Critical Incidents

In response to Jon's latest Blog Entry:

1: He describes the context of a given area of practice as it was before the 'critical incident';

I'm a little fuzzy here as I'm taking the position that prior to Hypercard this 'given area of practice' didn't exist. Yes there were disparate pockets of research going on (There were other applications with similar metaphors prior to Hypercard but these were in the main research projects), yes we had computer games, software and 'art' but did we really have Hypermedia/Multimedia/Interactive Multimedia/Interactive Media?
Am I wrong?

2. He then goes on to describe the critical incident;

The Bundling of Hypercard for free.

3. He provides a brief analysis of what changes occurred because of the 'critical incident'.

Creatives, programmers, educators, curiosity seekers, early adopters, 'ordinary' people et al could now create interactive content via an interface that did not seek to limit the use of the technology behind it. Since Hypercard had no hard intended purpose, the reality was that it offered a glimpse into the use of computer technology to creatively construct ways of communicating, entertaining, educating, amusing, puzzling with virtually no walls. You didn't need to be a computer scientist - or even an artist per se. You could create interesting 'toys', interactive flights of fancy or content with more direct purpose. We 'ordinary people' started to question notions of truth, knowledge, media, author, creator, interaction. . . .
I need help here to prevent my spectacles taking on a rosey tint.

4. He even drops in some 'theoretical frameworks' that might help us understand the nature of the changes occurring ('relativism' vs 'correspondence theories of truth', not to mention the essentially ideological campaign to protect the status quo - an example of a Marxist critique).

Maybe I'm going to argue against TD? (Once I get the Williams book). some diffusion of innovation? I'm definitely intrigued by Gladwell - it fits in with what I already believed back then - or am I utilising what fits into what I already believe?
Just as there are no truths any more we cannot talk about 'change' any more as some kind of 'thing' that happens. In many ways change never occurs in a way that has any meaning to our species. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer. Control is always one way. Dissenters are persecuted. Difference is eradicated or assimilated.
yet we continue to allow it. No change. The technology, the art, the literature, the theories are all the latest packaging for the same cereal we bought last week - only its now called "New" Creative Media Bites - now with added Mcluhan.
To enslave a man you don't have to tie him up, take away his rights or imprison him. You just need to make him believe that he is free.
Maybe change is one of those things where you have to live for a billions years to notice? Or you have to be a singularity?