Comments? Contributions? Write to Serchan.
> Why then linguists use as meta-god a philosopher? Probably because he > has defined rules of communication -- among which conciseness is > paramount -- they adopt each individually and thus re-inforce as a > convention. It would be odd for a linguist to impose her/hus rules on > others, thus it is easier to borrow them from a philosopher.Conciseness has a lot to be said for it ;-) - it's why I had a Chomsky quote handy in the first place. And your point about ingroup linguists vs outgroup philosopher is good: it really does seem to be difficult, once a group boundary has been recognized, to maintain the same kind of fluidity the members have before they 'identify' themselves. Identity -- of an individual, as well -- is a kind of fixity. But isnt that exactly one of the boundaries CMC dissolves? If, as I'm suggesting, we should (at least) be able to make 'conceptual' boundaries that work for us, is that one of them? When its as easy as pie to create in a day, a half-dozen email 'personas' (as far as anyone else can tell), can we fix that particular boundary?
To be clear: Im not saying, can one imagine some kind of software that would be a 'watchbird' on every keystroke, and report to some Owner that one had attempted to do thus-and-so. Of course one can, and it may not be that far from realisation, either (Working title: The Viral Economy). But *can *you *now use the tools that are available to sustain this? I dont think so -- on the grounds that it is not in use already -- but I may be wrong. (1)
> We are striving to define conventions of communication. Both the > absence and presence of Internet m&#o156;urs are amounting to an Internet > moral[ity].Alternatively:
> Perhaps wrongly, I feel that encouraging to communicate around our > discursive disagreements and avoiding a conversational agreement (since > if we agree it consequently just felt into public domain common-sense), > may result in a strong opposition based on Grice's rule of conciseness. > It requires bandwidth to communicate our disagreement and will be seen > as an attempt of dominance. Such perception is apparently referential to > the top, the listserv, but it is as well in reference to each other, > thus dissolving the top and bottom.Thanks for Grice! I didnt know of his rule, but it makes sense to me. If A has more resources to spend on sustaining disagreement, yes, B may easily read it as 'dominating' in Physical Life where resources are and always have been scarce ('controlled'). Now: does it pertain in Virtual Reality? How and why? Is there any 'dimension' to this space that imposes limits like scarcity does? As you say, we have yoked ourselves to an Up-Down hierarchy, but instead of saying, 'Up-Down is a limit because we said it was,' might we not say, 'We are limited by our failure of imagination'? (I understand 'dissolving' this way: even among those who are 'really' Down (relative to the overt, technically structured, Up), one tries on -- or buys into -- domination/ submission strategies where there is no 'reason' to. One tries to imitate the system itself. Is that what you mean?)
> Your reference to Chomsky defines my relation to you as soon as I would > start giving my own prefered references. That would require on my part, > not a reply, but a research. Who and what am I really citing in what I > just said to you?Touché! But you may note that I did not 'cite' in the sense of situating Chomsky's statements within his work, nor does my post derive from them. 'Prolegomenon' and 'epilogue' are more like captions to an illustration - so that a reader may get a glimse of what's afoot before / after plowing through the murky half-toned metaphors. ;-)
That one may not be 'really' expressing oneself, but borrowing from 'authorities,' is of course, not a new problem with CMC, and I doubt we will find an authoritative answer here. However, hopefully we may find clarification of the question: what is plagiarism/ copying/ infringement/ distortion/ 'fair use'/ 'fair comment' ? When the PL 'restraint' inherent in a reproduction being measurably different from the original is removed, what 'stops' you from pouring Grice down my throat, either verbatim or with judicious adjustment to the context -- or conversely, attributing your own ad-lib prose to 'Abdecker and Cowpies (1999)' as I did myself the other day? (Copies on request ;-))
Nothing cyberspacial, of course -- but the question is, Why? To what end would you do it? Yes, it would fit the Up-down scenario perfectly -- but it is that hegemonic view that I reject, that I believe you reject, that I trust in due course we shall learn that various others reject.
