Deleuze and Guattari: A Thousand Plateaus

Summary:

In this article Deleuze and Guattari offer an alternative philosophical theory explaining how human knowledge works. The general conception held on how one can approach knowledge likens it to a structure such as a tree, a consistent logical flow building from the bottom up. Deleuze and Guattari, however, offer the word ribosome as a description for their new approach to knowledge. Webster’s Dictionary defines rhizome as, “ a somewhat elongate usually horizontal subterranean plant stem…producing shoots above and roots bellow.” All points are connected to each other through the root system but since it is constantly expanding at random there is no logical organization or center from which everything is expanding upon. Deleuze and Guattari write, “Unlike a structure, which is defined by a set of points and positions, with binary relations between the points and biunivocal relationships between the positions, the rhizome is made only of lines, lines of segmentarity and stratification as its dimensions” (NMR 409). Everything is separated into dimensions that can’t be reduced to simple units, a beginning, or an end. “Instead “linear multiplicities” based off consistency form a metaphorical map that can be continually changed and manipulated by the human mind.

Inquiry:

To be honest I’m not sure I understood the majority of the writing in this article. I agree with concept Deleuze’s and Guattari’s presented regarding different dimensions being sporadically connected and separating our various approaches to knowledge. The human brain has specific areas that have been found to control certain aspects of our thoughts, behaviors, and sensations, so it makes sense that each of area records whatever knowledge is being gained pertaining to that area of the brains specialty. Through utilizing multiple forms of knowledge gained and interconnecting all this at the same time we are able to function in the manner we think of as normal. It does not seem as rational to me to think that the approach to knowledge by the human mind is like that of a tree, with everything neatly sorted out and leading smoothly to each other from the bottom up in perfect succession.

Questions:

1) 1) Do you think our approach to knowledge is more like a tree or a rhizome?

2) 2) Deleuze and Guattari say that book has no object and that it is simply the way in which it functions and relates to other things that forms our impression of it. Would you agree with this?

3) 3) Deleuze and Guattari say knowledge has no beginning or end simply a middle, so is knowledge truly timeless or can it come to an end?

Autistic Culture Online

Summary
In Joyce Davidson’s article Autistic Culture Online, the reader is given a new point of view for the autistic world. Focusing her studies on social and cultural geographies, Davidson used autobiographies from AS people and the Internet to get her information. She is trying to convince the unknowing readers that autism has its own way of life, and is at risk of scrutiny from those who believe autism is strictly a disability. Autistic people have a difficult time with face to face communication because facial expressions, body language, and tone are all confusing aspects to them. People with AS prefer not to have fast paced Neurotypical conversations with interruptions and confusion. Instead, they like to make an entire statement, uninterrupted, without any extra baggage. The Internet has allowed people with AS to have these types of conversations. Chatting and different groups allow different “forms of life”, Wittgenstein’s term for cultural groups that tend to understand, agree, and relate with one another. The Internet allows distance and structure while still being able to have a good conversation. Uninterrupted, delayed responses, and consistency are all things that AS people look for in a strong conversation thanks to their different type of “language game”. These online groups form to gain support, recognition, and organization also. The Internet has “promoted the emergence of new ways f self-identification for autistics” (Singer) and is “a means to develop and maintain social relationships.” (Jones and Meldal) Online groups have challenged the stereotype that autistic people cannot communication and has created the movement for AS. More recently, this online movement has begun to move offline. AS groups are now fighting for autism to be considered its own minority group. People with AS are now being judged for having their own way of communicating, but by becoming a minority group, their ways will be more accepted. The Internet is not a way for those with AS to exclude themselves from the world, but to communicate and create more pride for themselves in their own way.

Inquiry
This article, by far, has been the most interesting one to read so far this semester. Introducing us to a whole new world, Davidson has really opened my eyes. Autism is so much different than a disability. AS people communicate differently just as “normal” people learn in different styles. Autism has found its core in the Internet and should not be looked down upon for finding something that helps them in more than one way. The article mentioned a few different sites that AS groups use. The Second Life group “Brigadoon Explorers” http://world.secondlife.com/group/f5580532-4152-6780-5b27-677c4bc29c91 is a place for those with autism or supporters of the cause to gather, network and play. Another group is Autism Network International http://autreat.com/. This site consists of an online group, information on their mission, and runs the annual Autreat. These and many others are the way autistic people really get to understand themselves and others. The Internet is merely a solution to autistic people’s lack of communication skills, just as we find solutions for our own problems. To learn more about autism, go to http://www.bing.com/health/article/mayo-117461/Autism?q=autism.

1. If you know someone with autism, does that person use the Internet to communicate or are they in an online autistic group?
2. Do you belong to a gender, race, sexuality, or disability group on the Internet? If so, what do you use this group for?
3. Do you believe AS is a disability or a minority of a personality type?

