Lexia to Perplexia: Metaphor for Humanity?

Like others, I am trying to understand the method behind the madness in this creation. There were the four sections to the work, and I focused on the first, “The Process of Attachment.” This section frequently showed diagrams about the I-terminal, and I believe there was a human story behind all of the punctuation and technical vocabulary. One phrase said, “At the termin.all of hum.andity—possessed by a remotional attachment to terminals elsewhere” (Memmott). Does this mean we (humanity=hum.andity) are connected in a way determined by or similar to the technology that we use? The program froze on another screen (intentionally or not, I do not know), which said, among other things, “Cyborganic protocol is interimacy” (Memmott). This, also, seems to imply the merging of the cyber and organic worlds and the unique state of intimacy that arises from the combination. Also, grids showed up at various points, seeming to allude to the constructed underpinnings of the game/presentation going on. Another important symbol was an eye, which often led to new scenes, once clicked; does this say how it is actually human will that can still at least, in part, direct the processes of technology? If so, it would be commenting on the role of Manovich’s automation trait of new media and asserting that “human intentionality” (32) is at least partially involved in the technological process; symbolized through the eye, it had some power to direct the series of events, but not all power. Positive and negative signs surrounding the eye on one screen could have been about emotion or quantity. Really, the symbolism was tricky, although still interesting. A further comment: there were moving lines as well, which I am not sure if we were supposed to interact with, but they definitely added to the overwhelming hypermediacy and to the general “perplexia” of the situation.

Throughout all of these reflections, I am still curious to know what the point is. If it is trying to show the relation between human thought and computer commands or how they influence each other, I think that is very valid, but I could appreciate this piece a lot more if I knew more of what it was trying to prove or display.

The Non-Automatic Aspect of Automation

Automation, one of Manovich’s characteristics of new media, is very controversial nature. As he explains, “…human intentionality can be removed from the creative process, at least in part” (32). The very idea of having a machine do a human’s work is both liberating (freeing man from unnecessary work) and enslaving (forcing man’s dependence on machines). In either situation, the “thought processes” of man and machine become similar enough to the point that they can perform at least some functions in the same way, all of this leading to the thoughts that man is becoming mechanized and machines are approaching artificial intelligence. Is this increasingly blurred distinction problematic or a sign of commendable scientific progress? Manovich does not really delve into these implications, but we can look back to Vannevar Bush and Marshall McLuhan for such insights.

Vannevar Bush would argue favorably for media’s role in human development. He states, “[Man] has built a civilization so complex that he needs to mechanize his records more fully if he is to push his experiment to its logical conclusion and not just merely become bogged down part way there by overtaxing his limited memory” (Bush 47). Bush is very much about using technology to help society utilize its resources to meet its potential, as evidenced in his conceptual development on the memex, the predecessor to computerized information retrieval (now done through the Internet). This goes along with Marshall McLuhan’s idea of media as “extensions of man,” which seems to posit media as just another tool.

On the reverse side, the same idea of McLuhan’s can be seen as a contamination of the natural state of human existence. Bush expresses, “Our present languages are not especially adapted to this sort of mechanization… . It is strange that the inventors of universal languages have not seized upon the idea of producing one which better fitted the technique for transmitting and recording speech” (Bush 40). Bush is oblivious to the disturbing concept behind his statement. He is wondering why mechanized communication is not more prominent than natural communication. With automation, we definitely establish a connection between ourselves and machines. The danger lies in the depth of this connection; do we use machines as discreet tools or do we graft them to ourselves?

Whatever the result, there is no questioning the progress being made in automation all of the time. We are moving from “ ‘low-level’ automation…in which the computer user modifies or creates from scratch a media object using templates or single algorithms” (such as with blogger.com), to “ ‘high-level’ automation…which requires a computer to understand, to a certain degree, the meanings embedded in the objects being generated” (i.e. artificial intelligence) (Manovich 32). The latter is being manifested primarily in video games, a seemingly harmless application, but it is the very innocuous nature of this application that may blind us to the insidious infiltration of artificial intelligence into the way we play and think and then perhaps live. The one non-automatic aspect of automation should be our acceptance of it. We always need to question how technology is forming us; we need to be aware (or beware) of the dangers as well as the perhaps more apparent benefits.

