Philosophically Stumped.

In class today I felt that the discussion really helped me better understand the main points of Bifo's arguments and critizisms in Precarious Rhapsody. At the begining of class I was unsure at first what I wanted to write down about the book, mostly because I didn't feel like I understood what I was reading. What I did write down however, was something that struck me as, how should I say, different. Bifo states that, "depression is the best condition to access the void that is the ultimate truth." Now I don't fully understand exactly what Bifo is trying to say here. The ultimate truth is the three words that I am having trouble understanding. There have been many different meanings and interpretations of those words, for example Buddhism follows the Four Noble Truths which then manifests to the Eight Fold Path which in turn must be understood to gain understanding of the Ultimate Truth. However, I'm not sure Bifo was talking about Buddhism.

I believe that Bifo is saying that through depression, someone hitting complete rock bottom, they in turn open their minds to the world around them, thus filling the void of uncertainty. Through depression one can attain enlightenment, to borrow a Buddhist concept. Now I can be completely wrong, and probably am, but I feel that it connects to his other point of the frail psyco-sphere. Bifo writes, "the things that an individual remembers (images, etc.) work toward the construction of an impersonal memory, homogenized, uniformly assimilated and thinly elaborated becasue the time of exposure is so fast it doesn't allow for a deep personalization." This is where I start confusing myself, maybe Im reading into something that isn't there but I just feel like he's contridicting himself. Through a lack of personalization and with the emergence of being impersonal, one has the potential to become depressed, leading, to "the ultimate truth".

Now PLEASE help me with this as I have been mulling it over in my head all day with not much luck. So, what are your thoughts on the quote, and/or, my interpretation of it?

The elderly and technology never mix well.

So, apperently our grandparents aren't the only ones who struggle with technology. The other day an elderly Georgian woman, the country, not the state, accidentally cut off Internet capability to "90 percent of private and corporate internet users in Armenia". The story is actually pretty funny so here's the link, it's a very short article.


http://www.engadget.com/2011/04/06/elderly-georgian-lady-disconnects-armenian-internet-for-half-a-d/


They article left me thinking a few things.

1. What would I say if my grandmother cut power to 90% of a small country?
2. Is it fair to give the woman a 3 year sentence?

So, how would you answer?

"Don't forget to bring your computers to class on Thursday!" We now understand why...

As we started the class we realized that you knew you wouldnt be in class today, crafty Professor Dean, crafty. After the initial uproar of the first few minutes, we were able to sit down and get started on the task at hand, blogging and discussing chapters 6 and 7 of iSpy. These chapters focused on the war on terror (iWar) and politics (iPolitics). Tim and Brian had to floor for the first initial stages of our discussion and Tim brought up the point of gated communities and how they can make us feel safe, but at what cost? Gated communities give people safety and seemingly carefree living, but we sacrifice privacy. Subsitiuting fear, with preperation.
 The war on terror is the first internet war, a war that can't be covered all in the two standard print mediums, the information has taken to the internet to be spread. The government has essentially tricked us into giving away our information on the false pretenses that we would some how be safer. But we sacrifice our privacy, giving up one of our keep fundamental rights. Brian also was able to explain how Andrejevic feels about killing Osama Bin Laden. Brian was able to explain that by killing Osama that it would solve absolutley nothing. It isnt a simple "top down" network of terrorists, but a intertwinded network of many different terrorists who all have the same hatred of western ideals and influence.

Chapter 7 of iSpy focuses on how polititicans target us as voters to influence the way we vote. Their policies never change, as they say they will, they just change the way that their messages target us. They can manipulate their campiagns to cater to the views and feelings of the voters. They say one thing to appease the masses and obtain voters, while never actually doing anything to solve or change their own beliefs.

I dont know how much I like this system of blogging and discussing at the same time. It makes it difficult to hear the ideas of everyone else and put them into one coherent thought process.

But I ask a couple of questions in regards to the reading. First off, how does the police of our information and insecureites help fight terrorism? Why can't the government be open with us? ( A time old question I know) And how can we stop politicans from preying on and twisting the ideas of the American public for a personal, political gain. 

iSpy, with my little eye, big brother invadin' my space!

