I was hanging out, from time to time, with a buddy who did both product development and market research with a telecommunications company. We were talking about tech acceptance: Why do people embrace some technologies and leave others to hang? Case in point: Home video recording is one of the most accepted technologies, yet video telephony--in spite of Dick Tracy having blazed that trail in the pop mythos--went nowhere. It appears no one wants realtime video of the person they're talking with. Why?

I think the key to understanding tech acceptance is in addressing how that technology succeeds or fails in serving the narrative interests of the user; the mythos. Consider what this means in light of the two cases given; video recording and video telephony. Video recording gives the user storytelling, mythmaking power; video telephony robs them of it.

I wrote a short doc on this. Although it's a little old and could use some touching up, it's reasonably short, and there are a few well-turned illustrations of the main idea. Have a look: http://www.ronazajac.com/On_the_Next_Killer_App.pdf

Glad you brought this up.

I'd been fairly immersed in American Christian fundamentalist culture for much of my life, and an approach to conveying the Gospel message that crops up all-too frequently is what one might call the "minimalist good-faith pitch" To wit: "Here's the salvation story, dry as melba toast in the desert. What? You reject it? Ok, I did my part. Bye, and hope you have fire insurance!" And believe me, this isn't a view that went out with Jack Van Impe's boyish good looks or playing jacks; I encountered this view among some Boy Scouts I was chauffeuring home from an outing, only 5 years ago.

Apparently, you're damned if you do, or damned if you don't. When your approach to conveying a "higher" message of hope and love plainly refuses to meet people where they actually need to be met, it rightly fails. But when you use your storytelling gifts to convey the message in a way that addresses on-the-ground issues of forgiveness, courage, compassion, patience, etc., you're accused of bashing a sacred artifact, or at least of casting aspersions on it by daring to think you can "do one better."

Well, screw it. Lewis engaged in a great struggle of our time: The need to reconsile the pursuit of faith, hope, and charity with the call for intellectual integrity and an acknowlegement of the unassailable sanctity of the individual. This is, for even the most well-intentioned among us, a lonely and thankless task, which makes even more amazing the respect which Lewis' legacy retains after all these years.

This article comes at an interesting time for me. I just had a discussion with my son-in-law about Christianity and the search for truth, and have been cemeting (as it were) a few inklings on this.

I've had a pretty steady history of interfacings with fundamentalist Christians over the last 15 or so years, and feel I can see pretty clearly a kind of inside-out quality to the culture and values set. A strong, fairly penetrating culture of lying and self-deception seems to be the lifeblood of a lot of what goes under the name of Christianity in the U.S. Ironically, the Christ represented in the Gospels may have fully anticipated this; the present manifestation may well be exactly the kind of entrenched culture he was assailing as athwart divine purpose in his own time.

But I should get more specific. I don't have my lots cast in with this or that interpretation of scripture or overarching framework in which one "understands" Christ or his teaching. And, as such, I'm invariably the turd in the punchbowl of any "Christian" lovefest I attend. I have found many times that it is excruciatingly easy to call into question the veracity or even the spirtual efficacy of many cherished chestnuts of the pervading Christian culture. My conclusion is the same as that of Tom Paine in "The Age of Reason"; that misbegotten notions of doctrinal compliance only work what he called "moral mischief" among people. In other words, measured (cautious) reinforcement of qustionable beliefs, in controlled social environments of a well-intended acquiesence that passes for grace, only serves to train "the salt of the Earth" to become better and better liars. Well, isn't *that* a kick in the pants!

And I'll name names, here. I'm talking about the kinds of churches where DeLay and his ilk come to preach; and they are, sadly, legion. These are people ripe and ready for the most egregious kids of moral mischief. They're well trained. Very, very well trained. Their religion--as practiced, mind you--demands and accepts nothing less. I've been there; I've seen it. And I've even seen it recently, even though my main connections with that world have been cut in the last few years.

And, to bring this back to Joe's article, it's on display for all to see in recent political events. We see it in fundamentalist support for Bush II in spite of the fact that he's arguably a tyranical moral malefactor of the first order, and certainly not an exemplar of the kind of leader whose guide in matters moral or ethical would be Christ. If you actually attempt to address these issues among the Elect, you'll be shown the door. Even though they're going to live forever, they can't seem to muster up the time to reflect on whether what they claim to believe is actually true.

So: Where *are* their treasures stored up, anyway?