“She died a famous woman denying/ her wounds / denying / her wounds came from the same source as her power.” –Adrienne Rich, “Power”

Who's Your Daddy? Authority Relations in Wikipedia

My focus here is on the relationship between the reader and the writer in works of cybertext and hypertext, with Wikipedia as my example.

As I mentioned in my first post on Wikipedia, this free on-line encyclopedia contains efficiency-conscious innovations in organizational and mechanical arenas, which makes it revolutionary among “great books” of compiled knowledge (i.e., libraries and encyclopedias) and for information retrieval in general. That explains the hypertextual aspect and advantages of its character, which is primarily about nodes and links (see Nelson, Bolter, and Landow).

However, Wikipedia is also a cybertext, meaning it “centers attention on the consumer, or user, of the text, as a more integrated figure” (Aarseth 1). It accomplishes this through its use of wiki software, which allows for a very interactive forum, through which almost anybody can add or edit articles, with only minimum intervention by a staff of volunteers.
The consequent merging of the reader-writer roles leads to the central controversy over the validity and worth of Wikipedia as a reference source; at the same time, these ambiguous roles are a defining aspect of what it is to be a cybertext, which is by definition ergodic, or reader-interactive, in form.

This ergodic nature is important in that it is seen to foster democracy through invoking the participation of the reader, in addition to the writer; in other words, cybertexts like Wikipedia are said to empower traditionally passive readers with a voice. At a basic level, a reader can, with hypertext, create new readings by selecting different links, thus giving them some power over the outcome (Bolter 6). The levels of participation increase as the author (or developer) loses more and more control over how the reader (or user) recreates the text (Aarseth 164). Wikipedia lies somewhere in the middle of this spectrum. The content of what users can add is not preset or just a matter of establishing links to preexisting material. There is real room for significant contributions to furthering the Wikipedia community’s knowledge on the given issue.

However, we must consider that “if the difference between author and reader has vanished or diminished…then the real author must be hiding somewhere else” (Aaresth 165). This hidden author is not so much an author, who creates information, but rather the hidden controls of censorship, which quiet information. In Wikipedia’s case, a large group of administrators is “privileged with the ability to prevent articles from being edited, delete articles, or block users from editing in accordance with community policy” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#Authors). Although I am not entirely aware of Wikipedia’s expulsion and rejection processes, scholar Espen Aarseth explains that, without digital civil right on networks, there is “only the judgment of the local network owners” (166). Even if there are now more regulations, they are more than likely not as stringent as those normally followed in American legal proceedings, and are therefore less bound to respect freedom of speech. In its own autobiographical article, Wikipedia admits that it has been criticized for “systematic bias [and] preference of consensus to credentials” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia). This is an inherent problem because almost any system operator is going to have an agenda, whether it is good or bad. An additional obstacle to the “democracy” that applications like Wikipedia are supposed to secure are issues of societal inequality (such as economic disadvantage) that restrict some users from Internet access completely or from being anything more than “silent surfers,” unable to engage in web production (Aarseth 172). Although new technology applications have the potential to be forums for the free exchange of unrestricted information with equal access for all people, this is clearly not the reality.

So Wikipedia, “Who’s your daddy?” The question is not so simple anymore; it includes writers (website developers as well as reader contributors, or “editors,” as they are flatteringly called); it includes individual readers (which inevitably includes many if not all writers); and finally it includes the “hidden authors” or controls—the administrators, staff, and even those societal power structures that give some better access than others. All of these sources may be considered Wikipedia’s creators, because, as argued, even each reader will also create his or her own reading; readers are always writers, and writers are almost always readers.

[Optional dorky added ending, cuz I’m just that weird-LOL!:
…readers are always writers, and writers are almost always readers. Yet the system can go further. Aarseth describes, “[J]ust as the game becomes a text for the user at the time of playing, so, it can be argued, does the user become a text for the game, since they exchange and react to each other’s messages” (162). This concept of mutual relations between technology and man where both are senders and receivers (writers and readers) can be extrapolated to a world where artificial intelligence coexists seamlessly with humans. In that not so distant future you may re-ask the question to Wikipedia’s descendent: “Who’s your daddy?” And in that age of ambiguous authority among anatomically authentic and anthropomorphically assembled automation, that Wikipedia-related machine might just answer, “(Insert your name), I am your father.”]

