Comments on: CCR760 – As We May Have Thought: Dreaming Technological Hypertextuality http://justinlewis.me/me/2010/01/19/ccr760-blog-post-one-bush-as-we-may-think/ Wed, 09 May 2012 17:11:07 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Robbyn Vaid http://justinlewis.me/me/2010/01/19/ccr760-blog-post-one-bush-as-we-may-think/comment-page-1/#comment-1071 Robbyn Vaid Tue, 01 May 2012 04:57:44 +0000 http://justinlewis.me/me/?p=223#comment-1071 Hows it going, you have a nice blog but sometimes I see a issue whereby the right navigation toolbar cannot be viewed. It's mainly on the main page Best wishes Hows it going, you have a nice blog but sometimes I see a issue whereby the right navigation toolbar cannot be viewed. It’s mainly on the main page Best wishes

]]> By: justin http://justinlewis.me/me/2010/01/19/ccr760-blog-post-one-bush-as-we-may-think/comment-page-1/#comment-195 justin Tue, 26 Jan 2010 13:43:25 +0000 http://justinlewis.me/me/?p=223#comment-195 @Amber - I'm not sure what I would call Licklider & Taylor's creative aspect of communication. I suppose it's as organic as it can be . . . maybe organocyborg learning? I tend to shy away from organic as a name because of the work being done in "organic computing" - sensors and automated systems that act as natural mechanisms in computer interfaces. It sounds crazy, but I think some Japanese research institutes are working toward this sort of self-learning computer systems. . . but how do you program stimulus response and adaptation? AI is so hard to wrap my head around. @Anna - I think that I may have oversimplified the idea of hypertextual reading as a - to steal an idea from Barthes - process of creating writerly texts. I do think the dialogic process of meaning making enabled by hypertext is promising, interesting, and disruptive to traditional authorial power. . . but it's replaced by another form of authorial power I guess, even if it's the wreader's own (did that even make sense? sorry!) I think the thing that I found most interesting about Slack's piece is wrapped up in this idea of power and fixing multiplicity. Slack seems to argue that power manages to stabilize the free play of signifiers (bad language, sorry) or at least subjectivities that occur in the multiple. So, in a sense that authorial power is recongifured toward the reader in the process of reading. . . but the code still fixes the meaning. Someone still made the link intentionally and - despite ideas to the contrary (liberating, wonderful, a way to escape the linear text), you're still following predetermined paths with traditional linking. There are web browser plug-ins that allow hypertextual searching over any word, and I suppose this might change that fixed articulation. . . but I don't know? Anyhow, I don't think that made much sense! Sorry! @Missy: I'm not sure about how to negotiate the question. I think this is a confusing issue - should we respect the primacy of authorial intention or use our new found (but hypertextually determined) power to pawn the text. . . it's really confusing! :-) @Amber – I’m not sure what I would call Licklider & Taylor’s creative aspect of communication. I suppose it’s as organic as it can be . . . maybe organocyborg learning? I tend to shy away from organic as a name because of the work being done in “organic computing” – sensors and automated systems that act as natural mechanisms in computer interfaces. It sounds crazy, but I think some Japanese research institutes are working toward this sort of self-learning computer systems. . . but how do you program stimulus response and adaptation? AI is so hard to wrap my head around.

@Anna – I think that I may have oversimplified the idea of hypertextual reading as a – to steal an idea from Barthes – process of creating writerly texts. I do think the dialogic process of meaning making enabled by hypertext is promising, interesting, and disruptive to traditional authorial power. . . but it’s replaced by another form of authorial power I guess, even if it’s the wreader’s own (did that even make sense? sorry!)
I think the thing that I found most interesting about Slack’s piece is wrapped up in this idea of power and fixing multiplicity. Slack seems to argue that power manages to stabilize the free play of signifiers (bad language, sorry) or at least subjectivities that occur in the multiple. So, in a sense that authorial power is recongifured toward the reader in the process of reading. . . but the code still fixes the meaning. Someone still made the link intentionally and – despite ideas to the contrary (liberating, wonderful, a way to escape the linear text), you’re still following predetermined paths with traditional linking. There are web browser plug-ins that allow hypertextual searching over any word, and I suppose this might change that fixed articulation. . . but I don’t know? Anyhow, I don’t think that made much sense! Sorry!

