[The following has been quoted from "what's the connection?"]:

Most postmodern fiction, and certainly hypertext, is characterized by self-referentiality. Therefore, when one quotes a hypertext, (Quote? *shock* *horror* Isn't it all part of the same grand text anyway?) one effectively acquires both a showcase and a commentary on said hypertext, two for the price of one....

This project could not have been conceived on any platform except the World Wide Web. (Well, that is not precisely accurate. A meticulously engineered nootropic may have worked as well, although I have neither the time nor the inclination to devote myself to such a project. The beta testing period would take horrendeously long too, although it would admittedly turn out to be a highly enjoyable experience.)

The reason for this has less to do with the versatility offered by HTML (which, for the uninitiated, is actually a contradiction in terms) since an alternative multimedia authoring system such as Director may well have been chosen. No, the reason for preferring the World Wide Web is the concept of the holism of the text of human civilization.

I believe in hyperreality, that is, the existence of semantic connections between every concept that we talk, write or think about. This consciousness transcends people, books, and as far as we know, even human cognition. The closest human civilization has ever come to emulating hyperreality has been with the World Wide Web, and although it contains more pictures of people's pets than worthwhile notions, it makes its point. It's possible to get from one idea to an associated idea fairly instantaneously, without having to wrestle with categories. The Internet is the best example of a decentralized source of information we have implemented so far, and for that very reason, 'what's the connection?' could not have existed on any other medium. Its thesis would have contradicted its environment, and for all we know, it might have chosen to self-destruct.

The reason for this has little to do with the versatility offered by HTML (which, for the uninitiated, is actually a contradiction in terms) since an alternative multimedia authoring system such as Director may well have been chosen. No, the reason for preferring the World Wide Web is the concept of the holism of the text of human civilization.

Drawing the line between discovery and invention may, at times, appear to be difficult or perhaps even impossible. Keeping this in mind, let us define hyperconsciousness, a term denoting the totality of all semantic connections, however obscure or far-fetched, between every concept that we talk, write or think about. This consciousness transcends people, books, and as far as we know, even human cognition. The closest human civilization has ever come to emulating hyperconsciousness has been with the World Wide Web, and although the Web contains more pictures of people's pets than worthwhile notions, it makes its point. It's possible to get from one idea to an associated idea fairly instantaneously, without having to wrestle with categories. The Internet is the best example of a decentralized source of information we have implemented so far, and for that very reason, 'what's the connection?' could not have existed on any other medium. Its thesis would have contradicted its environment, and for all we know, it might have chosen to self-destruct.

However, it hasn't, and I guess we can all be glad that you're still reading the text rather than suffering from severe flesh burns.