Wikipedia: The Greatest “Great Book”

“Most of the electronic encyclopedias currently available do not reflect the power…of the new medium…. They only begin to suggest the flexibility that the computer can bring to the organization of a great book” (Bolter 95-97). Bolter wrote these words in 1991, and much has changed since then. The example he gives for the most advanced electronic encyclopedia is Hyperties, which simply has linking windows pop up from highlighted words with elaborations. Today, we have much more complex versions of “great books” (88), as Bolter calls them, referring to either libraries or encyclopedias, both attempts to compile all knowledge in one place. One such example is the Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia (www.wikipedia.org), established in 2001.

According to its definition of itself, it is a “multilingual, Web-based, free-content encyclopedia written collaboratively by volunteers and operated by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation” (wikipedia.org). The definition is pasted directly from the website, with all highlighted words being links (which actually work in this document as well). This shows just how connected the articles are to each other; practically every other word can lead to another article. This is hypertext to the extreme, where hypertext is defined as “a body of written or pictorial material interconnected in such a complex way that it could not conveniently be presented or represented on paper” (Nelson 144).

How does hypertext make Wikipedia such a superior encyclopedia? Two main aspects are improved, the organizational aspect (influencing the possible depth and breadth of the work) and the mechanical aspect.

A persistent conundrum faced by authors of encyclopedias throughout history has been the problem of organization—should the encyclopedia be organized topically (showing the “philosophical vision” of connections between concepts) or alphabetically (facilitating access) (Bolter 91)? Wikipedia, like other electronic encyclopedias, incorporates both of these systems of organization and more. Its search function allows the reader to find any article containing the specified word, granting easy access, while various topical outlines also exist, with such categories as related links to any one article, current events, and the general set of all hypertextual links within the articles (including those to other articles as well as those to different spots in the outline of the article itself). Wikipedia fulfills Bolter’s vision concerning the practicality of an ideal electronic encyclopedia: “[T]he reader would not be permanently constrained by any one view: he or she could shift back and forth among outlines” (94). Organizational innovation, as a key means to facilitating various forms of access, is the foundation for fundamentally improving an encyclopedia.

The mechanical element is rather simple; it just takes away the physical work a reader would have to go through to find articles and those articles related to them.

In these abilities, Wikipedia approaches closer to the ideals originally set forth by Vannevar Bush and Ted Nelson for the information retrieval system of the future. Bush describes “[w]holly new forms of encyclopedias…ready made with a mesh of associative trails running through them….The chemist, struggling with the synthesis of an organic compound, has all the chemical literature before him in his laboratory, with trails following the analogies of compounds, and side trails to their physical and chemical behavior” (46). Granted, Wikipedia is not as specialized as a doctor would need, but the technology involved is exactly what Bush is describing, with hypertext establishing numerous associative connections for efficient investigation in whatever degree of depth or breadth required. Nelson comments on another aspect for the development of information retrieval, that “[i]nformation systems must have built in the capacity to accept the new categorization systems as they evolve from, or outside, the framework of the old” (144). Knowledge is constantly changing, and more information is always amassing; the best retrieval systems will be able to adapt to this change. Wikipedia, with its option to be viewed in various outlines, through word searches, or through numerous associative links establish innumerable categories. Clearly, Wikipedia is one of the leading developments in new media application, providing better organization and faster access. It is truly the greatest “great book.”

**Stay tuned for a further discussion of another aspect of Wikipedia—the almost indecipherable distinction between author and reader—in my next reading response.

Independence and Incorporation (sounds like politics!)

In an effort to highlight this uniqueness and independence from new media, McCloud clearly emphasizes the need for distinction between on-line comics and animation, which has been becoming fuzzy as of late. He conversely supports the blurring of media forms in promoting the application of comics to re-present such traditionally recognized media forms as poetry (as done with Browning’s “Porphyria’s Lover” on page 226). This seems to deny the inevitable blurring of media forms, that all new media are composed of old media. (For example, Kittler claims that, “Around 1800 the book became both film and record” (108, my emphasis).) However, in asserting the distinction of the two forms, McCloud is actually not denying the need of new media to incorporate older media, but is rather urging that the older media not lose their identity once combined; just because these “ingredients” cooked up something new and distinct from their component parts, they should not lose their identity as ingredients, or whole and useful entities in and of themselves.

