19.317 contemplation and computing

From: Humanist Discussion Group (by way of Willard McCarty willard.mccarty_at_kcl.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 08:09:18 +0100

               Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 19, No. 317.
       Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
                     Submit to: humanist_at_princeton.edu

         Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 07:46:13 +0100
         From: Duane Gran <dmg2n_at_virginia.edu>
         Subject: 19.315 contemplation and computing

                Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 19, No. 315.
        Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
                      Submit to: humanist_at_princeton.edu

    [1] From: Lynda Williams <lynda_at_okalrel.org> (40)

    [2] From: lachance_at_origin.chass.utoronto.ca (Francois Lachance) (75)
          Subject: Cellphones & Syllogisms

          Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 07:37:10 +0100
          From: Lynda Williams <lynda_at_okalrel.org>
          Subject: Re: 19.312 contemplation and computing

Humanist Discussion Group (by way of Willard McCarty
<willard.mccarty_at_kcl.ac.uk>) wrote:

>for thinking, engaging the brain in idle chatter. There was a great
>line in the "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" concerning why humans
>seemed to always say aloud the obvious. It ran something like this,
>the conclusion was that they were afraid their mouths would seize up

Cell phones for sure. Action movies. Video game twitch-speed
everything. An increaing intolerance for complexity in a more and
more complex world. That's got to be scary.

>Probably my next culprit would be blogs. Why ponder the answer to a
>question--instead just post it to your favorite blog and allow the
>community to debate its points. No need to form your own opinion
>based on days, weeks or months of independent thinking--you can just
>dump the question into the blog and watch others arrive at a
>conclusion for you.

I disagree about blogs. I see them as attempts to make an impossible
overload situation of input and analysis linear and personal. A
complete change to the rules of engagement for thinking and
publishing that allows people to get in a thought "in progress". Of
course, the blog is no better than the blogger.

>The computer information system and the growth of the Internet as a
>search enviornment has curtailed the time it takes to look up facts,
>but that merely means one CAN find out whether Iceland or Finland has
>colder winters a lot faster and perhaps contributes MORE to reasoning
>than the book resources available to previous generations would have
>allowed. Finding information faster doesn't decrease reasoning. It is
>the lack of quiet time that empties minds.

That's the irony isn't it? The more access to information we have the
more ignorant we become. Maybe it is too intimidating or maybe the
"twitch speed" phenomenon erodes patience.

>But, what do I know, I'm a member of the "older generation" now.
>Those for whom using a phone to contact someone was itself the
>product of a reasoned though process, debating whether it was a
>sufficiently significant matter to justify disturbing their privacy.

Oh, yes, the disruption of privacy! I have come to loath phones while
I am at home. :-) I don't always answer mine anymore.

Lynda Williams, http://www.okalrel.org
"The Courtesan Prince" (SciFi)
Edge Science Fiction and Fantasy
          Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 07:39:14 +0100
          From: lachance_at_origin.chass.utoronto.ca (Francois Lachance)
          Subject: Cellphones & Syllogisms
It is tempting to counter recent comments about cell phone usage and
youth with some syllogistic reasoning and indcated that that not all
users exhibit the pattern associated with all youth. But to do so
would be to implicitly condone the view that there is something wrong
with social behaviour or with thinking processes that are anchored in
social behaviour.
Allow me to remind readers of the Myers Briggs classification, among
others, of psychological types  to reflect for a moment that the
talkative outward focussed style of thinking aloud with others that
characteristic trait of some cell phone users and some blog writers
could be interpreted as either extraverted or introverted.
And a further indulgence:
Heidegger's What is Called Thinking? in J. Glenn Gray's translation
asks "Can we see something that is told? We can, provided what is
told is more than just the sound of words, provided the seeing is
more than just the seeing with the eyes of the body."
Working with computers one can perhaps find the blind spots in
Heidegger's formulations.  Work with computers, electronic or
otherwise, brings one to a way of seeing so that which is seen is not
that which is told but the telling. Indeed it is Heidegger's text
itself which provides the antidote to universalist claims to
panopticity: "You cannot talk of colors to the blind. But a still
greater ill than blindness is delusion. Delusion believes that it
sees, and that it sees in the only possible manner, even while this
its belief robs it of sight."
Let us look anew at the cell phone user or the blog writer. Figures
of fungibility. They are like poets. Entwined with language. Soaring
on the delivery: correct message to the correct person at the correct
time. They flit, flirt and flame.
Sight may be too coarse a sense to capture an image of the play of
reading and composing and transmitting. "Poets can even smell words"
writes George Steiner in After Babel. He goes on on the same page to
provide a most evocative description of humans as language users and
inhabitants. Please not the passing reference to digital machines:
<quote> Yet all these are only naive pictures, made up of
impressions, half-realized metaphors, and analogies with counters as
obvious as electronics. It is very likely that the internalization of
language and of languages in the human mind involves phenomena of
ordered and ordering space, that temporal and spatially-distributive
hierarchies are involved. But no topologies of n-dimensional spaces,
no mathematical theories of knots, rings, lattices, or closed and
open curvatures, no algebra of matrices can until now authorize even
the most preliminary model of "language-spaces" in the central
nervous system. These allow the autonomous existence of single
languages while, at the same time, making possible the acquisition of
other languages and the most intense degree of mutual penetration.
They permit languages to recede from either the "surface" or the
"centre" of immediate fluency, and then allow their return. The
membranes of differentiation and of contact, the dynamics of
interlingual osmosis, the constraints which preserve equilibrium
between the blandnes of mere lexcial, public usage and he potentially
chaotic prodigality of private invention and association, the speed
and delicacy of retrieval and of discard involved in even the barest
act of paraphrase or translation -- all these are of a class of
intricacy and evolutionary uniqueness of which we can, at present,
offer no adequate image let alone systemic analysis. </quote>
Steiner then offers a footnote referencing the work of mathematician
Rene Thom as the "most sophisticated attempt made so far".
Can you smell in the chatter of networks an analogue of the dialogic
intensity of internal babbling? The cooking smells of culture? The
whisps of eros?
When incensed by what you see, do you have at hand the equivalent of
a nosegay, a sandalwood fan? Do remember the memories of when you
last assembled with friends to listen to the incense?
I thank Kiyoko Morita for having given me a concluding txt msg
hito no on-kokochi ito en nari
"One's mind has become elegant" is the phrase used by Lady Murasaki
in The Tale of Genji to describe the outcome of listening to incense.
Elegance is a virtue to mathematicians too. Poets just might favour
the shabby for one.
Francois Lachance, Scholar-at-large
~~~ to be surprised by machines: wistly and sometimes wistfully
Received on Wed Oct 05 2005 - 03:37:24 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Wed Oct 05 2005 - 03:37:24 EDT