Comments? Contributions? Write to Serchan Efi Mira.
Claudia wrote,> Would you mind expanding on your statement: > > In connection with Claudia's proposal to write > something 'on the internet,' this might be a relevant point. > > Tell me a little more about the "point" you are making. > I don't think I got it out of this mail. > Thanks. > At this point I am planning on writing a piece on creating an online > learning community and a learning community hub or "Matrix." > I am working on the abstract and title this weekend.I dont know how far back the archives go at [onelist], but I have more than once raised the question of bringing the learning-center concepts and vocabulary together with those of internet-working.But thank you for asking. My axes are never so well ground as when someone else tests them ;-), so here are my premises: 1. Communication is a process which can be recognized only after the fact: if and only if someone 'gets' an idea they didnt have before is it useful to say communication has occurred. (N.B. This is not to say that intuition, revelation, ESP etc can not also lead to getting ideas.)
2. The 'rate of time' in f2f and small groups is much faster than in email and CMC. The lapse between 'fact' and 'after the fact' is very much smaller -- so much so that we are not aware of it and believe that 'normal' consciousness occurs in 'real time.' (Cf kmm050)
3. CMC has had two related effects: first, it reveals our casual vocabulary (by which almost anything that involves a human actor is 'communications,' anything that involves a machine is 'technology,' and anything that is not tangible is 'information') to be confusing if not altogether useless; second, it provides an alternative perspective by which we can improve our understanding of these and other concepts. (For instance, we see that these are not 'related effects,' but one and the same.)
-------------
CLL-LCC has been almost entirely focussed on f2f relations -- family, adult-child, teacher-student, and so on. At the same time, it has been conducted almost entirely by CMC, as if we are 'really' f2f, and every one communicates (is understood and able to understand) in the same way as father or mother or guide communicates with scion, neighbour, or apprentice. I think that ('about 1/3' of the way towards an online book on the merits of autodidactics as a model for broader social organization) to now contemplate a chapter to show "how they [computers] can be used to enhance community and democracy, rather than encapture and isolate individuals," reflects this focus.Specifically, it misses the relativistic forest for the absolute trees. Of course, it seems to say, we know how to use these things for the greater good, but others have to be shown -- even tho if they are reading the book they surely see the power of CMC to un-isolate individuals and bring them together in a major collaborative effort to create a 'container' for everyone's knowledge and experience. At the same time, the content is aimed exactly against this kind of paternalism as it is measured out in schools and elsewhere -- and so long as the irony is unseen, one has to wonder which message the reader will get.
Is this a 'text' for children, who have learned to accept assignments and to crank out reviews of selected chapters in 200 words? Or is it a 'guide' for parents, who have already seen enough confusion in 'free compulsory education' to be thinking about alternatives? But why should there be a difference betweeen these two perspectives? What does drawing (or rather, covertly letting stand) a distinction between container and content, style and message, have to do with autodidactics?
-------
Let's call that the first point under #3: 'casual' vocabulary reflects Aristotle's 'unexamined life,' and if our aim is to encourage life- examination (what else can auto-didactics be?), we should do so consistently.The second point is that in CMC such arbitrary distinctions (inconsistencies) as container/content are difficult to sustain, once one starts to *measure communication instead of assuming it. Goodness knows, Net bandwidth is full to overflowing with people saying one thing (e.g. 'lets all get together...') but acting in another ('and do what I say!') -- but the results are pretty meagre, arent they? Saying they are 'subscribed' to a list but reading the mail only if its less than one page, or from someone they 'like'? Saying they 'respond' but actually just grinding an axe? ;-)
Otoh, isnt language a tool worth learning to use well? Isnt it something anyone can learn to use better if there are models available to them? Isnt one of the stronger points for 'organized' ed that pupils (and teachers!) learn different ways to express themselves? If every HS parent could relate to hyr child in the same way we relate to one another online -- that is, as individuals with our own interests and emphases and biasses and preconceptions and expectations -- so that their lives together become something like a book (not a record, but to help _someone else_ understand what and how they are doing) and we become something like a community (not just a bunch of people but as _those who communicate_) -- wouldnt Rome be not only built but delivered in a gift box with pretty little ribbons on top?