The Search Party

Summary

In The Search Party, Ken Auletta shows that people believed that Google was a tool to with hold its users from advancing into new information. "An organization called Hands Off the Internet, ...ran full-paged newspaper advertisements in which it accused Google of wanting to create a monopoly and block 'new innovation'..." Though Google has become a major attribute to the Internet, Sergey Brin, one of the founders of the search engine, emphasizes the fact that Google's goal is "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful." Since the goal is so large, the company would also become large. Because of this, newspapers, authors, and even Microsoft had a concern, because Google was taking over every industry involving information and software.
The overall question to be answered is, "Does Google have too much power?" One of the views illustrated is that Google is shaping the power of other industries, through the information that it provides. Others say that it should be looked at as a tool to help serve small parties and even large parties, so it is not too powerful, it just spreads the power throughout its users. Google has also brought up competing search engines, which has helped people, because there are more options to choose from when looking for information.
While all of the accusations against Google were going on, Google spread into the mobile telephone business. Google has found yet another way to either expand their power, or provide information to everybody in a device that everybody uses. Eric Schmidt, another co-founder explains that "in our society, bigness is often associated with bad." But he makes the case that the size and influence of Google is not bad, it would be bad if arrogance came into play. If the company becomes arrogant then there is a problem.

Three Questions:
- Is Google too powerful?
- Does it seem that Google or the founders of Google are arrogant?
- How big is the threat of Google to other companies, such as Microsoft?

Inquiry

I do not think Google is too powerful. Granted there is a lot of power involved and several things you can use with Google, but I think it is all in good manner. Google seems to be an advantage for most people, because it is a quick and easy way to find pretty much any information. I do not see this as them abusing the power of the search engine, just as using it to the fullest of its capability for the benefit of its users. I don't see how Google can be viewed as arrogant, because it seems that its main goal is for the benefit of the public, to make information easily accessible.
Google is not a threat to any other companies, especially Microsoft, I think they work hand in hand.

The Hacker Manifesto

Summary

In “The Hacker Manifesto,” the Mentor is justifying his existence as a hacker. He does that by describing what drives his interests as a hacker and what drove him to it and comparing that to society’s view of him. All of the segments that represented began with “damn kid” representing the scorn society has on individuals like the Mentor. Yet, the Mentor claims that his boredom that results from his above average intelligence drives him to act as he does and that computers actually challenge him intellectually and do not judge him like society does. He compares the computers objectiveness to the judgment of society. “It does what I want it to. If it makes a mistake, it's because I screwed it up. Not because it doesn't like me... Or feels threatened by me.. (The Mentor).” He found a place where he belongs in the internet and manipulating the information available, yet society looks upon this as a crime.

The only information that the author gives about himself is that he is a hacker, and his intended audience is the society that judges him, not including his fellow hackers. This is made obvious in his wording towards the beginning of his manifesto where he uses the pronoun you as in everybody else: “But did you, in your three-piece psychology and 1950's technobrain, ever take a look behind the eyes of the hacker (The Mentor)?” The author uses his manifesto to justify himself as a hacker and in writing this the opinion of the general society of him is at stake and if on the off chance the manifesto is used to track him down he may have to deal with the legal repercussions of being a hacker.

Inquiry

I have not been convinced that hacking is not necessarily a crime or that is possible to justify oneself as a hacker. The Mentor tries to define hacking as something other than unlawful information theft. He says, “We explore... and you call us criminals. We seek after knowledge... and you call us criminals (The Mentor).” However, hacking is more than exploring and seeking knowledge. It is stealing people’s identity, it is accessing personal information and often exploiting it, it is stealing money. In fact, hackers stole about $120 million through online banking and transfers in a merely three month time period in 2009. This type of trend will only get worse and is very harmful to banks and small businesses. This type of hacking cannot be justifies by boredom or curiosity.

1) Is the existence of hackers the fault of society’s lack of understanding towards individuals like The Mentor?
2) Are there some situations where hacking is justifiable?
3) What are possible ways to prevent hacking?

By Brittney Beck

Richard Stallman's "The GNU Manifesto"

Summary

In the “The GNU Manifesto,” Richard Stallman argues that software should be shared freely, not restricted by copyrights that protect “intellectual property.” According to him, “The golden rule requires that if I [he] like a program I [he] must share it with other people who like it (Stallman 546).” Thus, he put together GNU to be a free software compatible to UNIX without the restrictions. Stallman used to work for the Artificial Intelligence Lab at MIT (546) and is passionate about programming, in a way that is more than just making money, and feels obligated to share his passion. His need to share his interest in programming is demonstrated in his multiple referrals to the Golden Rule and how he considers it wrong to hoard information (548).

Stallman uses his manifesto to explain to technology users, potential GNU users, and those who are uncertain about GNU what GNU is, why he thinks it is necessary, how it will be accomplished, how consumers will benefit, and addresses several doubts and questions there are regarding GNU, its effectiveness and to ask for support. He makes his target audience apparent in his very first sentence: “GNU, which stands for Gnu’s Not Unix, is the name for the complete Unix-compatible software system which I am writing so that I can give it away free to everyone who can use it (Stallman 545).” This manifesto’s purpose is to gain support for GNU, thus if it does not effectively portray Stallman’s purpose in creating GNU and why it is essential, it would be possible that he could not complete his project as a direct result of lacking support and backing as well as a potential market for his product.

