Tag Archives: vtclis12

Hey Guys!

Here are the links to my YouTube videos from my final project presentation.

Scene 1 – Introduction

Scene 2 – Nelson and McLuhan

Scene 3-McLuhan and McCloud

Scene 4 – McCloud and Maxine

Scene 5 – Illich and Viola

Scene 6 – Conclusion

Hope you enjoy them as much as I did making them!

“The World-Wide Web” was on the technical side for me which normally gets a little fuzzy for me but I was surprised by the understanding this essay provided in respect to  the relevance of all the letters in the URL bar, which is mentioned in “W3 Broken Down.”  It was a fairly followable breakdown and for that I was appreciative.

However, as I was looking for nuggets I thought WAY back to the beginning of the semester when we read Bush, “As We May Think,” Licklider, “Man-Computer Symbiosis,” and also a little Engelbart, just because W3 aided so much in augmenting human intellect.  The authors hoped through the use of W3 that knowledge would be able to extend across “boundaries of nations and disciplines.”  If I recall correctly, Bush called for this very same idea; in class I remember talking about taxonomies and the way the Library of Congress was indexed in a way that made searching for something specific so difficult.  Why was it so difficult?  This organization did reflect the way humans think, which is highly “associational.”  It seems like W3 kind of wanted to aide in automating this humanistic way of thinking through hyperlinks and such.  By providing more sensible ways of navigating such a vast and rich pool of knowledge, has the World-Wide Web enabled us to have “unfettered thought?”  To think “creatively, continuously?”

The authors talked about future developments in information technology such as a “name service” that will allow internet users to discover information not based on a specific location but on the name.  This screams Google to me, or simply search engine for that matter.  They called for an integration with teleconferencing…Skype, Facebook video.  The authors also wanted to facilitate commercial uses, such as online charging and virtual clothing stores (Paypal, any online store).  These advances do not necessarily indicate a complete augmentation of human intellect but they sure do make things more efficient.  In being more efficient, W3 eliminates all the processing which enables constant thinking and decision-making.  I think that’s a sure sign of augmentation and associational thinking.

Although I was not planning to blog for Sherry Turkle’s “Video Games and Computer Holding Power” as it is my seminar presentation, I have found the whole process of blogging very helpful in reflecting on the reading and gathering my thoughts.

First off, it is important to note that Turkle frames the chapter by establishing the culture of computers as “a culture of rules and simulation” (501).  This is a defining theme throughout because somehow, through the underlying programming of a video game, which although is highly rule-governed (by the programmer), anything is possible.  Users revel in the endless possibilities because they can somehow make sense of this rule-governed world.  How can sense be made in an environment of infinite possibilities?  An environment of infinite human thought?  The games require so much attention and concentration, that users are able to lose themselves in the action of it all.  So lost that the user doesn’t even realize how big their imagination is at the time.  I could not accurately call this process a “mindless addiction” but more of a “holding power.”  Now the only thing left to the reader is to determine if it is healthy…

This freedom is because video games are a simulation of the real-world, and with this simulation comes freedom through the idea of control.  Ironic as it sounds, it is common for people to strive for control and perfection in their lives.  The real-world makes this practically unattainable due to the existence of outside, unforeseen, uncontrollable variables.  However, in video games, just as David describes, the circumstances are “fixed, invariant” (513).

The fact that users find peace in games which enable them to feel “close to the edge” is hard to grasp at first but the video game is a “perfect mirror” or a “perfect contest” as it tests the user and only the user.  The obsession to do well in these games is not merely for the purpose of getting the highest score, it is to provide a sense of self-worth and competence.  I wonder if this interactive media we call a video game is a reflection of our culture which calls for perfection.  Turkle relates it to how we use our bodies and our money to establish control and measure perfection and therefore success…so the only answer is yes, this is a reflection of a somewhat oppressive culture that only accepts perfection.  Video games then, must be humanity’s way of reacting to the loss of control which has been imposed by social norms.  Each story (Jarish, Jimmy, David) conveys this idea.

