Although Professor Dean said that she believed the second chapter to be more interesting than the first, I found a few things in the first chapter quite intriguing. First and foremost, I found her dissection of information to be interesting (if a bit hard to decipher). I have in my notes that we discussed how we judge the merit of information based judged on it's content. While this is true in some mediums, I don't think it is true in all. For example, in the beginning of class today we talked about how we thought that Terranova was a bit long winded and it obscured her point. In this case, the transmission of information (Terranova's thoughts) is being obscured by noise (all the bs that we're too dumb to understand). Just an interesting point I wanted to make....
Another thing we talked about was how the representation of an object or ideal does it an injustice. While I believe this to be true, it may be a little over the top. As of this point in time, we have no way of communicating the intrinsic meaning of an object to another human being. As such, there is NO way in which we can do an object justice via communication. Also, this belief assumes that an object has some sort of unspoken and unrepresentable meaning behind it. Communicating the subjective truth that a book is pieces of paper bound together, with each page containing written communication is not doing the object an "injustice". Maybe I'm getting her point wrong, but as far as I'm concerned that was a passable representation of a book.
I found today's discussion in class to be very interesting. In particular I found it interesting because as we discussed theory and our opinions, I discovered that many of my own opinions were in line with those of Lainer. In my previous blogs I had trashed his book as hippie nonense, but in the context of the more technology-worshiping Tiziana Terranova, Lainer's rambling seem to make sense.
In particular, when Terranova said that technology is affecting the way that we see time/space/our social lives, I could not help but get offended. Like Lainer said, the internet is a HUMAN construction, and therefore it is based around our lives. It does not dictate it. Yes, there are people who may stay up all night and interact with people from across the globe via the internet, but the fact of the matter is that by doing that they are ostracizing themselves from their own non-virtual reality. Computers and the internet are ways of making our own lives easier, not to complicate them and to change our perceptions of time. The sun still rises and sets, our work days are from 9-5 in our own time. There is no universal clock based on the fact that the internet is timeless.
And that's all I got.
Really interesting--and provocative. Makes me wonder if your next post will be "People like Terranova are responsible for Skynet."
ReplyDeleteYou and I are on the same side with respect to Swatch-time. But we get there in different ways. I want to convince you not that the internet dictates human lives but that it, together with a wide of array of technologies, determine what human lives are (I recognize that I may not ever convince you of this, but I will try).
Start with reproductive technologies (consider ultra-sound images of fetuses that invest parents with a sense of wonder at their unborn child). Consider all the medical technologies (pharmaceuticals for attention, mood, sleep) that let us live our lives (not to mention corporate agriculture, transportation networks, microwaveable popcorn). Think of your relations to other people--how you keep connected, what kind of connections you have, who seems alive and present to you and how. What matters to you and how do you? It's likely that what matters and how you know came to you technologically (through mediated assemblages).
When I was in college, I called my parents from a pay phone in the library once a week. When I traveled in Europe and the USSR after college, I sent them a postcard every few weeks and called once or twice. In contrast, my kids and I text each other minimally once a day, often more than that. The experience of freedom seems to me to be pretty different. What do you think? If I am on the right track here, then the experience of being human is not independent of the technologies that make us who we are.
I liked your point about communication between people that may have not been possible without the technology. Technology, in a sense, has brought us closer to the people with whom we want to communicate. In that way we are reliant on it, but only to maintain our current system. Even without the technology, it was possible to communicate with your parents. However I do see your point. As someone who is currently in a long distance relationship that is 100% reliant on texting, phone conversations and skype, it's hard to dispute it.
ReplyDeleteThe long distance relationship phenomenon is interesting (if challenging). For about a year, I was in a long distance relationship with someone in England (I was in NYC). We wrote letters and postcards. For about 6-8 months, we wrote physical letters every day. We ended up mailing all sorts of things--coasters (beer mats), labels, cans, tubes, anything to see if the US and UK postal services would deliver it. I think one of the differences about this and skype/texting is the lack of immediacy. A lot got filled in with words and fantasy--and waiting for the mail to be delivered. I think it was much less 'real life' than a long distance relationship probably is today.
ReplyDeleteProfessor Dean, I am confused with the point you are trying to make. Are you saying that this new technology we are involved with is good or bad? I always text my parents as well. It almost is like I'm still close to them even though I am 6 hours away. Between constant text communications to facebook interactions and video chatting it as if we are still under the same roof. And in martins case his relationship is realistic because they are always in communication due to these new technological advancements. Even if she is halfway around the world its as if they are still in the same room. I beleive this technology helps people communicate much more than they ever would be before. The simplicity of pushing one button and being with someone far away keeps people in the lives of who they would like to unlike every before.
ReplyDeleteRyan--I'm not saying it's good or bad. I'm just pointing out that technologies help make us who we are. The sorts of people we are and become, the ways we experience our relationships, are technologically mediated. Another way to think about it: in any interaction, there is an element of the unsaid, the felt, the expected, the feared. These elements can take on different flavors and intensities depending on all sorts of different features of their settings.
ReplyDeleteyou're not a bad writer and you make some interesting point but you probably should post more. seems like that is what your professor wants.
ReplyDelete