Inquiry

When I first read Stallman’s “The GNU Manifesto,” I was extremely confused because I am very unfamiliar with most of the technical terms and references that were used to convey the main content of the Manifesto. For example, I had no clue what UNIX was, but I used New Media to clear up my confusion. When UNIX was defined as a computer operating system, I was still lost. Then I became very grateful for hypertext when I clicked on the link provided to define that. If you are confused regarding these terms I hyperlinked what I referred to. This is also an interesting link to explore: http://www.gnu.org/

I do not believe it is wrong to charge for software and computer operating systems. It encourages a competitive market and provides jobs for a multitude of people, not just the programmers themselves, but also the other people who work at such companies such as Microsoft Windows (this link is to view the trademarks) and Mac OS X. Stallman’s arguments addressing objections to GNU’s goals do not convince me. I believe that competition leads to the development of better technology and better prices. I also believe that the income received helps provide income for many people including the janitors for Microsoft Windows AND the programmers, protecting their intellectual property. GNU is cause for debate in several areas:

1) Should access to computer operating systems and software be free? Why?
2) What would be the repercussions if free software like GNU were to crowd non-free UNIX software out of the market?
3) Is there a possible compromise between UNIX and GNU?

By Brittney Beck

Myron Krueger's Responsive Environments

Summary:

Within this article, Krueger drives home that the future of technology rests in responsive environments. He distinguishes the art of interactivity versus art that happens to be interactive (382). Initially he begins to describe the technology that he has created in the early 70s titled GLOWFLOW, METAPLAY, and PSYCHIC SPACE, all dedicated to integrating humans into a responsive environment. His concept drawings are difficult to decipher, however it is interesting to see how advanced his concepts were for his time. Krueger's language when referring to his projects conveys genuine care, "the computer acts much as an orchestra conductor controlling the broad relationships while the artist provdes the score to which both the performer and conductor are bound (387). Cohesion between the machine and the user is needed to successfully integrate new technology. Using technology is not simply for the purpose of completing tasks; it is an art form.

Krueger later advocates how responsive environments can be applied to education, psychology, and psychotherapy. He states, "the next generation of technology will speak to us, understand us, and percieve our behavior" (388). The behaviors of human test subjects could be better observed in a mechanical environment. This would be relevant to a psychotherapist as they will be able to use the environment to evoke and expand behavior. Within education, these technologies can provide students with conceptual experience they may not receive through traditional teaching. This could revolutionize what we teach as well as how we teach. As he outlines the benefits of technological development, he declares "our culture cannot continue if a large portion of our population is hostile to the tools that define it" (389). Krueger argues that responsive environments will be a new realm of human experience, and that society should embrace it with welcome arms.

Inquiry:

I really enjoyed reading the colorful metaphors and descriptions Krueger used when explaining the importance of responsive environments. The prose he uses is very poetic, though it is garnished among the confusing language of various programmed data processors and obscure figure drawings. Initially I began to look up the definitions of these acronyms, but eventually I just glazed over the parts of the reading that were too technical for my knowledge. Regarding telecommunication, Krueger predicts "At a time when the cost is increasing and fiber optics promise to reduce the cost of communication, it seems appropriate to research the act of communication in an intuitive sense as well as in the strictly scientific and problem-solving approaches that prevail today" (388). As this article was written in the 1970s, the author would be comforted to know that technology is frequently used in the forms of webcam and video conferences. I believe Krueger effectively drew the audience to become more accepting of the reality of interactive technology.

I had a great experience today at the Virtual Reality Lab. When exploring the varying dimensions of space, especially within the protein molecule, I began to think about the infinite amount of places responsive technology could take us. The head-tracking technology was really impressive and it raised a lot of questions regarding how it could be implemented into military defense, biomedical technology, etc. Marvin hypothesized that soon homes will be able to implement 3D-capable Blu-Ray machines and TVs. Video game experiences could stray from the desktop to a 10' X 10' 6-dimensional virtual world. When I saw the Avatar movie last Winter, I was really immersed into the vivid colors and cool animation. Movies can definitely evoke real emotions, however I am always aware of the distinction between my life and a simulated picture. However, according to a CNN article, some fans of the movie expressed feelings of depression, "disgust with the human race and disengagement with reality" and "the world seemed gray". As technology is improving and becoming more accessible to the public, I fear that people will become even more detached from actual reality. If one simply walks outside on campus, goes hiking, or drives with the windows down, they will be able to see, taste, and feel more than virtual reality would ever be able to simulate; because it's physically tangible and real.

Link to CNN article: http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/11/avatar.movie.blues/index.html

Questions:

1. Why would one argue against the capabilities of interactive, modern technology?

2. When evaluating the socioeconomic development of nations, can technology be synonymous with progress?

3. What are some ways the Virtual Reality Lab could augment academics at UA as a responsive environment?