Merging This and That and the Subsequent Disappearance of Binaries and Awakening of True Educational Potential

The drama of computing? Really? Yes. Surprizingly, Aristotle's "Poetics" shares quite a bit
with human-computer activities. Image courtesy of "Design History Mashup"

While discussing the essential causes of human-computer activity (which, given some changes in the drama of computing since the early 1990s, I would like to rephrase [if I may be so bold] as human-computer interactivity) it becomes apparent that dissolving binaries (be it performance/audience, computer/user, creator/consumer, etc.) and increasing sensory experience and involvement are critical ideas for dramas of stage and screen (computer screen here, which interestingly enough has also become the stage for other dramatic spectacles; both actively created and passively consumed).

A simple line, but significant nonetheless, Laurel explains theatre directors and video game designers were hoping to "dissolve the boundaries between actors and audience by placing both in the same space" (565). This blew my mind for a number of reasons. The drama of everyday life.

The internet is everywhere (physical space, hyperspace, meta-digital-everywhereness).

Right?

Yet, the binaries persist.

We strive for an educational paradigm that emphasizes creativity and engagement, but persist in an infinitely furcated (sort of the precise antithesis of the interdisciplinary project promoted by forward-thinking educators) and purposefully rigid context. Games ≠ education. Teacher ≠ student. Learner ≠ learned. Actor ≠ audience. Viewer ≠ creator.

It's all quite simple.

Right?

Well, in a word, no.

In two words, HELL NO!

While physical boundaries blur and (in many cases) dissolve altogether, conceptual boundaries remain. The comfort and familiarity of binary distinction is powerfully entrenched in many sociocultural spheres. You must be either this or that. 'Tis impossible to simultaneously be this and that. But why? Theories abound...restrictive semantics, power dynamics, conceptual indoctrination, among other ideological conspiracies. In effort to preserve some semblance of coherence and prevent complete unravelling of this intellectual thread, the point is this: educators must find better solvents to dissolve binaries in order to form a more comprehensive educational solution.

To realize the fullness of education (and life for that matter) we all must embrace the connectivity rather than emphasize outmoded, rigid, unevolving distinctions. Games can be educational (some times, maybe not all of the time, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try). The viewer can simultaneously create; we're no longer passive sponges, absorbing content (which causes one to wonder if we ever really were. after all, haven't viewers/readers/listeners always processed, deconstructed, and reconstructed content in order to create meaning?), but are interactive viewerators -- intimately involved in the creation and dissemination of ideas, knowledge, etc. This is most visible in the digital realm, but I argue for its full realization in the (here's where my idealistic adjectives kick in) dynamic world of education. Why can't students be teachers and teachers students? Involve everyone in the cycle of learning-teaching-learning. We all (re)create everywhere, all the time. Embrace it.

"Bundled, Buried and Behind Closed Doors: The Physical Underbelly of the Internet" a recent addition to the fantastic content at Brain Pickings (which, if you're not already familiar, check it out -- absolutely fantastic stuff that covers a wide array of interests [e.g. literature, science, technology, food, culture, music, art, health -- really a dream site for those with multidisciplinary inclinations]. be sure to read their witty and insightful "About" page)

Not entirely sure how all this connects? Flip to page 407 of The New Media Reader for some semblance of an explanation. Ramblings courtesy of my caffeinated mind.

note: originally composed on thursday, 9 november 2011 @ 3:51pm. final and successful clicking of looming blue "Publish" button @ 6:32pm, sunday, 13 november 2011. sincere apologies from an absentminded author. here's another brain pickings gem as a prize for your patience (sneak preview: "The great thing about machines is they do what they’re told.")

Deep Interconnection, Intercomparison and Re-use

As creative and insightful as this title may be, I cannot make any authorial claims to its origin. Although, its inclusion here is the direct result of my associative wanderings (and wonderings) after reading Nelson. Wholly inspired by the man's vision to create (while simultaneously non-creating [at least not in a rigid, inflexible, nonadaptive sense]) structural changes in the arrangement of ideas and things with the expressed aim of accomplishing "rather complicated things in clear and simple ways" (134), I set out to learn more about Nelson's vision. Where (and to what depths) has Nelson's automatic personal filing system gone since the mid 1960s?

Enter Project Xandadu and the (surprisingly 1990's looking) homepage of Theodor Holm Nelson PhD. I won't go into a long discussion of the content (largely due to time constraints and my current "uncertainty about system design"), but rather use this as an entry-point and encourage you to explore.

"My designs for radically different on-line documents go to the nature of writing and interconnection.  The Web simulates paper, locking us to the obsolete, adding blind 1-way jumps to paper simulation.  I fight still for a world of radically different electronic documents, with flying pieces, visible side-by-side connections, connection of content to origins, and unbreaking links." So reads the footnote on Ted Nelson's homepage.

