Thoughts in relation to Poster (2004) reading:
"If information moves without the human body, if media moves information to bodies, and if bodies and media move together through space, in all three cases the body is everywhere and nowhere."
It is difficult to eradicate the bodily presence from the use of mobile communication just because we do not need to move about to disseminate messages to someone at a different place. It was argued that our body is obsolete as we can now send messages across with myriad of mobile technologies such as phone messaging and e-mails. We are no longer obliged to move about and meet up with someone else in order to pass a message. Thus, can we now conclude that our body is no longer in use? Is this the space anxiety many media theorists mentioned in their findings?
I would argued that the mobility of message sending has became a part of our body, an essential we would want it to be at close proximity to our body. For instance, the portability of laptop and mobile phones has made these gadgets part of our everyday lives. Thus, our body is not exactly out of use, instead the body works together with the mobile technologies to meet our social or educational demands or to amplify their existing culture. Mentioned in the reading, the Italians integrate mobile phone with their culture. This is similiar to how the world are now integrating mobile technologies to fulfil their political, social or cultural needs. The body is engage in disseminating messages by accessing to the Internet in a cyber cafe or dropping by a coffee place with wifi access and ringing up someone on your mobile phone.
As virtual reality and the idea where the mind leaves the body arised, our body nonetheless, indirectly participate in the process where sensors are connected to our physical body in order for us to be immerse in a virtual reality. Therefore, our body is everywhere eventhough it could appear as a mirage to someone in a distant.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Saturday, August 28, 2010
The Writing Trauma vs The Glorification of Writing
Thoughts in relation to Toff's (1997) reading:
What interests me the most is the writing trauma experienced by many ancient Greeks like Socrates. In the literate world we are residing in, we could only fathom the chaos without the ability to write and jot down characters in our everyday lives. It was argued that the birth of writing destroys the communal and naturalistic nature of human beings and yet what is puzzling to me is that the most effective methods of relating and disseminating knowledge is through writings. If it is not for the birth of writing, many historical events, research and philosophies might vanquish, swallowed by the tides of time. In ancient China, where examination is given the utmost importance in order to receive the greatest degree of respect and wealth, writing is celebrated as an eminent gift of intelligence. Some even argued that the birth of writing is the birth of civilisation. Even though this is bold claim, but the ability to keep records and knowledge on a tangible source made history and knowledge to pass on from generations to generations. Therefore, it is understandable that critics like Derrida questioned the irony of Plato and Socrates's contempt towards writing when their work and even some condemnatory complaints were lodged through writing.
The technology of writing definitely changed the way the mind thinks and constructs as mentioned in the reading as I can argue that we could now envision and imagine what it mentioned on a written text without the need to be at a close proximity with the source/author. This could not be done through an oral society where message are reinforced through repetition and on the human's memory alone, resulting in opposing and contradictory reception of the message's meaning. So how did the inception of the writing world changes how the mind works? The bible for instance in the book of Genesis, describes to us explicitly in words how God created the world. In biblical context again, the word of God is recorded in order for Christians all around the world to get the same message and praise the word of God knowingly. If writing is a language of virus and it is claimed inhuman as mentioned in the reading, how will the religious context of utilizing the birth of alphabets plays in this statement? In Eastern religions, sacred manuscripts are highly glorified as a guideline to how human beings should behave. Thus, it is not something we should be afraid of.
Moving on to the cyberworld now, the Dadaist theory supports that everyone could be an author now through the myriad of sources available to us via the Internet. The evolution of writing made hypertext possible and opens up plenty creative outlets and opportunities for human to improvise and advance for a better future. All in all, I think I see more good than harm in writing.
