Category — General

Today I cleaned out twitter of around 90% of the people that I was following but weren’t following me. It struck me that I had been exchanging twitter chat with most of these people, trying to do some good, help in my own way, but they weren’t doing that in return. That to me seemed a bit odd. Granted perhaps it is because i use my nickname (buridan) instead of my full name, and i don’t provide much information about myself on twitter. Perhaps I made them wary, but still, doesn’t take much to recognize me since my blog address is there.

In any case, twitter is an interesting beast and it can absorb too much time, so I have a feeling that just following people who follow me will be better for everyone involved Feel free to follow me, I’ll likely follow you.

the concept of information

[From What is Information? - information aesthetics]

——

a nice info graphic movie from maya design found on info-aesthetics.

[From PW Style » ThursDIY: 8-foot giant squid pillow]

—-
just when you thought it was safe to sleep at night…. 8ft giant squidpillow! cool colors too.

[From Who Inspires You? « The Thinking Stick]

——–

I would say my inspirations are my grandfather, my mom, my wife, and my friends and colleagues. Sometimes I’m also inspired by my students, who can be quite amazing.

Reading David Armano from Marcus Brown on Vimeo.

—-
i have to say that this seems somewhat a-theoretical or perhaps undertheorized for a critical reading. It clearly relies on the the author as author and life as story motif, and fails to capture what really goes on in twitter which is one huge melange of responses to the other in parallel with a decentering and disappearance of the author… in lieu of…. the need to tweet, for to tweet, is to be in the twittersphere… if you have to pay someone to tweet for you, that is better than the utter nihilistic presentation of the non-tweet.

[From Video: Hacker war drives San Francisco cloning RFID passports - Engadget]

—–
mmm, all your identity belong to us.!

Cory Doctorow points out that today is Down the Rabbit Hole day, so here is something i drafted recently that normally i would never post.

—-

Culture in virtual worlds? Critiquing the complexities and our assumptions

Jeremy Hunsinger

Granted this model of culture makes things more complex and clouded than many current ideological strands of the cultural sciences and humanities might prefer, but in virtual worlds, where the environment is constructed either through fixed programmed interfaces or the through the results of genetic algorithms, the construction of subjects and objects as different in any knowable sense is speculative at best. The assumption that many cultural scientists, and humanities scholars make that if it seems to talk and act like a subject or like them’ then it is a subject very much depends on the environment. People have been simulating conversation in virtual worlds for years, and simulating actions just as long, beyond that people have been designing these virtual world for cultural effects that frequently do not come to fruition.

Consider the possibility of a virtual world developed to support natural and cultural sciences. In this world, the humans interface with the world is intended to simulate nature, such as pseudorandom distribution of wind or water flows over abradable media such as sandstone, or the bifurcations of tree roots as they interact with the soil. The purpose of such a world would be to see to what extent artifacts found in nature are likely man-made or man-influenced or not. In this game, individual actions add up to a part of the simulation, thus an ‘avatar’ would be the combination of forces over time as mixed with the forces and the fun would be had by influencing and changing the additive and multiplicative efforts of many people over time. The actions ‘avatar’, as a natural forces, is a combination of many possible people’s influences over time where time is one of the variables that consensus can effect and the interface can model, so that some people may slow down to a bacteriological time, or speed up to human time onward to the geological times of redwoods, and onto that of mountains. One possible sub-game may be to produce objects that might be confused with archeological artifacts, such as the Sphinx. Another sub-game that would surely arise is the design and or defacement of areas of the world for artistic or other purposes. We can see from such a game, that the ‘avatar’, or that which acts on cultural objects in the world may in fact be plural, and may produce things that are not considered artifacts as much as terrain. This possibility, the dissociation of the avatar from the individual and the dissociation of the products of the avatar from the culture is an extreme example of the reality of what people already do in virtual worlds today.

This dissociation of cultural subject and cultural production problematizes much of the scholarship being done in virtual worlds which depends on the assumptions that subject/s create or exist in relation to objects, but in the messiness of programmable systems, the mixing of subjects/objects into quasi-subjects, quasi-objects, and the pluralization of the relationship between a persons interface and their ‘avatar’, causes one to be immediately skeptical of the reported experiences of people acting through their interfaces in the virtual world. Even their reports should be colored by the researcher’s inability to discern the authenticity of the persons reporting given that the world they experienced through their screens, speakers, and haptic devices could be entirely different from that world experienced by a person using different devices, having different proficiencies, or living in different cultures. This is not to say that we cannot make assumptions about world, subjects, and objects, but it is to say that the assumptions that we rely on in the f2f world that ground our research may not be, and frequently are not valid assumptions. In short, when exploring culture in virtual worlds, we need to take care in our methodological choices and their assumptions for even the most basic assumptions such as, “my student in my virtual classroom had the same experience as my other students” is likely to be false in ways that are profoundly different than the ways it may be false in a f2f classroom. Similarly, our assumptions about the causes of behavior, social, economic, and cultural, must account for the new forms of re/mediation in their models, else they will likely end up describing less a model of subjects in a virtual world, then describing the base assumptions of their observations or experiments yet again.