@Missy: I’m not sure about how to negotiate the question. I think this is a confusing issue – should we respect the primacy of authorial intention or use our new found (but hypertextually determined) power to pawn the text. . . it’s really confusing! :-)

]]> By: Anna http://justinlewis.me/me/2010/01/19/ccr760-blog-post-one-bush-as-we-may-think/comment-page-1/#comment-194 Anna Tue, 26 Jan 2010 05:30:53 +0000 http://justinlewis.me/me/?p=223#comment-194 I the comment you made in #3 of your questions/challenges/observations section. It's interesting to think about hypertext bringing writing and reading together in a new way to form a new kind of literacy. I feel like so much of what I've read about hypertext in the past has really only emphasized the way hypertext disrupts linear patterns of reading and, to a lesser extent, linear patterns of composing with a particular concern for the way hypertext disrupts relationships of power between reader and writer--in other words, the stuff I've read in the past has treated the reading and writing of hypertext rather separately rather than considering the dynamic relationship between them. And while I don't feel like I have any good way of articulating this thought at the moment, this all reminds me of Slack et al's piece from last week about different communication theories. Maybe there's some connection there that might also relate to your last question about authorship? I the comment you made in #3 of your questions/challenges/observations section. It’s interesting to think about hypertext bringing writing and reading together in a new way to form a new kind of literacy. I feel like so much of what I’ve read about hypertext in the past has really only emphasized the way hypertext disrupts linear patterns of reading and, to a lesser extent, linear patterns of composing with a particular concern for the way hypertext disrupts relationships of power between reader and writer–in other words, the stuff I’ve read in the past has treated the reading and writing of hypertext rather separately rather than considering the dynamic relationship between them. And while I don’t feel like I have any good way of articulating this thought at the moment, this all reminds me of Slack et al’s piece from last week about different communication theories. Maybe there’s some connection there that might also relate to your last question about authorship?

]]> By: Luce http://justinlewis.me/me/2010/01/19/ccr760-blog-post-one-bush-as-we-may-think/comment-page-1/#comment-192 Luce Mon, 25 Jan 2010 17:27:08 +0000 http://justinlewis.me/me/?p=223#comment-192 It's really interesting to see the readings translated through a frame accustomed and comfortable with doing so; or rather, of orientating it to other technological know-how. You pulled a lot of stuff from the readings that I didn't gleam and also related them to aspects of my computing that I ignored or took for granted pre-your-blog-post. I'm curious if you see the type of "creative aspect of communication" happening in Licklider & Taylor as organic learning? Also, do you see Licklider & Taylor as a good representative example of collaboration without tying it to feminism (as per Anna's comment last class)? There is a strong repetition of collaboration and I'm curious how you orientated that for yourself... It’s really interesting to see the readings translated through a frame accustomed and comfortable with doing so; or rather, of orientating it to other technological know-how. You pulled a lot of stuff from the readings that I didn’t gleam and also related them to aspects of my computing that I ignored or took for granted pre-your-blog-post.

I’m curious if you see the type of “creative aspect of communication” happening in Licklider & Taylor as organic learning?

Also, do you see Licklider & Taylor as a good representative example of collaboration without tying it to feminism (as per Anna’s comment last class)? There is a strong repetition of collaboration and I’m curious how you orientated that for yourself…

]]> By: Missy http://justinlewis.me/me/2010/01/19/ccr760-blog-post-one-bush-as-we-may-think/comment-page-1/#comment-191 Missy Mon, 25 Jan 2010 01:18:24 +0000 http://justinlewis.me/me/?p=223#comment-191 Oops! A few errors: *complicated: complicates *that once acknowledged: than once acknowledged *the texts original: the text's original Oops! A few errors:

*complicated: complicates
*that once acknowledged: than once acknowledged
*the texts original: the text’s original

]]>