-9: Looking the Paschal direction the First Seal and Trump, and for the daytime, looking in the Worldly direction the Sixth Seal and Trump.

Tuesday: Mars representing warfare and struggle, or violent action, for often when we cannot obtain things by work we take them by force. The verses for the night leading up to it are 22:15 - 23:39 and the synaxarion reading recalls the ten wise and unwise virgins who must keep their lamps burning lest they miss out entering the kingdom. I have borrowed Revelation 6 and 8-9: Looking in the Paschal direction the Second Seal and Trump, and for the daytime, looking in the worldly direction the Fifth Seal and Trump.

Wednesday: Mercury representing secrets, news, worldly knowledge and gossip. The verses for the night leading up to it are John 12:17-50 and the synaxarion reading recalls the woman who anointed Christ with expensive spices, weeping bitterly for her sins. I have borrowed Revelation 6 and 8: Looking in the Paschal direction the Third Seal and Trump, and for the daytime, looking in the Worldly direction the Fourth Seal and Trump.

Not that I have much to recommend me on this account, but I believe there to be a misconception about goodness. We conceive a moral person as one who follows a moral code. But a saint does not follow a moral code. We conceive an ethical person as one who follows a code of ethics. But a saint does not follow a code of ethics. We conceive a virtuous person as one who trains hard and achieves excellence. But a saint does not train hard for excellence. And yet, a saint is moral, ethical and virtuous. I think the confusion then, is between the quality and the source. One may attain the quality through work, but attaining the source is itself the fulfillment of the works.

One of the troubles in relationships, is that because we are very familiar with what the other person has thought, we begin to be able to some extent predict their acts. But really we begin to treat our predictions as though they were us actually reading the other person's mind, when no matter how often we're right it doesn't mean we know what the other person is actually thinking. Over time, our own suspicions may tend to take precedence over our observations; and thus, 'familiarity breeds contempt.'

Being told what to do is perhaps the most liberating thing, when we are not told how we are to do it. At times we may say we are doing the same thing as someone else, because the 'what' and though not the 'how' is identical. We may lose the 'how' out of forgetfulness, but let us never forget the 'what' - this is what enslaves us.

From what I can tell, 'do not pry into things too lofty for you' refers to attempts to philosophically understand the nature of God. The thought that arises is that when you make a seal (as when a signet ring is pressed in wax) you get an image of the seal, which may be very clear and identifiable, but as far as the ring is concerned, you do not know the nature of the ring without seeing the ring itself. And so it is with God.

One of the most basic things to do is turn time into heat. Microwaves happen to be one of the more precise methods of doing this.

I think a doctor, that is, a physician, has two chief characteristics. The first is that he wields the sword (scalpel.) The second is that he does so gently. If the use of knowledge and medicine is his science, then his art is to properly consider his patient's weakness and deliver no bitter pills. Thus, 'do no harm.' (Or, 'you'll feel just a little bit of pressure...')

It seems that procrastination drives late bedtimes, which tire us out if we must rise early, and give rise to weariness and a desire to let our mind wander freely, and then our senses, and I think this is a way of 'having a carnal mind'.

I think to some great extent, the fleeing from home that is done by the young is precipitated by the notion that what is old is passing away; this is confirmed, perhaps, when later the old way of life does die out. Barring a dearth of resources, the old way dies out because the young leave and for little other reason. Wendell Berry has warned that how we are telling the story of our lives is often the sole determiner of whether the young believe that what is old is passing away.