« What is genuine? Does it matter? | Main

December 10, 2007

The Red Fork of Enclosure

My/our symbol of enclosure for English 280 is a red fork. The red fork presents itself with a variety of meanings and faces. The color red, for example can symbolize love, passion, and romance. However, it can also represent death (blood) and rage (red in the face with anger). Looking beyond color, the fork itself can also take on opposite meanings. The fork can be perceived as a tool to facilitate delicate eating, but we might also view it as a hindrance that slows down our food intake. On a more philosophical/poetic level, Thylias Moss' Limited Fork Poetics asks us to study the interacting language systems of our senses. BUT, she emphasizes that the fork is Limited. Thus, it seems that even when we pay attention to how systems interact, we still fail to fully comprehend the reality of a situation.

Just as there is more than one way to view a to view a red fork and any situation in general, there are multiple ways to view the impact of technology. Throughout my blogs, I have attempted to give more than one point of view in regards to how technology influences and shapes us. I feel that both the positives and negatives of technology are apparent in the various current events and topics I blog about. On the upside, technology has allowed us to connect to people we might never have met, it allows us to access information in an instant, it lets people independently publish their work/art, it facilitates our awareness of world news/situations/disasters, and it saves many lives. However, technology also creates e-waste, may cause us to be isolated from one-on-one human contact, may give us unreliable information, threatens our privacy, and may end up taking away traditional novelties such as paper books.

Here is a video I have published on YouTube to illustrate the positive and negatives impacts of technology across generations.

Though there is more than one face of technology, it most definitely has an incredible impact on our lives. But we must keep in mind that every situation comes with its positives and negatives - some of which we remain unaware of.

Posted by leslieph at December 10, 2007 06:48 PM

Comments

Just too many variables to be sure that every possible aspect is addressed, so yes; we do fail to construct well or even imagine well entireties and their associated interpretations, and every possible combination of interaction/intersection on every scale.

Too many questions at this point are unanswerable, and without being able to know whether or not some things "really" exist compromises the reliability of not only what we assume but also what we accept as fact (that "acceptance" a form of assumption).

And as long as we are in a situation that we need to comprehend, that portion of the situation that we occupy is blocked from an ability to see it and understand the complexity of out interaction with the situation, out shaping of it so that the situations we are in are tailored (in varying degrees in various ways) to our presence.

The shared reality is made of many personal realities.

It's actually a useful survival strategy that are not identical; in this way, some may be better suited to cope with various variables of situations, increasing the likelihood of survival for at last some of us from situation to situation.

What is clear is that any of us alive now are descendants of survivors whose variations enabled them to survive various upheavals on various scales.

Each of us has a history just as long, back to origins of humanity.

Your video is quite revealing, and some of what one might expect along generational lines is present. Those who had to adjust to a switchover from older to newer technologies have a reference point of existence without the present technologies. Their roots are in other systems of compiling information and interacting.

Those whose lives were shaped by technology early, who were born into the rapid movement since the digital explosion are generally more comfortable with what is familiar; there was no transition from an analog method of interacting; no need to upgrade thinking to be able to see the technological situation as a foundation of reality.

The advances trickle down, reaching most (in the US) in an entertainment format, but much of this technology has other mire "significant" implications on levels from which most would be excluded for not having the specialized knowledge used to generate the technology and use in it in specialized situations including medicine and warfare.

Look at how the simplification of previously complex specialized technology has transformed how we can use the computer, the writing of code --i"m writing a good deal of code in my blogs, code that is simple enough to master without specialized training which wasn't true a few years ago --and many blogs have automated functions (mblog doesn't, and I appreciate this, for I've had to learn the code to tailor my blog situation to the one I prefer; I;m adding more to my mblogs now that the configuration is more closely linked to the choices I need to make to present something that more accurately reflects my aesthetic and philosophical concerns.

Consider this also: had you submitted a conventional essay, it is unlikely that that essay would have received teacher comments like these in which I have more aesthetic investment, in a system of enclosure that allows me to feel more connected to your ideas than I would have you submitted a conventional essay. I am not interested in judging the systems of response that distinguish the formal print essay from the blog essay, but I prefer the blog system where comments --more than just mine-- actually become part of your blog and can be built on, extended; the act of thinking is not given an opportunity to consider itself "finished" --the blog essentially is a single page; all you have to do is write a one-page paper, but be sure to write until you get to the end of the page.

Posted by: thyliasm at December 23, 2007 12:46 AM

Login to leave a comment. Create a new account.