Back to the idea of the healthiness of video games and their holding power…I see them as a means to an end.  An end that must be met because the alternatives to video games could take many unhealthy forms, such as violence or constant self-disappointment.  Whether these games are an extension of self, an entirely different personae, or just a way of re-centering, they can help us to develop identification and  a sense of self.

Seymour Papert’s ideas in “Mindstorms” were particularly reinforcing for my own ideas that are being generated through our other readings.  Coming from a very small school system, I cannot say that I experienced a lot of advanced computer programs that stimulated me to “think about thinking.”  I think that process came about through other experiences but I did come in contact with a lot of interactive “cultural tools” that make complicated concepts easier to understand.  For example, Oregon Trail was a very popular game in elementary school and provided a more interesting approach to the subject of history and the trials and tribulations of those heading west in the days of pioneers.  There were also games like Zoombinis that focused on complex puzzles and such however for the most part, my teachers used the computer in a systematic way.  In other words, I was not using the computer for “personal purposes” just like I was not learning a lot of material in classes for “personal purposes.”

However, Papert foresaw the price of computers falling to the point that each individual could have private/personal access.  Once this happened, I believe people started exploring, on their own out of sincere interest.  This is when computers started fostering more intellectual, individual action.  This is happening right now.  The only thing I fear is what Papert calls the QWERTY phenomenon, wherein there is a “tendency for the first usable, but still primitive, product of a new technology to dig itself in.”  We are at a fork in the road if you ask me; although our technology does not seem primitive…do the ways in which we use them sometimes seem a little primitive?  Do the ways in which teachers incorporate computers into their curriculum come off as primitive to you?  Typing class…what?  To think I spent a whole year in typing class during middle school, what a waste.  How primitive.  It is socially drilled into us to justify what we are used to, to revel in our comfort zones.  Papert predicted it then and I believe it applies now to some extent:

“The computer revolution has scarcely begun, but is already breeding its own conservation.”

Where do we go from here?

Simak’s “Immigrant” is by far by favorite reading to date.  I could not bring myself to stop reading, the whole time speculating as to what the deep connections could be and discovering relevant nuggets.  Throughout the reading, I couldn’t help but think of a book I read in high school, a well-known classic by George Orwell, “1984.”  With a futuristic tone about it, one of this novel’s underlying themes is the suppression of individuality and reason, which are referred to as “thought-crimes.”  Something along the lines of Orwell’s “memory hole” seems to exist in “Immigration” when Bishop discovers the inaccuracies of history books as he explores the “live-it” chair.  Some vanity-driven copyist had added in their own twist to make the facts more appealing and interesting.  Another connection between “Immigration” and “1984” is what Orwell coins as “doublethink” which is described as:

“…know[ing] and not know[ing], be[ing] conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies.”

I believe this happens a lot within our education system for teachers and students alike.  We are all stuck in a system that we know is flawed but it seems so difficult to transform it that we continue to tell ourselves great things will come out of extensive education but in reality the system places value on inherently empty and meaningless benchmarks, letters, and/or numbers.  “Doublethink” happens to Bishop when he is feeling used by his Kimonian peers while simultaneously decrying the prideful, vanity-stricken, stubborn culture from which he comes because he recognizes the Kimons are much more intellectually and philosophically advanced than the human race. Bishop’s doublethink is more adequately deciphered by Jake in “Both and” (A and B).  He contemplates writing to his fellow humans on Earth and telling the truth about what people experience on Kimon but pride won’t let him do it.  He wonders why no one has gone back to Earth, once again pride does not allow for this type of failure.  Are these aliens condescending or enlightening?  He cannot decide and neither can I.  I think the closing line holds the answer though:

“You’ll want to get up early,” said the cabinet “so you aren’t late for school.”