Stumbling narrative segue...Nelson identifies three obstacles to the realization of the dream file [which really isn't "the" dream file; not a singular entity, but rather a concept with infinite iterations that can and should be created and reshaped as necessary, constantly evolving, adapting to fit the immediate needs of the user, all the while aware of and connected to previous iterations. sort of a Hansel and Gretel breadcrumb trail -- leading the user back not to one point of origin, but all points of origin and departure. how cool!]: (1)high cost, (2)little sense of need, and (3)uncertainty about system design. But we may wish to also add language to this list of obstacles. Certainly not a new concept (we've been discussing the limitations of language -- attempts to describe new visions are bound my descriptive communicative technologies [i.e. language] of the present; it is an endless challenge to accurately describe something (tangible or otherwise) that does not yet exist; lacking a suitable contemporary analogy, the visionary is required to find adequate proxies or invent new vocabulary. both clearly have their limitations), but this notion of language, vocabulary, and vision are significant.

Hypertext. A clearly identifiable concept. Heck, I've already employed hypertext in this post. But, Nelson's (really the original) concept of hypertext goes far beyond our use of the term and idea. Where does this leave us? How are we to reconceptualize/redefine hypertext when it already has an agreed upon meaning and application. Sure we have hypertext. It moves us from here to there with the click of the trackpad (or mouse). But is that it? What about Bush's associative trails (which Nelson seems fond of -- even if Nelson's associative trails are less footpaths and more of superhighways)? Moving one direction isn't nearly enough for Nelson. If the popular definition of hypertext is already identified with one specific concept (although Nelson clearly could claim precedence -- and he sort of is; refusing to abide by the contemporary linguistic and conceptual limitations), what might we call this broader vision? If we are really seeking a system that allows us to endlessly create, adjust, and remove entries, lists, and links, and for manipulating the sequence relation (138), do we need a better term? concept? metaphor?

Nelson envisioned an infinitely adaptable and user-friendly (I cannot help but think about the goals and goods of the late, great Steve Jobs) system that was both generalizeable and specializeable. How can this be? Are they not mutually exclusive? Can they coexist? If I may be so bold, I would argue that they are co-evolving concepts. Increasing the scale of one allows increases in the scale of the other. Static and dynamic all at once. So too are we and all that surrounds us.

Systems of Self Perpetuation

Building upon a few of my comments from our last session as well as my previous (and somewhat) unfinished post about Bacon, Hughes, V.Bush and the [perceived] promises of technoscience, I hope to better develop some of my rushed (i.e. slightly incoherent) thoughts. Although perhaps still in inchoate

First a few words about technological momentum and why it is (so I argue) an important concept to keep in the back of our minds as we unpack the digital treasure chest and determine what (e.g. theories, applications, ideologies, paradigms, pedagogies, etc.) is useful and maybe what is problematic. Hughes works to enmesh the technical and the social (or technology and society if you prefer). Not necessarily co-evolution in its strictest sense, but certainly akin to the concept, technological momentum really stress the factor of time. In short, Hughes argues that when a technology is new/young/novel/etc., deliberate control over its use and scope is possible (and largely desirable) and enacted by society. However as a technology matures/integrates/normalizes/etc., it is increasingly enmeshed in the society/social context where it was created. Moreover, when technology become socialized (i.e. indecipherable from [arguably] critical to the construction and definition of the social context) its own deterministic force takes hold. In short, over time the technology grows increasing important to the society that created it. On flipside, society becomes more dependent upon the technology that it is less able to shape/mold/control because it has taken on a certain degree of autonomy (even if only in a socially constructed sense). The Matrix anyone?

Reading Sengupta and Sisario's piece from yesterday's (which is no longer yesterday, but now 5 days ago -- but for the sake of authorial transparency and a illustration of my rhizomatic network of meta cognition, "yesterday" it shall remain) NYT -- "Facebook as Tastemaker" -- my thoughts are quickly drawn into contemplation of technological momentum. Sure Facebook is relatively new (I suppose this term itself needs some defining -- when does a technology become enmeshed in society? is there a time frame? can we make clear distinctions between the old and new? well, if i may answer for hughes, i believe he would simply state that it is all contingent upon context. not just an apparent philosophical copout,  this explanation reiterates how closely the social and technical become overtime. does society shape facebook? does facebook shape society? umm...ponder that for a moment)

Claire Potter (of Tenured Radical) offers another contemplative look at the problem--technoscience fix--new (maybe different) problem cycle. We seem fixated with the idea that we can invent our way out of hard work (generally speaking -- the idea that science and technology [or technoscience if you like] can [and perhaps should] work to improve our standard of living; better living through technology; reifying the concept of progress). As Potter points out, every great invention/innovation/technological change is accompanied by a series of challenge. Work streamlining and productivity technologies, well now we can do more work. Great. The conversation then quickly moves into management of new technologies (and there associated and oft unexpected complications -- similar to our in-class discussion about data management), which seems to inevitably lead to new technologies. A fix for the fix. Will the cycle ever end? Can it (non-catastrophically) end? I suppose it is one thing on in an academic workload setting, but something entirely different in the inner chamber of the military-industrial complex.