In the first part of Mark Andrejevic's book iSpy: Surveillance and Power in the Interactive Era, Andrejevic brings some insightful points to the table regarding corporate surveillance of civilian personal information. He proposes his theory of a digital enclosure. Digital enclosure, what he defines as, "the creation of an interactive realm wherein every action and transaction generates information about it-self." Roughly put, it is the result of personal technology sending personal information about the individual back to the mother company, who in turn stores all that information in databases that the consumer will never see. The interactivity of our electronic devices is slowly gathering information, personal information that we won't ever see. This is a scary thought. I have always have the naive view that our technologies were made to help make our lives easier but in reality they are turning our lives into open books. Mobile phones, iPods, iPads and virtually every other product with the patented Apple "i", are gathering information, essentially being spies for Big Brother. Andrejevic says that

                   "There is a pattern here: the use of interactive technologies-new media- lends itself to the       generation of cybernetic information: feedback about transactions themselves. This feedback becomes the property of private companies that can store, aggregate, sort, and, in many cases, sell the information to others in the form of a database or a cybernetic commodity."

Did I read that right? He said say "sell"? My PERSONAL information can be sold? Now I'm all for companies using their technology to help with market research and further development that can later benefit me but the sale of my information is where I draw the line. I mean damn, we lost our privacy under the Patriot Act, but I never thought that our information could be sold to the highest bidder. Maybe I am understanding this wrong, which is not unusual, but I just don't see how a country that uses the motto, "Land of the FREE..." can sell information at a whim. They are gathering information at the cost of our freedom. I don't see the need for someone too need to where I am at all times, though my cell phone provider seems to think differently. Adrejevic also says that,

"it's true that citizens and consumers are losing control over information about themselves, that increasingly their movements and purchases, the details of their lives, are being recorded, gathered, and sorted. In this respect, it's also true that the public can no longer nurture one of the characteristics of mass society:..being able to pass relatively unnoticed in a crowd,...to fly below the radar of surveillance."



   Adrejevic knows that we are moving inexorably towards total corporate domination of information. Corporations use the term "market research" to get away with the invasion of privacy. How do you think Verizon gets its information that they so love to display on commercicals. They love to say it, "97% of all Americans are covered by Verizon Wireless" or "WE have the Nation's largest network of reception" or something along those lines. Our phones are constantly sending our information about or location to our provider.

I dont know if its just me but I dont like the way we are headed. This information that these companies has is borderline unconstitutional and maybe it has even crossed infor the realm of unconstitutional, but either way its wrong. Information like this has the potential to make its way into the hands of politicans and the government as a whole. So I ask these two questions. When, if ever, does information make the jump from personal to public information? And, who has the right to decide what information is OK to make public?

Essay Topic Question 3

I don't know if anyone else was confused about "secondary orality" but I sure as hell was. I found the passage in Dean's book and I thought I would share it to anyone else working on question #3. I don't knwo if it will help anyone, but here it is, and I cite Dean...

"Instead of judging blog posts as a literary form, it is more38 While the idea of secondary

 

5. Ideas are understood in terms of their connection with

actual experience, with the lifeworld, rather than abstractly

or within a more general analytic field (

anyone who has been the victim of homophobic violence, then

homophobic violence must not be a problem

6. Knowledge and ideas appear agonistically, polarized, as

part of everyday struggle.

7. Ideas are treated in terms of empathy and its lack: that is

to say, in an immediate and participatory rather than a

distanced fashion."

if I don’t know);

useful to consider them as a form of expression in between

orality and literacy, or perhaps as a kind of “secondary orality,”

to use Walter Ong’s term.

orality remained relatively unexplored at the time of Ong’s

death, his characterization of orally based thought includes

attributes already key features of mobile, SMS, and online

communication:

1. Thoughts are combined and points are made in ways that

are additive rather than supportive; differently put, people

string syntactic elements together with “and” rather than

with subordinate clauses.

2. The elements of thoughts and ideas are aggregative rather

than analytical (a contemporary example might be the

slogans, clichés, and memes that catch on and stand-in for

ideas and feelings that remain unexplored).

