Our names become "handles" to steer through labrynths little plastic mice our guides, words are weapons injurying all but killing no one, images are emotion for a deadpan typist whose "rofl" only exists in a stream. If we are entering a new dimension where is the depth that we are imagining?
-
Re: Communication and Connection through the Looking Glass
Mon, April 5, 2004 - 3:03 PMKatie I dont think this "place" has any dimensions. i think we need to wonder (not assuming the worst, though) what kinds of adaptations our culture, and we as its members, are going through such that we can communicate like this, sustain an idea of something like this, commit and follow through w/ something like this.
it used to be that these kinds of chats and communities were a supplement--they accompanied but didnt take the place of real life.
in other dimensions, i'm thinking medical, advanced physics, military... there is no "experience" left -- there is only a representation, model, mediation. We know so much w/o having seen it, felt it, or touched it. And that's all in the name of knowledge; hooray for knowledge (really).
but if we are the knowledge? if we are the contacts not contacted, the people not seen, the individuals neither touched nor felt? what then? surely our civilization is based on the kinds of knowledge that require some direct human experience as a foundation?
there is a positive and plausible idea here: that mediation (e.g. tribe) can build new arrangements, collectives, principles, alliances, precisely because it demands that we communicate if anything is to happen. and it is only through communication that statements can be challenged and subverted, edited or replaced.... -
-
Re: Communication and Connection through the Looking Glass
Tue, April 6, 2004 - 6:38 AMAdrian,
I like to start from what I know before I embark upon what I don't. The most salient aspect of this new work is its asynchronicity.
Let me explain. A la Derrida, the script has residual value. Unlike speech, whose prodigy is evanescent and temporary unless captured on tape or film, the script lives for all time especially in cyberspace. Because of this, conversations can cross time boundaries and even turn back upon themselves.
Second, written communication is mediated by one's world, by one's horizon. To write is to bring this horizon into expressivity....
Got to go. job calls.
Will continue. All comments are welcome.
Gilton -
-
Re: Communication and Connection through the Looking Glass
Tue, April 6, 2004 - 4:50 PMGilton
yes, and so the trace replaces its author... we are only texts? Derrida tore Austin apart and I cant agree w/ his take that all speech is writing. He misses the action system in communication and loses himself in representation and context.
This gets interesting if we do want to insist that communication is an action system, one priveleged in the production of meaningful relations... Then we have to look at how well asynch comm tchnologies will bind persons to shared activities and to each other.
if i were derridean i'd say text = information and get it over with. cybernetics and machine talk.
we're all authors here, so that's not good enough.
there's an interesting take in niklas luhmann: communication and interaction systems are distinct. systems that handle communication dissemination are distinct from systems that handle interpersonal interactions. SSoftware is both.... -
-
Re: Communication and Connection through the Looking Glass
Wed, April 7, 2004 - 6:30 AMAdrian,
your critque is valid. Starting from zero, I am looking at only the >MS-DOS prompt at the time where text is only possible. We can then move to the next possibility: technology where communicants can see each other in real time over the Internet. Here, we can bring in the rest of the sensorium into our communications. What is interesting, and I have given this some thought, is the manner in which this interface is developed. Do we stay with talking heads? Perhaps, a screen of many talking heads? Can we three-dimensionalize it and have talking heads along a wall? Something Zbigniew said along back that stayed with me was this idea that if we keep the technology open, possibilities will develop out of whatever people decide to do. So you are correct: we are all authors. I was attempting to establish a point zero: McLuhansques if you will. Something we could build upon.
Got to go.
Gilton
P.S. I need to noodle this Luhmann distinction: "systems that handle communication dissemination are distinct from systems that handle interpersonal interactions." Does not the Internet, at least this 'tribe-thing' we are working with, bring the two together? -
-
Re: Communication and Connection through the Looking Glass
Wed, April 7, 2004 - 12:44 PMgoffman has a term he uses to describe the kind of interaction that a couple mechanics might have while working on an engine: "open conversation." They'll throw statements out every once in a while but not necessarily follow a focused thread, and often not even look at each other... Since he's into the framing of interaction episodes (opening greeting, the talk itself, the closing), and all talk for him is episodic like that (bounded in time), these comm systems give us a version i think of "open conversation."
But to call it conversation would be to say it's an interaction. And since we're not face to face i think it's more and less than that... Tribe is a writing system, and a dissemination system (also an archive), and it's value is in precisely the fact that we dont have to be co-present to "interact."
so it's not writing, it's not interaction, but a mix of each.
i think these systems might succeed or fail based in part on how well they choose which of the two (communication or interaction) they emphasize. Tribe is more interaction oriented -- you have to participate to get anything out of it. Friendster is more communication based: you set your profile up and run searches... (i'm simplifying).
Ryze struggled in part i think coz it invites interaction (guestbook entries) but downplays discussions; you dont get community when people are messaging each other directly and personally.
future interfaces would want to hew to the same two axes and either emphasize the datamining, archiving, writing (communication) practices, or the near synchronous, participatory, interactive practices...
unless of course somebody comes along and invents something completely different! -
-
Re: Communication and Connection through the Looking Glass
Fri, April 9, 2004 - 6:38 AMSo, there is some place between communication and interaction where social software can thrive? And yes, we do not have to be co-present in order to continue the thread. Your idea about "open conversation" I find intriguing. Tribe is a kind of open conversation. Open in many senses. In one sense, anyone can contribute who sees it. In another sense, those who are contributing have shared certain views, comments, attitudes, which makes other talk unnecessary, like the mechanic talk. So I have gotten to "achronicity" of SS, its interaction/communication dynamic, and the possibility for incorporating all the technologies the Internet subsumes under it.
Gilton -
-
Re: Communication and Connection through the Looking Glass
Fri, April 9, 2004 - 2:26 PMLuhmann makes the point that any mediation of interaction increases the likelihood of misunderstanding/miscommunication. I suppose that's one price for being able to communicate while not having to be present for face to face interaction.
but i do wonder whether there's another dimension of communication--and this is the one habermas quite convincingly bangs on over and over--a binding between subjects that has little to do with the content of interaction but a lot to do w/ meta communicative attributes: the implicit agreements between two people that are required for any linguistic exchange to occur. These agreements pretty much create trust, sincerity, honesty, follow through, etc... between people.
as goffman and habermas both point out in their use of speech act theory, it's not that two people have to agree *with* what is said. it's that they have to agree *on* what is said.
so much of linguistic exchange, it would seem, has little to do w/ contents of expression and a lot do w/ the interaction.
and if binding is critical to society, a glue of sorts made of values, language, physical presence and performance, etc... do weak ties weaken society?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Communication and Connection through the Looking Glass
Mon, April 5, 2004 - 4:00 PMEveryone here is probably already familiar with it, but as additional thought fodder I'll toss out Julian Dibbell's "A Rape in Cyberspace." Article is ca. 1993, but the process of creating (and destroying) a functioning social group online still brings up many of the same issues...
www.juliandibbell.com/texts/b..._vv.html