Now at first glance this sentence definitely sounds belittling but prior to this, Bishop establishes that he, as a human lacking the cultural advancement of the Kimons, truly is a child in comparison; he must listen to his elders and stop reinforcing his “shield” of pride that is a huge obstacle to learning.  Just as we have discussed in other readings, children have the humility and humbleness to ask questions, to seek guidance from their elders, while also letting their own minds do the work (if permitted).  After all, being truthful to ourselves is a defining theme of so many of our assigned readings…I think this idea indirectly contributes to a better application and therefore appreciation of human talent and values.  Being truthful to ourselves fosters what I call natural development which involves the process that “start[s] out by saying, I don’t know. Then say[s], I want to know. Then say[s], I’ll work hard to learn” which is touched on in “Out of This World.”  The key component of this process is the first part; in today’s educational culture, one must swallow their pride to admit to not knowing.  Is that the difference between Kimons and Earthlings?  Pride?

I thought I would have a hard time appreciating Lucasfilm’s Habitat as I have not participated in any video games on a large scale, even Sims.  I was pleasantly surprised when the reading emphasized the importance of realistic environments.  This idea of reality is so inherent in the construction of video games that Morningstar and Farmer assert:

“cyberspace architects will benefit from study of the principles of sociology and economics as much as from the principles of computer science” (676).

That simply amazed me and has honestly reinvigorated my minor interest in video games.  To know that these complex and highly technical games are catered to humans, to the idea that all people are unique and therefore all people will hope to get something different out of a video game, is pretty interesting.  This idea means that there is a place for everyone in virtual reality which I suppose is the appeal, which leads me to my concern…having all these mini-worlds at our fingertips.  Couldn’t this pose a problem?  Couldn’t one get completely lost and cut off from the real world in games like this?  The fact that morals come into question with video games emphasizes my concern but I will touch more on that in my seminar presentation on Sherry Turkle’s essay.

As we get further in our readings, I have noticed many reoccurring themes.  Not to be repetitive but simply for compilation purposes, the idea and importance of individual participation and decentralization (branching, sharing).  I was able to make a theme connection to other readings when the authors talked about the design process and how it should not be restricted to simply designing and implementing but should also include facilitating (this can be applied to teaching).

Since I didn’t say much in class today (I think I was kind of using the discussion to reflect more on Illich’s ideas) there are a few ideas I found relevant to the topic of curriculum learning.  When I say curriculum learning, I do not mean education.  I mean the formal learning process, that is centralized and tackled in a “one size fits all” manner.

At first I thought Illich’s Learning Webs was kind radical and somewhat absurd but it’s not necessarily the ideas that were so out there, just the solution.  Or maybe it was just his urgent tone…which made me feel like the world was ending or something.  I think his term “deschooling” is a little hard to swallow upon first read.  I think a better term would be “decentralizing.”  I think this term epitomizes everything Illich is trying to put into words but it doesn’t have such an aggressive feel about it.  It does however sound kind of generic so maybe it would just be best to think of his proposal in a decentralized instead of deschooled way.  A way that doesn’t halt development through the forming of little black boxes of knowledge.  A way that encourages questions and doesn’t instill the learner with a fear of sounding “stupid.”  Similar to what Jake said, I fear if we cannot establish a more interactive means to learning in schools, it is truly questionable what the future holds for us.  I can’t help but think back to when I was very young, pre- and early-elementary years, I never stopped asking questions.  It didn’t matter if they were naive or silly because I was truly interested in the answer and I once I got it, I could go along my merry way, continuing my quest for knowledge in a way that made sense to me.  Before I was conditioned to curriculum learning, I made connections all by myself, without the teacher’s help and I felt genuinely satisfied (again, Nelson).

So is interest and pleasure beside the point?  Absolutely not.  Interest and pleasure is the point.  We need to stop striving for “productive members of society” and start thinking about ourselves a little more.  As cliche as it may sound, it is strikingly similar to the idea of being happy with yourself instead of worrying what others think about you.  If your education is not stimulating to you then the “benchmark,” the “A” doesn’t really matter or mean anything.  Now if only there were a more sensible way to achieve this idealistic goal…

The first thought that came to my mind while reading “Learning Webs,” from Ivan Illich’s Deschooling Society was anger.  I had not been aware of how weak my past education was until coming to college and this realization is highlighted a good bit in this class, especially in Nelson’s “Computer Lib / Dream Machines” but even more so in this reading.  Why am I angry?  I feel betrayed by what I thought was a good thing, by an education system that never taught me to delve deeper into how I was learning, not necessarily what I was learning.  I believe more interest in topics would have been generated if the way in which I learned them was more appealing, more stimulating, and more diverse.   After all, the medium is the message right?