3. Ideas and points are frequently repeated.

4. Traditions are conserved (because little to nothing is

written down, remembering is difficult; hence, not only do

points need to be repeated but they need to be attributed

to tradition).

Mid Term Thus Far

1.  Jaron Lanier argues against cybernetic totalism. What are the key features of cybernetic totalism? What arguments does Lanier offer against it?

Cybernetic totalism, first off, is the view that our technology is progressing inexorably to a state of self-awareness and intelligence. Simply put, it is the belief that one day computers will become more aware and more intelligent than their human counterparts. The idea that one day, just as James Cameron envisioned, computers will eventually over take us in an apocalyptic fashion. Lanier, though sometimes cryptic and hard to understand, makes a strong argument against this notion of total computational takeover. It can sometimes be hard to realize but the only way that computers can evolve is by the human hand. This is Lanier’s argument against cybernetic totalism. We seem to forget sometime that there is, if you will, a man behind the curtain, pulling the strings and advancing technology further and further. Lanier says “computers aren’t even there until someone experiences it”, this is his argument in a nutshell. Until someone makes a conscious decision to run that specific machine, the machine is powerless without a puppet master pulling the strings.  

2.  What is "lock in" and why does it matter? Make sure that your answer includes technical and cultural/political components.

“Lock in”, Lanier proposes is a theory that once something has already been done or something has been done in a certain way for so long, there really isn’t much more room for improvement. He cites specific examples like, LINUX and MIDI, programs that were so well done and have been used for so long that “lock-in” has taken over.

One example of “lock-in” that serves as a more cultural example than technical is the London subway system also known as the Tube. Sufficient room wasn’t built into the top of the tunnel to allow for AC units to be installed later on. This is “lock-in” at its finest for two reasons. The first, the literal idea that the passengers are “locked-in” a stuffy, hot train car with no AC in the 21^st century. The second is the actual definition of “lock-in”. No room for future improvement was thought of in the original idea so now no improvements can be made without a massive overhaul.

3. Why does Lanier think that flat information networks threaten creativity?   

(Lanier, 131 – 133)

Flat information networks threaten creativity due to the overwhelming influx of collective sharing. When files are being allowed to be shared at the rate they are sharing then it compromises the worth of the original. Lanier believes that file sharing isn’t a form of stealing. In order to steal, one would need to remove the original and block access to everyone else.  This is where file sharing, according to Lanier, doesn’t fall under the category of stealing. Lanier says that file sharing makes copies and then overwhelms the market with invaluable pieces of music, literature, etc. It would be like taking Da Vinci’s “Vitruvian Man”, and making hundreds of copies that are all identical. The original copy would not only be lost, but also void of all value because the original copy cannot be distinguished from the copies. Facebook offices can be seen also as a flat network, according to Lanier’s views. The group mentality that Facebook has come to use in their offices represents the idea of a collective society per say. All of the employees at Facebook share a common office space with no one person, including founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg, has their own office. Cubicles line the office floor with everyone and anyone sharing ideas and working together. Lanier would despise this way of thinking, thinking that creativity is stifled due to the variation of a flat information network.

4.  Why does free choice make stars inevitable? Be as thorough as possible.

(Shirky, Weblogs, Power laws and Inequality)

Free choice, as Shirky describes, leads to an unequal distribution of power. Power comes to those stars just by the amount of time that that particular entity has been around for. The economist Vilfredo Pareto, calls this the "predictable imbalance", where the majority of the wealth (in this case wealth is friends, followers, subscribers) is distributed surprisingly uneven with 20% of the population holding 80% of the world’s wealth”. This same idea can be seen in the world of weblogs. The original blogs that started up around blogging’s first initial launch, the ones that survived, are now the powers holding 80% of the world’s wealth, or, in this case, subscribers, followers and friends.

Free choice makes star inevitable because choice can be monitored by popularity. The more popular that something is, say a restaurant or a local bar, in the online community, means that, in most cases, is positively correlated with how long it’s been in existence.  Power laws don’t necessarily explain why the bigger and the best are that way, but when they are placed on a curve, the lower end of the spectrum creates inequality. Shirky explains that “the very act of choosing, spread widely enough and freely enough, creates a power law distribution”, choosing is an act of free will, and free choice, so when free choice is combined with an unfair system, inequalities and stars, are bound to emerge.