What interests me the most is the writing trauma experienced by many ancient Greeks like Socrates. In the literate world we are residing in, we could only fathom the chaos without the ability to write and jot down characters in our everyday lives. It was argued that the birth of writing destroys the communal and naturalistic nature of human beings and yet what is puzzling to me is that the most effective methods of relating and disseminating knowledge is through writings. If it is not for the birth of writing, many historical events, research and philosophies might vanquish, swallowed by the tides of time. In ancient China, where examination is given the utmost importance in order to receive the greatest degree of respect and wealth, writing is celebrated as an eminent gift of intelligence. Some even argued that the birth of writing is the birth of civilisation. Even though this is bold claim, but the ability to keep records and knowledge on a tangible source made history and knowledge to pass on from generations to generations. Therefore, it is understandable that critics like Derrida questioned the irony of Plato and Socrates's contempt towards writing when their work and even some condemnatory complaints were lodged through writing.
The technology of writing definitely changed the way the mind thinks and constructs as mentioned in the reading as I can argue that we could now envision and imagine what it mentioned on a written text without the need to be at a close proximity with the source/author. This could not be done through an oral society where message are reinforced through repetition and on the human's memory alone, resulting in opposing and contradictory reception of the message's meaning. So how did the inception of the writing world changes how the mind works? The bible for instance in the book of Genesis, describes to us explicitly in words how God created the world. In biblical context again, the word of God is recorded in order for Christians all around the world to get the same message and praise the word of God knowingly. If writing is a language of virus and it is claimed inhuman as mentioned in the reading, how will the religious context of utilizing the birth of alphabets plays in this statement? In Eastern religions, sacred manuscripts are highly glorified as a guideline to how human beings should behave. Thus, it is not something we should be afraid of.
Moving on to the cyberworld now, the Dadaist theory supports that everyone could be an author now through the myriad of sources available to us via the Internet. The evolution of writing made hypertext possible and opens up plenty creative outlets and opportunities for human to improvise and advance for a better future. All in all, I think I see more good than harm in writing.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
From Page Space to e Space.
Thoughts in relation to Drucker (2003)'s reading:
What I find really interesting about this reading is the meticulous considerations the developers of e-books have in order to emulate and even improve the functions of traditional books. But nonetheless, I do not really see how e-books can ever replace traditional books in any way. The sensation of actually touching the texture of the paper whether it is coarse or smooth at our fingertips is definitely more gratifying to me. And like what was mentioned in yesterday's class, some of us actually prefer owning a traditional book and keep them as a collection. What would be of bookshelves if people starts to read entirely from e-books? What would be of libraries and bookstores? Would'nt that makes us unappreciative human beings as we tend to take our historical inventions for granted? And there is definitely the possibility that we will lose electronic data in case of a technological glitch and so on.
Moreover, every e-books are the same in their format electronically. For example, we read e-book texts from a bright flat screen whereas we can truly see and touch the design of an embossed title of a tangible book's cover page. Recently, I got an elaboratedly designed book with pop-ups and stickers for my niece. That reminded me how these features could not possibly be incorporated in e-books. Despite all these arguments, I do think that e-books are very helpful and beneficial in a number of ways especially for educational purposes. As students, we could have access to endless resources in a click of the mouse and all the reading materials are available online. As I prefer to read it in a hardcopy, I will print them out. Besides, reading online could be really distracting as I tend to check out other sites (Facebook or blogs). But then again, it traces back to the individual's own preference.
Therefore, I think both traditional and e-books should co-exist. As mentioned in the reading, traditional books are already virtual in its own way, telling our mind to visualize and imagine. E-books are truly a breakthrough in the world we are living in but so are traditional books centuries ago. Hence, we should not take them for granted as technolgy advances.
What I find really interesting about this reading is the meticulous considerations the developers of e-books have in order to emulate and even improve the functions of traditional books. But nonetheless, I do not really see how e-books can ever replace traditional books in any way. The sensation of actually touching the texture of the paper whether it is coarse or smooth at our fingertips is definitely more gratifying to me. And like what was mentioned in yesterday's class, some of us actually prefer owning a traditional book and keep them as a collection. What would be of bookshelves if people starts to read entirely from e-books? What would be of libraries and bookstores? Would'nt that makes us unappreciative human beings as we tend to take our historical inventions for granted? And there is definitely the possibility that we will lose electronic data in case of a technological glitch and so on.