It’s not that I am calling myself stupid or uneducated by any means but I do feel somewhat irritated at the inadequacies our current education system has produced in me.  This idea of monopolizing knowledge, only those who have the appropriate title or classification are permitted access to particular tools and opportunities in education and in the working world.  I know that I am not the only one who feels this way.  Even with this class, I at first felt inadequate.  It’s kind of a paradox because even though it caused me to feel inferior to others’ ideas, at the same time it made me be appreciative and proud of my own ideas.

Furthermore, this class is a form of deschooling itself if you ask me.  Granted, it’s not nearly as radical as Illich’s proposed system but it does away with the concrete curriculum and skills testing.  It is not “a demagoguery calling for more of the same” like so many other classes.  I have said it before and I will say it again, student/reader participation takes precedence over predetermined right and wrong answers.

If Dr. C’s class provides a mere glimpse into the prospect of deschooling, than I will resound a major theme in Illich’s work: liberation.  The idea of letting your own mind do the work is liberating.  It provides a sense of self-worth that no A+ on a final can ever do.

When we start seeing more classes like this one, classes that encourage one’s own imagination instead of the easy alternative of yielding to a predetermined curriculum, then I think deschooling will be taking place on a larger scale.  When people start experiencing what it feels like to actually learn, it will be positively impossible to stop deschooling.  Illich agrees:

“The disestablishment of schools will inevitably happenand it will happen surprisingly fast. It cannot be retarded very much longer, and it is hardly necessary to promote it vigorously, for this is being done now. What is worthwhile is to try to orient it in a hopeful direction…”

What exactly is Viola referring to when he asks the reader “Will There Be Condominiums in Data Space?”  By that question I mean, what does a condominium have to do with data space?  After over-analyzing numerous definitions of the term, I discovered a few reoccurring words that must relate to what Viola is asking.  A condominium is “a large property complex” that is “divided into individual units.”  Now I’m wondering if the large property complex part refers to this idea of “Data space” – “a conceptual geometry, theoretically infinite, within which various forms may be created, manipulated, extended and destroyed.”  Are we going to divide up the data space like a condominium or are we going to navigate around this data space as a whole?

If you can follow me here, then Viola’s three structures to describe patterns of information will make sense.  You can take the most popular structure called “branching” wherein the navigator takes the top to bottom approach.  This makes most sense to me because it is linear and the exact path to follow is quite obvious.  Viola also highlights the fact that this system is utilized in our education system; it’s very predetermined and definitely easier than the alternatives…but easier is almost never better if you ask me.  A new diagram called the “matrix” structure is an alternative way of viewing information, wherein the viewer can enter at any point, move in any direction, at any speed.  Unlike branching, this structure is not linear because the navigator can take any path through the information however it maintains the idea of parameters.  This idea is not sustained in the last structure called the “schizo” or “spaghetti” model which gives way to the concept that “all directions are equal but all are not equal.  Everything is irrelevant and significant at the same time.”  It’s easy to get lost in the randomness of this structure, it’s actually impossible not to.  I can relate this structure to a lot of the readings we had, especially “medium is the message” and the big question in McCloud’s Time Frames, is linear progression really necessary?

I don’t think Viola is emphasizing holistic over parts or vice versa, I think he is focusing on this idea that you can’t understand what you’re looking at unless you know what you’re NOT looking at.  In other words, when analyzing a piece of information, keep in mind what you are NOT analyzing because often times, what is missing could play a big part in understanding.

So many of the readings we have done emphasize viewer participation.  The uniqueness of each individuals’ thought process is essential to holistic and thorough learning, to the greater good of society.  Does that make each and everyone of us the “condominiums of data space”?  I think so. and I don’t think that is a bad thing at all.  Viewing information in a linear, parts-focused, condominium-like manner is not helpful but viewing information in our unique way, without a set of predetermined steps IS helpful.  I think that is what a lot of these writers are trying to get at with their essays and I think that is what Dr. C is attempting here with this class.