McCloud's Symbol: A Visual Summation

The symbol for comics that McCloud uses throughout the book of the closed and opened eyes embodies his assertion that, “Through their still images using only one sense—comics represents all the senses” (2). The one eye (symbolizing one sense) is part of an infinity sign surrounding the eye and the blank eye (perhaps the other “unused,” or covertly active senses). The comics-like separation of two boxes behind the symbol, separating the open and closed eye, emphasize that it is that space that brings the other senses into play and that makes for infinite potential of the comics form. In this clever image of abstract art, McCloud conveys the essence of his entire argument in favor of comics as a uniquely important art form, and, furthermore, he displays what he does best, which is showing through example; he proves that there is power to the images accompanying text and ideas, and he therefore legitimizes the vary notion of combining the two elemental media as done in comics.

Comics-v-Virtual Reality

“As the goal of ‘coming alive’ is fulfilled more and more by sound and motion which represents time through time—comics’ multi-image structure—the portrayal of time through space—become superfluous, if not a nuisance, and isn’t likely to endure” (210). Scott McCloud confronts a touchy issue, posing the argument that perhaps “old” media forms, like comics, are simply good as stepping stones to newer media, like movies, video games, and ultimately virtual reality. The question seems to be about the competing human interests of progress and familiarity, in which case familiarity is simply a matter of emotion getting in the way of progress, making the case for comics a weak argument.

McCloud would argue on the side of comics as a persistingly important art form, claiming it has “root strengths” (213) that will become apparent when the long-awaited virtual reality finally arrives, thus relieving the pressure of comics to become VR-esque. To me, this implies that, however great VR is, it will not fulfill all needs, leaving voids that can be uniquely filled by comics. This uniqueness is perceptible even now. What is unique about comics? McCloud’s explains, “The heart of comics lies in the space between the panels—where the reader’s imagination makes still pictures come alive!” (1). Perhaps, the “simplicity” of such still pictures is essential simply because it stimulates the reader to compensate for the unidimensionality of the comic; as McCloud explains, comics requires only one sense (the visual), but it utilizes all senses through evoking lifelike emotional response from readers through the singular ability of comics’ lines to implicitly carry emotion (2). This seems to suggest that comics are ergodic in their own way, a way that cannot be replaced by new technology.

Organizing Resources (Yeah, It's Probably Not What You Want to Read)

I really like the possibilities for organization that hypertext offers. I know this is a little too much, but I reorganized the readings from the syllabus that we have done so far this semester:

RECONFIGURED SYLLABUS
I. Computer-Based, Ergodic Reading
1) Natalie Bookchin’s “The Intruder”
2) Michael Joyce’s “Afternoon: A Story”
3) Deena Larsen’s “Disappearing Rain”
II. History
1) Ong
2) Ong
3) Kittler
4) Gitelman

III. Media Theory
1) Bolter &Grusin
2) Bolter &Grusin
3) McLuhan
4) Bush
5) Nelson
6) Bolter
7) Aarseth
8) Aarseth
IV. Literature
1) Swift
2) Borges

This is just one outline variation that is the type of change made possible in a hypertext information retrieval system with the possibility of various outlines, as suggested by Bolter (94). (This is not in any way spoken to denigrate the existing syllabus.) I made this particular one to help me to categorize the readings and understand them as they relate to each other within the categories, but just as importantly, to see how the categories work together to form a broad-based approach to understanding Media Studies in general. People constantly ask me to prove that Media Studies is a valid major, which usually involves me detailing the various “legitimate” component subjects within Media Studies, including the history, literature, and computer-based categories mentioned above.

As I was writing this, I decided to explore our existing hypertextual syllabus on http://moodle.pomona.edu. That was very eye-opening for me. Moodle is a new thing, and I have not really looked it over too much, except to get information or post something for a class. But looking around, it is very interesting just to see how much is so accessible in so many different representations: the calendar for monthly events, the forums (very ergodic and cypertextual), and just the general setup that allows for such easy connections to readings, social events, etc. Various authors (including Aarseth 170) talk about the use of computer technology and particularly hypertext and cybertext for the benefit of education, and it is just interesting to really stop, look around, and see that in action.

