It's a slightly more nuanced argument, I think, than virtual and physical. The same paradox applied when the printing press was invented, and no doubt also when words were etched onto stone tablets. Both of them physical, yet technological, in nature. The driving, and dividing, force behind the means to disseminate information, whether that be in a hardcover book, a newspaper broadsheet, a political party's billboard, or a facebook post, remains holding a control on the narrative. Both the "working class" protestors and the "laptop class" peering from the surrounding office block windows, understand this, and are employing the same tactics. The protestors are live streaming too, portraying their version of events in an effort to wrestle back public sympathy. With (mandated) time on their hands through forced unemployment, retirement, or apathy toward the type of labour market they had found themselves in, many in the protesters camp are utilising technology in exactly the same fashion as their counterparts. Time, is the great leveller in this battle. That is why the Prime Ministers edict that the protesters "need to just go home!" is disingenuous. What she really wants is for them to "just get back to work!" and all her problems will evaporate. This time though, she has created her own undoing by declaring these mandates around work. Idle hands, and all that, any politician worth their salt knows the dangers that lie with that.
Thanks for commenting, and I agree that there's a need for nuance - all of us, Virtuals included, inhabit a physical world; we all, Physicals included, are influenced by and participate in virtual reality. But I think there's something important in the Virtuals vs. Physicals distinction, to do with the primary or fundamental mode of engagement with the world and value creation. Virtuals fundamentally create value by manipulating abstractions (e.g. ideas, bytes), while Physicals fundamentally do so by manipulating concrete objects (e.g. concrete, food). They might try to play each other at their own game, as you point out, but that doesn't change their primary stance and this primary stance has consequences for the way each group approaches society and conflict. To give another example of the way this difference plays out, Matthew Crawford (in "Shop Class as Soul Craft") points out that the quality of a mechanic's work is assessed in simple, real-world terms - does this engine work? - without the need for the HR department and the 360 degree review by which the knowledge worker is assessed. The ultimate distinction is between objective physical fact and subjective perception. So, I think there's value and explanatory power in the Virtuals vs. Physicals distinction, even if it needs further teasing out. And I think the point I was most interested in holds no matter how much nuance is added - that everyone's participation in online reality has significant offline consequences, most importantly the growing expectation that we should be able to reshape the real in the mould of the virtual.
It's a slightly more nuanced argument, I think, than virtual and physical. The same paradox applied when the printing press was invented, and no doubt also when words were etched onto stone tablets. Both of them physical, yet technological, in nature. The driving, and dividing, force behind the means to disseminate information, whether that be in a hardcover book, a newspaper broadsheet, a political party's billboard, or a facebook post, remains holding a control on the narrative. Both the "working class" protestors and the "laptop class" peering from the surrounding office block windows, understand this, and are employing the same tactics. The protestors are live streaming too, portraying their version of events in an effort to wrestle back public sympathy. With (mandated) time on their hands through forced unemployment, retirement, or apathy toward the type of labour market they had found themselves in, many in the protesters camp are utilising technology in exactly the same fashion as their counterparts. Time, is the great leveller in this battle. That is why the Prime Ministers edict that the protesters "need to just go home!" is disingenuous. What she really wants is for them to "just get back to work!" and all her problems will evaporate. This time though, she has created her own undoing by declaring these mandates around work. Idle hands, and all that, any politician worth their salt knows the dangers that lie with that.
Thanks for commenting, and I agree that there's a need for nuance - all of us, Virtuals included, inhabit a physical world; we all, Physicals included, are influenced by and participate in virtual reality. But I think there's something important in the Virtuals vs. Physicals distinction, to do with the primary or fundamental mode of engagement with the world and value creation. Virtuals fundamentally create value by manipulating abstractions (e.g. ideas, bytes), while Physicals fundamentally do so by manipulating concrete objects (e.g. concrete, food). They might try to play each other at their own game, as you point out, but that doesn't change their primary stance and this primary stance has consequences for the way each group approaches society and conflict. To give another example of the way this difference plays out, Matthew Crawford (in "Shop Class as Soul Craft") points out that the quality of a mechanic's work is assessed in simple, real-world terms - does this engine work? - without the need for the HR department and the 360 degree review by which the knowledge worker is assessed. The ultimate distinction is between objective physical fact and subjective perception. So, I think there's value and explanatory power in the Virtuals vs. Physicals distinction, even if it needs further teasing out. And I think the point I was most interested in holds no matter how much nuance is added - that everyone's participation in online reality has significant offline consequences, most importantly the growing expectation that we should be able to reshape the real in the mould of the virtual.