Moreover, every e-books are the same in their format electronically. For example, we read e-book texts from a bright flat screen whereas we can truly see and touch the design of an embossed title of a tangible book's cover page. Recently, I got an elaboratedly designed book with pop-ups and stickers for my niece. That reminded me how these features could not possibly be incorporated in e-books. Despite all these arguments, I do think that e-books are very helpful and beneficial in a number of ways especially for educational purposes. As students, we could have access to endless resources in a click of the mouse and all the reading materials are available online. As I prefer to read it in a hardcopy, I will print them out. Besides, reading online could be really distracting as I tend to check out other sites (Facebook or blogs). But then again, it traces back to the individual's own preference.
Therefore, I think both traditional and e-books should co-exist. As mentioned in the reading, traditional books are already virtual in its own way, telling our mind to visualize and imagine. E-books are truly a breakthrough in the world we are living in but so are traditional books centuries ago. Hence, we should not take them for granted as technolgy advances.
Monday, August 16, 2010
The Fantasy of Death, The Death of Fantasy
Thoughts in relation to McKenzie (2003) reading:
McKenzie has a fascinating view on the distinction between virtual reality and the real world we are living in. He questioned if the representation of the virtual reality actually exceeds the 'realness' of the reality. Using Bradbury's story of two children murdering their parents using a home-based virtual reality environment, he suggests that we would be more like the children, rejecting the reality we are residing in and immerse wholly into a virtually make believe world. Relating back to the discussions we have in yesterday's tutorial, the possibility of choosing the reality we want to be in does not seems that far-fetch anymore. So, would I choose to abandon my psychical body and live in my virtually perfect world? In my opinion, we should never fall into the temptation of a perfectly crafted world as not only it will disrupt the real world we are living in, it will definitely create a chaotic world where people lose their friends and families and worst their leaders. Not to mention how creepy it would be to see people in their motionless state or behaving oddly in wires or capsules.
However, I would consider the utilization of the virtual reality technology for national security purposes similar to the armies in the movie, 'Surrogates'. Albeit the incident in the movie happens in real time, the concept of mind leaving the body could still be applied here. In my opinion, that would produce a favourable result in terms of minimizing the amount of casualties of men-at-arms.
Moreover, if the representation of the virtual reality exceed the realness of the reality, there would be heaps of confusion and the constant questioning of authenticity of the world we are in.
In a nutshell, the ability to immerse ourselves in a fantasy-like world challenges the fantasy of death and consequently, marks the death of fantasy.
McKenzie has a fascinating view on the distinction between virtual reality and the real world we are living in. He questioned if the representation of the virtual reality actually exceeds the 'realness' of the reality. Using Bradbury's story of two children murdering their parents using a home-based virtual reality environment, he suggests that we would be more like the children, rejecting the reality we are residing in and immerse wholly into a virtually make believe world. Relating back to the discussions we have in yesterday's tutorial, the possibility of choosing the reality we want to be in does not seems that far-fetch anymore. So, would I choose to abandon my psychical body and live in my virtually perfect world? In my opinion, we should never fall into the temptation of a perfectly crafted world as not only it will disrupt the real world we are living in, it will definitely create a chaotic world where people lose their friends and families and worst their leaders. Not to mention how creepy it would be to see people in their motionless state or behaving oddly in wires or capsules.
However, I would consider the utilization of the virtual reality technology for national security purposes similar to the armies in the movie, 'Surrogates'. Albeit the incident in the movie happens in real time, the concept of mind leaving the body could still be applied here. In my opinion, that would produce a favourable result in terms of minimizing the amount of casualties of men-at-arms.
Moreover, if the representation of the virtual reality exceed the realness of the reality, there would be heaps of confusion and the constant questioning of authenticity of the world we are in.