This has actually given me several ideas that I would like to continue to work with and mull over, maybe for the final project, maybe just for life, all concerned with organizing resources.

First, I have been attending Pomona’s Community Building Training with other members of various groups on campus, and a central problem is networking: when various planned events will coincide, when groups are planning similar events or addressing similar problems and could work together, etc. For both of the organizations I am involved with (PDAC and Multicultural Hall), I am looking into addressing this organizational, networking, coalition-building problem, because it seems like it is one of those things that would make a noticeable difference in our quality of life, without being that hard to do. Multiple calendars exist, multiple group membership lists exist (some outdated, some not), etc., and all in different places. I was just looking at the Blue Pages organization directory http://www.aspc.pomona.edu/organizations/index.aspx on the Pomona website, and again, realizing how much is already there. If this could be updated with a Moodle-esque calendar with colored blocks on the calendar for the group events a student wants to see, and maybe with some member lists, and updated information and then linked from students’ Moodle account—THAT would be awesome.

Second, I think it might be cool to set up some sort of website for myself resembling Moodle, with links to all my favorite websites, a schedule, calendar of events that can update itself with certain group events I want, assignments, journals/thoughts/reminders about career/internship stuff (all with links for my very tangential thoughts), updates for the latest concerts in LA for my favorite bands….THAT would be really helpful.

Also, I really like this idea of exploring different websites for these responses (if only just for the second, non-reading response weekly blog), websites I wanted to check out anyway and just never made time to. This helps me get my stuff done, makes Media Studies assignments more interesting and relevant, and better acquaints me with what is out there with new media (stylistically, technically, etc.). Honestly, it makes me want to learn to make websites (mere exposure effect.)

Oh yeah! Randomly, I also think that teachers (at least those who have freshmen) should explain to students how they should use Moodle (just like with a 5-minute demonstration,) because, like I said, I did not realize all about it until just now. Additionally, with some classes, things aren’t quite as clear as with the Media Studies site.

Also, I think it would be really cool to learn to make websites by redesigning copies of the school ones that we might have access to. We could play with Moodle to make it do more, etc. I don’t know. I’m just rambling at this point.

Wow! This blog has been very therapeutic. I didn’t think assignments were supposed to be like that, but these are thoughts for a final project. So I guess it is OK. Good night!

Hypertext: Digression or Progression?

I am slightly disconcerted by the idea that hypertext, and particularly the associative thinking it fosters, creates the increased possibility for unnecessary connections, which take away from the focus of the reading of a piece, whether it be a paper, or a website, an encyclopedia, etc. In math proofs, you strive towards answering a question efficiently with the least amount of steps possible to find the simplest answer. Although math is not and should not be equated with writing, I feel that some general principles do carry over. Again, focus is being lost. Furthermore, in his writings, Vannevar Bush compares systems of information retrieval (now comparable to a search engine) to the human brain, which “operates by association…in accordance with some intricate web of trails carried by the cells” (44). The comparison is valid, but it should be said that by replicating our biological boons, we also run the risk of transmitting its corresponding problems. If while thinking, a person goes on a tangent, that goes on a tangent about the tangent, and so on and so for, the focus will be lost, and it is association that allows for this digression. In the standard linear style of writing, the opportunity for digression is not really possible within the structure of the book. Although “selection by association,” as Bush refers to it, is more organic, it is, by the same token, more unstructured and more prone to ultimate confusion.

What I do like is the way that Bush and later Nelson apply the freedom implicit with associative thinking in order to achieve a specific goal. They make progress, instead of going in circles or off on tangents. Bush describes, “The summation of human experience is being expanded at a prodigious rate, and the means we use for threading through the consequent maze to the momentarily important item is the same as was used in the days of square-rigged ships” (38). Instead of creating a maze, he seeks to stop the confusion caused by an already-existing labyrinth. He talks of doing this so that “man [may profit] by his inheritance of acquired knowledge” (42). He allows greater, quicker access to insights that already exist, maximizing their value. I appreciate the efficiency this promotes.