Granted this hasn't discussed Wiener and Licklider to any great extent (at least not by name, don't worry, their both in the earlier portion of the post), but wait...it all flows together within the stream of my thoughts.

Segue...my STS colleague (Tim Jennings) recently presented a fascinating paper about human biological enhancement (e.g. cyborgs) and the contemporary definition (or work to define) the human-technology relationship. Really interesting stuff. Not entirely Wiener/Licklider, but definitely relevant to our forthcoming (I assume at least that folks will have lots to say) discussions about cybernetics. Tim's paper builds on Bruno Latour, Donna Haraway, Andy Clark, etc -- teasing out the epistemological and discursive consequences of many normative assumptions about human-technology relationship, hybridity, etc. That said, since it is a work in progress, I am reluctant to distribute the paper here. If you are interested in learning more, let me know and I can put you in contact with Tim.

A Worke Unfinished

Or perhaps more appropriately, never possibly finished.

Allow me to explain. In 1626-ish (there's some discrepancy) Sir Francis Bacon (father of empiricism and the now common scientific method) posthumously published his grand scientific utopian vision -- The New Atlantis. Considering that the piece swiftly arrives at a somewhat abrupt end (there's dialogue about its grand completeness) and his utopian vision had yet to come into being, Bacon rather appropriately tacked on the subtitle -- A Worke Unfinished.

In brief, Bacon's scientific utopia describes a society centered on a specialized, state-funded research institution (i.e. Salomon’s House) that in many ways parallels (somewhat eerily) the modern research university. Now, Bacon was a strongly believed that science and technology could and undoubtedly should be harnessed to benefit mankind.  The research fellows at his utopian Saloman's House engage rather narrow-mindedly pursue of scientific knowledge in effort to increase man's control over nature while also advancing the comfort and convenience of humanity (i.e. increasing quality of life). Placing little currency in theoretical pursuits, Bacon advocates the advancement of science as a means to practical ends. In other words, what can science do for me/us/humanity.

Now, I certainly don't wish to paint Vannevar Bush as a proponent of 20th century Baconian vision. That said, it seems wise to pause for a moment and consider the influence of the Baconian paradigm (and subsequently enriched by various other scientific minds) on our 20th/21st century approach to technology and science.  Allow me to mention that I am enamored with V. Bush and am fascinated by his foresight and calls to action. However, much of what V. Bush is advocating requires a certain degree of engaged conscientiousness of behalf of the actor. Search for the means of expanding the powers/capabilities of human knowledge, need not necessarily (but undoubtedly should) involve a strong moral calculus.

Elaborating on this concept of unfinished-ness, I wonder if the project will ever be (or can ever be) finished. Sure technology and science have the potential to improve human life, but there is a whole lot of baggage that comes along. What of the social obligations? Not to mention the moral questions. I routinely grapple with ideologies and general cultural investment  in the techoscience fix (or, more strongly, savior). But, on the other had, I am captivated by technological and scientific innovations. Ah, the cognitive dissonance. What is science and/or technology without morally-cognizant actors? Technoscience run amuck might seem the stuff of science fiction, but as V. Bush emphatically reminds us, science has the capacity for the grim as well as the grand. To be frank, Science doesn't care which it accomplishes. But the scientists (and end-users) must.

Perhaps most pertinently, what is our contemporary "common cause" (to invoke some of V. Bush's terminology)? In this age of culturally self-perpetuating competitive infrastructure (to be fair, this notion of inherent and insurmountable competition is sort of a recurring historical theme), are "we" even capable of problematizing and conceptualizing (let alone working) commonly? What hub centers us all? Climate change? Economic collapse? Hunger? Conflict? We've all witnessed the ideologically unifying and solution-oriented (i.e. polarizing -- just in case the sarcasm doesn't come through clearly) power of these issues. But, I digress (slightly, all these thoughts and fragments are connected in my rhizomatic memex). To bring it back, full-circle to V. Bush, I am generally curious about the (perhaps unacknowledged) technological momentum (to borrow from T. Hughes) involved in many of our

Keeping in line with Bacon,

[The rest was not perfected.]

End.