Citations

Delanda, M. (2006). A new philosophy of society: Assemblage theory And social complexity. Continuum.

Guattari, F. (2000). The three ecologies (G. Genosko, Trans.). London: Athlone Press.

Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social : An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford University Press, USA.

Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern. Harvard Univ Pr.

Latour, B., & Porter, C. (2004). Politics of nature: How to bring the sciences into democracy. Harvard Univ Pr.

Law, J. (2004). After method: Mess in social science research. Routledge.

Maltzahn, K. E. V. (1994). Nature as landscape: Dwelling and uderstanding. McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Suarez, D. (2009). Daemon. Dutton Adult.

Veblen, T. (1990). The evolution of the scientific point of view. In The Place of science in modern civilization. Transaction Publishers.

The rules:

1. Link to your original tagger(s) and list these rules in your post.
2. Share seven facts about yourself in the post.
3. Tag seven people at the end of your post by leaving their names.
4. Let them know they’ve been tagged.

I was tagged by my wife Random Access Mazar

1. I went to three different high schools over three years and graduated from the one where I started.

2. My earliest memory is of eating Cambell’s Oyster Stew, which my father told me was banana soup in order to get me to eat it.

3. I have a hard time matching events from my childhood with a calendar. I remember my grandfather’s funeral being when I was 5, but it was apparently when i was 7. I remember cutting my finger when i was 8, but it was closer to 11, etc. etc.

4. My right hand index finger’s fingerprint is not the one I was born with.

5. My first car was a maroon chevy chevette with a standard transmission and the rear end from an automatic which gave it slightly better acceleration, for a chevette. The shifter know fell off, so i replaced it with a t-handle knob, which was somewhat ironic. My grandfather built the car, gave it to me, and sold it for me. My second care was given to by my aunt and uncle, it was a town and country station wagon that i had for 10+ years.

6. I helped found, was nominally CTO of, and closed a company within a year during the internet boom.

7. I’ve written and sent 2 different business plans to angel and VC investors. The first one was to take COTS computing and integrate it invisibly into office furniture. The second one was to use a micropayment/tip funding structure to enable and encourage educators to share lessons, lesson plans, etc. It was an attempt to commodify professional knowledge in order to make that knowledge open and communal. Needless to say neither was funded and I have no idea where those plans are today.

Tagging: Shane, Michael, Sarah, Sue, Smirby

CFP: Learning Infrastructures in the Social Sciences and Humanities

Special issue of the journal Learning Inquiry (http://www.springerlink.com/content/120592/)
Edited by Jeremy Hunsinger
Papers Due: May 15th 2009
Please contact the editor to discuss topics at jhuns.(@)vt.edu (remove brackets)

In the last 20 years, the learning infrastructures of the social sciences and humanities have transformed dramatically toward a more plural set of practices, methods, systems, and tools. In this issue, we are looking for contributions from social informatics, humanistic informatics, cultural informatics, digital humanities, internet studies, design research, media studies, and related fields dealing with the learning infrastructures. I am seeking papers that deal empirically, analytically and/or critically with the learning infrastructures in the social sciences and humanities. Cyberinfrastructures, physical infrastructures and organizational infrastructures have been transformed through the politics, economics, and technologies surrounding our learning infrastructures.

Learning infrastructures are part of professors and students scholarly experiences everyday. These infrastructures are part of how students begin their engagement with the social sciences and humanities and perhaps become part of how they maintain that engagement throughout their lives. Beyond our professors, departments, centers and institutes, our learning infrastructures are mediating our disciplinarity and interdisciplinarities to our students. In short, learning infrastructures are a part of how students learn to be scholars in various disciplines and citizens in the world-at-large.

Part of the debate surrounding learning infrastructures in the social sciences and humanities is the over/under-definition and over/underdetermination of terms such as learning and infrastructure in disciplinary and interdisciplinary discourses. In this CFP, I want to encourage papers that help to define and critically engages those terms.

Possible topics:
• Transformation of institutions in relation to learning infrastructures
• New methods, new understandings in the social sciences and humanities related to learning infrastructures
• New disciplines, interdisciplines and transdisciplines and learning infrastructures
• Political economics of learning infrastructures
• Ethics, norms, and politics surrounding learning infrastructures
• Openness and/or closedness in learning infrastructures
• Social/Cultural/Informatics informatics and learning infrastructures
• New directions for learning infrastructures based on social sciences and humanities
• Cultural environmentalism and learning infrastructures
• Knowledge/Design ecologies and learning infrastructures

Review process will be double blind peer review following editorial selection.   We expect to place fewer than 8 papers in this special issue. We would prefer papers between 4000-16000 words. Papers should be submitted to http://www.editorialmanager.com/linq/ Please contact the editor to discuss your paper and/or when you submit your paper.

went something like this:

Do you believe in Santa’s flaws

in Santa’s flaws

in Santa’s flaws

Do you believe in Santa’s flaws….

Because Santa’s flaws are you…..