5.  Several authors (Lovink, Dean, Terranova) criticize the 'late eighties "Californian" mindset'. What is that mindset and why do they criticize it?

(Terranova, 120)

The “late eighties ‘Californian’ mindset” was that of every computer geek who was mesmerized and obsessed with technology during this initial boom of computing. It was the belief that computers/internet can lead to freedom and equality, that with the new advancements in the digital era, that this could lead to a digital utopia. Lanier and all his friends form the Silicon Valley in California seemed to have this view, and why Lanier was so upset in the way that the internet is headed. Lanier envisioned the internet as a place of knowledge and harmony, when in reality it was turned into a place of anonymity and trolls, where the anonymous can turn people against each other. They critize that the mindset of these original creators was almost too naïve and simplistic, the thought that the internet was just going to be a place of free and accessible information was not only optimistic, but also far too simplistic. They wanted the internet to be a place of idea sharing and expansion and well a free, universal medium in which to extend to the world. But from what we know of what the internet is today, the original view has become warped and twisted far from what was its original intention.

6.  How does Terranova describe the "mass"? What makes the mass a feature of contemporary network culture? How does the concept of the mass inform or figure in Terranova's critique of the idea of a rational, deliberative public sphere?

(Terranova 134-144, 153, 157)

-Cloud

-Uninformed Masses

-Constant arguing

-You can’t deliberate if you’re a mindless zombie

- Pg 134-144

-They allow for the social entropy

-153 & 157

-Terranova would argue that the noise of the internet has subjected the public sphere.

-People are subjected less and less to the public sphere, the public sphere is becoming less and less transparent.

-People  are relying more and more and the masses for information

7.  Terranova emphasizes that a cultural politics of information, "as it lives through and addresses the centrality of information transmission, processing, and communication techniques" extends beyond the distinction between signal and noise. It encompasses a wide array of objects and interfaces, choices and designs, that organize our perceptions and influence the transmission and receipt of information/signals. What aspects of contemporary life come to mind? Come up with a vivid, detailed example to illustrate Terranova's point. Be sure to attend to what she calls the "level of distracted perception . . [that] informs habits and percepts and regulates the speed of a body by plugging it into a field of action." In your answer, begin with a schematic account formulated in terms of Shannon's diagram and then add to and enrich that schematic with more atmosphere and detail. After you have a detailed example in mind, consider the political implications and for whom: police, surveillance, or state apparatuses? for those seeking to resist or change a political formation? for the general field or norm that establishes the base point or expectations for political action (that is, the level of everyday habit and normal life)?

-Her note was lost in the noise

-Telephone game

-Scandal

-Downward spiral ds

8.  According to Terranova, some specific features of the architecture of the internet induce divergence and differentiation. What are these specific features? How are the challenges met? And, what features or qualities does addressing divergence and incompatibility give to the internet?

(Terranova 61)

-internet is pulling people apart

-Everything coexists with each other  

-More niches are being developed by posting more information

-More information that we put on the internet the more information that becomes available

-New point of view resulting from research

                - Niche networks

-All the different networks on the internet

-They are available because we facilitate them

-It’s all connected like a web

-Archipelago of interests

9.  What is the decline of symbolic efficiency? Why does it matter?

(Dean, 5-8)

The decline of symbolic efficiency, or the collapse of “the Big Other”, is something that you see every day. Dean elaborates on this idea by providing the example of blogging. Dean says that blogs convey no real tone, voice inflection or any other of the indications that come with speaking face to face. The decline of symbolic efficiency leads to the masses misinterpreting what an individual, talking to a specific group, means. When someone who has no knowledge or background information of what the conversation is about stumbles upon a blog that requires “terms and styles of expression” feelings and attitudes can become skewed. Things that “make sense to an ‘in-group’” can often offend people who aren’t part of that group. This matters because people’s thoughts can be lost on one other just because of a gap in translation. One may lose the point of another through the discourse of the disembodied internet voice.