A further example of how hypertext can add clarity instead of creating confusion can be seen in the application of outline processors on websites. Basic outlines, full outlines, and full prose can be included, showing different levels of depth. This process makes plain the connections the author intends to make and which points are more important than others: “[T]he figurative process [of creating verbal structures] becomes a literal act” (Bolter 19). In addition to making the reader more aware of the writer’s argument, it also offers a writer a clearer understanding of their own progression of thought, helping them to maintain focus.

Hypertext has the potential to both destroy clarity and to add to it.



(Counter thought: I could reword the last sentence to read: Hypertext is thinking outside the box, but it can be used to reinforce the box. The box is clarity. But worded this way, clarity seems boring. People want to break out of the metaphorical box. So the question becomes “How important is clarity?” Is it a social construction holding us back in our comfort zones, afraid to experience something whose power we do not understand? How bad do we want the security of the box? Is hypertext a link—no pun intended—to an altogether new experience of reality?)

Machine-v-Man: It All Comes Down to Desire

“[N]umbers and figures become (in spite of romanticism) the key to all creatures” (Kittler 118). This implies that man is no more than a machine, which is a common comment among media analysts. But is there a flaw in this bold assertion? It is true that people do tend to think in more logical, algorithmic ways than before new media, but is that the extent of their being? Some relevant pieces of fiction help us to contemplate the validity of the aforementioned statement.

The first is an Andrew Niccol film entitled Simone. The premise is about a struggling director who realizes his need for a good, yet docile leading actress who will bring him fame without completely stealing the spotlight from him or making his life miserable with outrageous demands in the process. Unable to find this ideal, he, in the true Pygmalion fashion, decides to create the perfect woman on his computer, naming her Simulation One, abbreviated Simone. She stars in his films, and the public quickly comes to love Simone. Although the director is at first delighted with the fame it brings him, he becomes overwhelmed by the increasingly intense pressure to show this nonexistent star of his. Simone symbolizes how the “total connection of all media…erases the notion of the medium itself” (Kittler 102); but as the movie shows, we sense the artificiality upon closer inspection. Though outwardly perfect, Simone lacked the realism to maintain the admiration of her audience. One cannot identify with a lifeless machine in the same way one can with a person. There is an innate quality missing.

The second example is the selection we read of Jonathon Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels. In this reading, humans are not equated with numbers per se, but they are treated as machines in various ways. Upon entering the school of languages, Gulliver is presented with a professor’s latest project: “shorten[ing] discourse by cutting polysyllables into one, and leaving out verbs and participles; because, in reality, all things imaginable are but nouns” (169), and there is a more dramatic project underway, which suggested the total abolishment of words for the betterment of health, whereby people would communicate by carrying around with them every object they might need to convey a message to others (169). Such development, although the former may be potentially more efficient than current communication, are both highly unlikely. Bolter writes, “It is not possible or desirable that the prose writer should become a mathematician or that human language should be reduced to a system of logical symbols” (19). The key word here is “desirable.” It is a covert, but nonetheless very real aspect of capitalism that there should always be a lower working class, who is in some way suppressed by the upper class, so that the upper class can enjoy the benefits of their labor without ever having to participate in it. In the world of new technology, the machine (symbolized in the above quote by “mathematician”) may replace the working class, doing the laborious work of dry calculation, permitting humans to explore the richness of their language and curiosity. Although it may be practical to limit language, it is not necessary or “desirable,” especially for those upper echelons of society who have never really had to be concerned about practicality. To combat the idea that new media is making man into a machine, we can argue that one distinguishing characteristic will always be man’s desire.*

I have discussed the idea that man is made of numbers, in other words, that he is a machine. The movie Simone portrays a dystopian projection of such an idea, while Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels, suggests the “pragmatic” simplification of human language, sarcastically presenting the real message that everything is more than “but nouns,” far more than facts and objects. The machine is an object, not a person, and thus a person cannot become a machine; they possess the defining human characteristic of desire.

*A side note is that the working class is most susceptible to the mechanization because they are subject to the demands of the market out of financial necessity, as evidenced with the introduction of the assembly line. However, it is unlikely that even their desire could be completely eradicated.