The key realisation for me was that time is the only dimension that comes closest to being a limit here, and I will (doubtless ;-)) elaborate on that sometime, but the essence is that although objective time ('clock-time') supports the hierarchy, subjective time is independent. When I say, 'take your time -- exquisitely,' it is that 'quis-' (quit, require, iniquitous) that Im suggesting one can step back out of. There is no demand that one reply as soon as possible to another's mail; no need to 'deal with' a fellow 'bottom-feeder' as if s/he is as 'disposable' as a 'task' -- except so far as it is imposed by the yoke/ clock one wears. On the contrary, one working by subjective time responds appropriately -- that is, to the 'Internet mores' of this relationship, so far as they have developed, and in expectation that they will develop further -- indeed, that the mores and the relation go along together as two logical levels.
Therefore:
If you think it is appropriate to quote Grice, I cannot tell you that 'it is
wrong,' that 'you are wrong,' or that it 'therefore defines' our relationship.
If I dont like it, I can say I dont like it. If you want to know why, I can
explain. If you explain why you are do it, I can respond to that. But
these conditions are exactly the 'regard' that constitutes a real relation!
Furthermore, they imply that we are able to respond on whatever 'level'
of exchange is appropriate to us -- which is to say, that we have as
much 'time' as the pursuit of understanding takes, rather than punching
out 'replies' because they're 'demanded' or because 'the list' 'deserves' it.
Again:
One of the clearest indicators of time is the degree to which a post is
edited. Is the subject line still relevant? Is the previous post excerpted or
quoted in full? There's no guarantee, but don't you find that a less-edited
post is more predictable, less interesting, less contributive to an
extended 'thread'? (If, of course, there are others to compare -- on some
lists, it becomes normative to quote everything in full, for instance.)
(2)
> Perhaps at the heart of the transfer of technology, is the question of > the medium of technology. What transfers technology: technology itself, > the science (techne) that allowed the technology, ... or the genuine > desire to learn and practice?Can you say what transfers the meaning of a text: the writing of the author or the understanding of the reader?
> If I recall, VITA has chosen to open DEVEL-L to volunteer to transfer the > right technology without theory. Does that transfer the right to > technology?Can there be 'right tech' without a right to use it'? It doesnt sound very sensible to me, but is that what you mean? > --Plato, "Gorgias", 395BC Can you give me a URL? :-) Btw, do you happen to have "Phaedrus" on hand?
(1) (A parallel:
Do you know whether colour copiers 'watermark' or
otherwise make identifiable every copy one makes? There are
rumours to this effect. At the same time as I wonder how one would
find out (who has the 'need to know'?), I have to admit it is a logical consequence of (publicly
available) high-res reproduction -- and is therefore very likely to be well
underway, and therefor one might be wise to assume they do exactly
that. But also, in that it suggests 'boundary-making capacity' far
beyond anything Ive seen or experienced, it also suggests 'one' is
almost obsolete... There is much more to be said, but if there is to be
an Internet morality, might it focus on that as a self-fulfilling prophecy?)
Back <--
(2) In this light, my earlier phrase, 'the use of one another' may be clear. In a mutually regarding relation, one of the finest functions one can provide another is time. Not the one-down, 'I can do that for you,' demeaning self-objectifying use of one's time (cf. denial), but the pacing, the scaling, the balancing of what-is-done with what-remains which one experiences by working in tandem -- with no technological enhancements or fixes needed. Computer mediation, in this one respect, works identically to f2f. Communication (again, not noise) is the real thing, however one does it!
Further:
If every solution has inherent problems, then '-ology' refers essentially to the trade-off of benefit for cost, which is (at least) the 'overhead' of including the 'techne' within one's present. If one's 'present' is defined by a tool, can the trade-off ever be positive? I think not -- one is 'in the hole' from the get-go, and with every 'improvement' can only sink deeper. But when one's present is defined by the presence of another, i.e. by an equal, then the 'basic boundary' (that which is to be 'enhanced') is sustained subjectively, and there is some chance of 'balancing the budget,' of controlling the objectification spiral. Compare what it means
If someone would like to utilize this concept to define the 'economy of scale' pragmatically, please feel free to do so.
<-- 0111