 10.  What are the key features of blogs? What do they have in common with search engines?

(Dean 41, 43, 47, 48)

               

There are many different key features of blogs that share a common ground with those of search engines. They are easy access points of information, a trust worthy way to guide you through the chaotic nature of the internet. They allow people to share ideas and they take an idea and they can turn it into something much more. Search engines first off, take the vast amounts of information that the internet encompasses and tries, best as possible, to collect it all in one place. Before the days of search engines information was out there, it just wasn’t as accessible and as easy to obtain as it is now. This is where blogs seem to have a common place with search engines. Blogs today, range from political opinions to how to maintain your Chia Pet. This is a main, important feature of blogs. They take the interests of everyone and people are able to shift through what they want to read/talk about.

11.  What are the differences between the ways that cinema and networked media produce subjects? (Dean, 70, 71, 79 – 81)

The ways in which cinema and network media produce subjects are completely different. To access networked media is to complete a solely individualistic path. When you access networked media you are, or can be, totally isolated from the world around you. When you access that particular form of media you are accessing it through a medium that grants you total anonymity and freedom form ever sharing your ideas with anyone else. Even though the world of networked media is supposed to bring us together, through its own devices and access points, it’s made us totally anonymous. Cinema is a completely different story. When you go to watch a film at a movie theater, you know what to expect. You expect to see other people who are going to see that movie as well. This is what separates networked media from cinema, singularity. When watching a movie everyone is there for the same reason and you can see the faces of people with similar interests. It’s a shared experience with everyone else in that particular showing. Even if one of the people who saw the film goes how and blogs about it, the initial experience was shared with other people, thus separating networked media from cinema.

12.  How do affective networks capture users?  

(Dean, 114, 134)

A key feature of affective networks, according to Dean, is their ability to capture users.  Affective networks rely heavily on the user based side of their interface to provide them with information and input to further their development. The more that the users of that site contributes, the more information is available to the group. This is where the “hive” mentality of the internet is used. Places like Facebook, MySpace, BlogSpot and Twitter, are all prime examples of how this system works. Without user input, these places like Facebook and MySpace would have no way of evolving and thus, fail. We, the users, are essentially keeping Facebook alive with our activity. Everyone with a Facebook account is an employee of Facebook who just isn’t getting paid for their ideas.

Power Laws, Weblogs, and Inequality

Well, I have never looked at blogging in the way that Shirky analyzed it. He presents that blogging is something far more cut throat than I had ever imagined. Being someone who really never got into the whole blogging scene and really still isn't a big fan of posting personal thoughts and responses in this medium. However, with that being said, I do appreciate and respect those who take blogging as seriously as some of the bloggers that Shirky described.

First off I had no idea of the cut throat nature of blogging and just how nearly impossible it is to get recognized. Lanier in his book gave one example of someone who did just that though. Diablo Cody, he presented, an exotic dancer who was also an avid blogger was able to get noticed by a publishing company who took an interest to her blog. That publishing notice led book a book deal, which in turn was noticed by a film studio which led to a movie deal that produced that widely popular movie, Juno. This was something that I was not aware of whatsoever, I just thought that Judd Apatow had an idea for a movie about teen pregnancy , wouldn't have ever thought that it was some blogger-strippers work.


Drawing now more on the bell curve aspect that Shirky used and how it applys to the weblog aspect of his article, this theory can also be put into work with the grading policy being discussed in the classroom. While I know the vast majority of our classmates find the "bell curve" grading system to be a prime example of inequality. I know that this has been expressed in some of my classmates blogs already but I know its an issue that is still at the front of our minds, especially now that the blogs will be graded in an hour and a half. The inequality aspect of our blogs culminates with two things, time and experience. The aspect of time is almost too obvious, but the aspect of experience branches off into a couple different things. First off the experience of age is a big one, I know that myself and Max are the minority in this class being the two youngest, having just completed our first semester, where others like Frank have just completed their seventh. Don't get me wrong, I like and accept challenges with open arms and a smile but the prospect of competing with seniors and juniors for grades is an intimidating prospect. I know that this class rewards you for the work that you put in (at least that's my assumption) I just hope that the effort I give is sufficient to keep me in good standings with my fellow classmates.