In a nutshell, the ability to immerse ourselves in a fantasy-like world challenges the fantasy of death and consequently, marks the death of fantasy.
The Rise of the Tech Hackers.
Thoughts in relation to the Benedikt (1993) reading:
I was exceptionally drawn by the role of the cyberspace as an avenue for the acting out on mythic realities mentioned in thread one. Indeed, from a very young age, we were told tales of the mythical world that are out of the world we are residing in. I could vividly remember the desire to be in the fantasy whimsical tales that are fed to me through various media. From books, bedtime stories told by my grandma, Disney movies to television. The need to be apart of something wildly out from this world lingers even as I grow older. Children in the world we are living in are thrown into the complexity of advanced technology. Unlike the generation before them, they did not have the opportunity to experience the evolution of these technology. Nonetheless, they are exposed to fables, superheroes comics and endless movies which enables them to have fantasies to be apart of those seemingly interesting or bizarre worlds. For many young boys, the hunger for empowerment, to be adored, to complete an impossible mission, identical to the fictional heroes. In my opinion, the hunger usually stays with them as they grow up. Thus, the emergence of online games provides them a platform to perform and achieve the power they could not receive in real life. The other night, my boyfriend told me about this particular player was obviously hacking the online gaming system so that he could achieve the highest score by gunning down as much enemies as possible. That got me contemplating what drives some people to resort to all sorts of rebellious ways to be on top of their game? Fame? Getting the attention they want? Narcissism?
Putting aside the issue regarding online games, I once heard of the story of a young boy who managed to crack into America's CIA security system. These seemingly complex nodes of encrypted codes is challenged by a deluge of what we now dubbed as 'tech hackers'. So what are they trying to prove? Is it true that they struggle into adulthood and seek satisfaction in acting out against the technology? Or they seek for the thrill of discovering something even more complex than what we have in real life?
The cyberspace open up endless opportunities for us to be apart of what would have be considered as impossible in the past, to quench our need to dwell in fiction. These reasons could be the answers to the rapid rise of a new generation of tech hackers in this era.
I was exceptionally drawn by the role of the cyberspace as an avenue for the acting out on mythic realities mentioned in thread one. Indeed, from a very young age, we were told tales of the mythical world that are out of the world we are residing in. I could vividly remember the desire to be in the fantasy whimsical tales that are fed to me through various media. From books, bedtime stories told by my grandma, Disney movies to television. The need to be apart of something wildly out from this world lingers even as I grow older. Children in the world we are living in are thrown into the complexity of advanced technology. Unlike the generation before them, they did not have the opportunity to experience the evolution of these technology. Nonetheless, they are exposed to fables, superheroes comics and endless movies which enables them to have fantasies to be apart of those seemingly interesting or bizarre worlds. For many young boys, the hunger for empowerment, to be adored, to complete an impossible mission, identical to the fictional heroes. In my opinion, the hunger usually stays with them as they grow up. Thus, the emergence of online games provides them a platform to perform and achieve the power they could not receive in real life. The other night, my boyfriend told me about this particular player was obviously hacking the online gaming system so that he could achieve the highest score by gunning down as much enemies as possible. That got me contemplating what drives some people to resort to all sorts of rebellious ways to be on top of their game? Fame? Getting the attention they want? Narcissism?
Putting aside the issue regarding online games, I once heard of the story of a young boy who managed to crack into America's CIA security system. These seemingly complex nodes of encrypted codes is challenged by a deluge of what we now dubbed as 'tech hackers'. So what are they trying to prove? Is it true that they struggle into adulthood and seek satisfaction in acting out against the technology? Or they seek for the thrill of discovering something even more complex than what we have in real life?
The cyberspace open up endless opportunities for us to be apart of what would have be considered as impossible in the past, to quench our need to dwell in fiction. These reasons could be the answers to the rapid rise of a new generation of tech hackers in this era.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)