My Beef with Blogging... and just about everything else

Feel free to pass over this piece entirely -> I'm simply using this as a space to put down some thoughts.
     I would like to take a step back in time for a moment and quote myself, "this endeavor was only begun to fulfill class requirements - those same requirements being to immerse myself in this mediated culture in order to understand it." This Blog exists for the sole purpose of this Blog existing. It's an interesting concept. The problem is, it isn't the Blog that is the medium at all, it's the linking process that is supposed to be implied. The concept of connecting people and ideas together through an electronic medium is the culture. The Blog, then, is only a front, it's only an image of ourselves - not us. Perhaps, or perhaps it is simply an unsolicited opinion. To be honest, I really don't know. The process of linking requires the presence of something to link to. How does one link to a text? Sure, you could link to a Google Books page, but what good does that do you? Really? So, then, you find an article - preferably pertaining to what you are talking about - and you make a connection. Then you have linked whatever you're writing to something vastly more important than your meager opinion or something mundane. You have also made your page a little more blue, which is, I guess, a calming color. But what good is that connection? What do you add?
     I want... the reader, whoever that is (at this point I really don't care) to take a look at the words on this page. What are they? Well, these in particular are those of a ranting college student. The words in the previous entries are those of a college student flailing around in new territory making his best attempt to do what has been asked of him and you know, it will probably continue to be that. Some of the details may change, but the concept will still be the same. It is a school project.
     The thing is, this project is more than just a project, it is a test. I'm going to hearken back to the early days of this class and talk about how we learn. -> We learn by doing. The process of industrializing the education system turns it into an assembly line of facts. (For reference, I'd put a link in here somewhere, but I don't know what I'd link it to. Words are too fleeting.) This process, then, is the product of two systems. On one hand, it is an immersion -> I am learning to Blog. Of course, this is also reliant on how we define what Blogging is. Is it a self reflection, or is it a repository of knowledge for the use of someone else? Anyway, there is also the implication of a final grade. What I do here is viewed by an arbiter and that arbiter assigns a numerical value to what I have done. This number is then viewed by other arbiters to gauge how effectively I perform. This inherently alters my immersion in any facet of this learning process. What I am doing is learning how to learn in a way that is acceptable to an arbiter. Learning how to learn? If one does not know how to learn, how can one learn how to learn, if one does not know how to learn? Or even, THAT one does not know how to learn. How does one learn that they do not know how to learn?
     The question is, though, if these two systems are so different, are we really talking about the same subject here? I have heard it said that people do not learn at school - learn by doing - etc. etc. - but I don't necessarily think I can take that claim at face value. I think it's more a matter of degree as to what they are learning. Sure there are boring teachers and boring subjects, but you still pick up facts along the way -> and it just so happens that some of those facts are important. Now this is obviously very different from the higher level learning that is so often sought, and is not taught. The thing is, such higher level learning can not be taught. It is experienced. I have heard it said that the highest level of learning only happens after one experiences a life crisis. (I'd put a link here too, but I don't know to what so I'll make it blue. It should also be taken into account that I am colorblind, and that this may very well not be blue, defeating the purpose.) There is a distinction, I think, that needs to be made between Knowledge and Wisdom, and I'm not even sure if these are good words to use in order to describe this difference. Essentially, the schooling process is about accumulating knowledge, facts, and all those other good little figures and skills that help us preform better. It's a specialization sort of thing. How we do that is a matter of wisdom. It's akin to the saying that Life is the best of all teachers. But what life teaches is different from what school teaches. They aren't made to teach the same lessens. The lessons of life versus the lessons of specialized skills.
     After taking this detour, let's get back to Blogging and linking, because I am supposed to be immersing myself in it and learning about it - learning by doing. One is supposed to link to the work of experts right? I mean, any other link would just be to, potentially, some dolt with a computer. (I will not argue that I fall DECIDEDLY in the latter category) The thing is though, there are a LOT of dolts with computers. Whenever I am doing research and find a blog in my list of potential resources, I immediately close it and move on. The people with proper points are published. (How's that for alliteration?) This isn't entirely fair, as many people have perfectly valid views on things, but in terms of doing scholarly work it makes sense. Scholastic study is essentially an entrance into an argument. It is generally more civil than what you would think of as an argument, but an argument nonetheless. As such, it needs to operate within certain parameters and needs to be free from those who would make a mockery of it. Perhaps this work does need to embrace the new medium of the internet, and in many ways it already has, but before that can happen the medium needs to be controlled. Scholarly work is work done by scholars. This is simply how the word exists: it's an adjective formed from the root noun scholar to describe the manner in which a scholar does things. A woman who has read two books related to a subject is not a scholar and a man with a strong opinion is ALSO not a scholar. While there is certainly scholarly work that goes on in the Blogosphere, there is also a lot of non-scholarly work as well. "Sure," you might say, "but there is plenty of non-scholarly literature as well!" True, but all of that literature still has controls on it. There is a reason that Harry Potter fan-fiction is not published and exists almost exclusively on computers and the internet. It is, quite frankly, not very good and never stands a chance of getting published. The internet, however, doesn't care if something is good - it simply needs to exist to be integrated.
     This, I guess, brings me to the big question, and my biggest beef with blogging; Why is it so culturally important for everyone to be so connected? Why is more people and more opinions better? All of this information that exists creates a culture of 'whatever' right? Information overloads, the importance of choice, the inherent loneliness... Why is all of this a good thing? Progress? That is a very subjective term. Freedom? Freedom to do what? Nothing. Justice? Justice is only an arbitrary social construct. It gives us enjoyment? The best option so far, but why is individual enjoyment so important?

     Why on earth is the individual so important? Why, when there is so much more that is important, do we care about ourselves? If anyone has an answer, please let me know.