Disaster(ous) Logo(s)

blogos

It’s about the process, not the result… the journey, not the destination…

… even though a satisfying outcome would still be ideal.

Ithaca

When you set out on your journey to Ithaca,
pray that the road is long,
full of adventure, full of knowledge.
The Lestrygonians and the Cyclops,
the angry Poseidon — do not fear them:
You will never find such as these on your path,
if your thoughts remain lofty, if a fine
emotion touches your spirit and your body.
The Lestrygonians and the Cyclops,
the fierce Poseidon you will never encounter,
if you do not carry them within your soul,
if your soul does not set them up before you.

Pray that the road is long.
That the summer mornings are many, when,
with such pleasure, with such joy
you will enter ports seen for the first time;
stop at Phoenician markets,
and purchase fine merchandise,
mother-of-pearl and coral, amber and ebony,
and sensual perfumes of all kinds,

as many sensual perfumes as you can; visit many Egyptian cities, to learn and learn from scholars.

Always keep Ithaca in your mind.
To arrive there is your ultimate goal.
But do not hurry the voyage at all.
It is better to let it last for many years;
and to anchor at the island when you are old,
rich with all you have gained on the way,
not expecting that Ithaca will offer you riches.

Ithaca has given you the beautiful voyage.

Without her you would have never set out on the road.

She has nothing more to give you.

And if you find her poor, Ithaca has not deceived you.

Wise as you have become, with so much experience,

you must already have understood what Ithacas mean.

Constantine P. Cavafy (1911)

Cosmopedia

Κόσμος + παιδεία —> the comprehensive organization of knowledge.

The ultimate, all-encompassing, information archive.

Pierre Levy’s “cosmpopedia” vision of the Web as knowledge space suggests a deterritorialization of knowledge with misleadingly democratizing undertones (at least to participatory culture enthusiasts such as Henry Jenkins).  The advocating of the democratization of access to online information does not necessarily imply a simultaneous advocation of the democratization of knowledge production. When it comes to the provision and creation of knowledge in cyberspace, information is still -for the most part- organized under an implicit hierarchy that assigns legitimacy and authority accordingly (or, alternatively, it exists in a random and chaotic state and is thus not easily searchable and retrvievable to outsiders).  This is one way of filtering out “unnecessary” information/ web junk, but it inevitably means that an oligarchy (compared to the number of people who use the Internet) gets to determine what is unnecessary and what is considered of substance. Yes, the creative bounds are much more relaxed in cyberspace and more people can share their contributions, but there are still systems that help us determine what is “real” and what is “fake”, what is from a legitimate source and what is unreliable (e.g. website ratings, website reputation etc).

Conversely, we could also cautiously say that new media have changed (or, rather, expanded) not only the ways in which we access and process information, but also the ways in which information is organized and accumulated. Arguably, we are becoming less responsible for the information we share online. Case in point: this very blog. I do not fully cite my sources. Sometimes I paraphrase too loosely. I mix and match with no coherent transitions. My writing is haphazard.  But does that change the legitimacy of the information I have to share? Does it inevitably make it less reliable?Perhaps, but at least I am putting my thoughts out there. Will the future break down the still-existent barriers between the professional and the amateur, the academic and the non-scholarly? While this scenario seems to pave the way towards a more democratic access to information, it will probably not ameliorate the *quality* of information-production. It will, instead, make the quality of information more diverse, without necessarily improving or expanding it.

But for the sake of argument, let us consider the potential of the Web as archive and a site of  knowledge-production alongside Levy’s assertion that:  “no one knows everything, everyone knows something, all knowledge resides in humanity.” Will electracy lead the way towards a true cosmopedia, same as the one originally envisioned by the Ancient Greeks? According to Levy, cosmopedia “serves as a site of collective discussion, negotiation, and development… Unanswered questions will create tension within cosmopedic space, indicating regions where invention and innovation are required.” In light of this, electracy combined with heuretics can contribute to the expansion of an archive of knowledge, where information is accumulated through idea negotiation, exchange and collaboration.

Nevertheless, the question remains: who will organize this information in a way that is easily accessible and easy to navigate?  We may not need “gatekeepers” in the future, but we will still need referees, right? Of course, then the question that persists is whether this task will be open to “experts” and non-experts alike, and/or whether it will rest on a combination of the two groups.  The premise of electracy is that it’s “easy” or intuitive in some ways, and thus everyone can potentially gain mastery over the same skillset. However, heuretics is what will separate the “just” electrate from those who use electracy to invent. Just because someone can write does not mean they can produce something brilliant; the same goes for electracy.

Will heuretics within the electracy apparatus produce something useful/practical (in any way you choose to define that), or just something new?

Do I have anything to say – or does the network already take care of it? Mongrel  – NetMonster

παιδεία, εκπαίδευση, μόρφωση

Software Takes Command

Lev Manovich’s most recent new media theory attempts to – once again – historicize the non-historicized. This time, he tackles the “field” (or what perhaps aspires to become at least a subfield) of software studies.  Up to this point, software studies – in the shape of  “cultural software” – does not exist simply because it has never been extensively contextualized and historicized. Manovich equates the understanding of software with the understanding of culture at large, since – according to him – software permeates all aspects of society. Manovich asserts that software has become the “new engine of culture”  – a phrase that, to me, evokes images of automation and mechanization. This is probably not what Manovich’s primary intention was in theorizing the significance of software studies, since automation and mechanization (among other functions, such as recombination and modularity) are more directly related to code studies.

The emergence of new fields of study (or, again, wannabe-disciplines – and not necessarily within the academia) suggests that we are confronted with new sensibilities that seem to demand theorization, historicization, and – above all – legitimization.

Software and Pedagogy/ Electracy

German media and literary theorist Friedrich Kittler has argued that students ought to know at least two software languages because, according to him, only “then they’ll be able to say something about what ‘culture’ is at the moment”.

But, does “saying” something through software languages guarantee that it will be heard? Is this a case of confusion -or, conflation- of the terms “software studies” and “code studies” ? I believe so, to some degree.

Does “saying” something in a software language inevitably involve an act of prosumption, where consumption and production both occur  (though not simultaneously or to an equal extent) ?

Revisited Revised

Another catastrophe, one we never imagined,
sudden, precipitous, falls upon us,
and unprepared — there is no more time — carries us off.

How can I make myself not read this allegorically? How can I make myself not take this literally?

Is this poem timeless, or has history rendered it time-less?

This was around the time Cavafy had given up on symbols.

Myth, to him, is “depoliticized speech” … poetry with no context, the personal detatched from the political. Could this be right???

His poem has a personal tone, a tone of defiance. Defiance, but not complete disregard for an audience. Not disregard the sense that the audience has to empathize.

He must overcome the trappings of myth, precisely through the very trappings of myth: language, poetry, abstraction, allegory.

Only then can his work be set free. But freedom never comes. Freedom is besides the point.

Cavafy Revisited

The didactic aspect to Cavafy’ s poetry is hard to ignore. Perhaps because my teachers insisted so much on it. Perhaps because my mother is a philologist and taught me to appreciate this kind of creativity. Perhaps because Cavafy is a national icon and, like a myth, he functions didactically through his work.

This poem is meant to pass on the wisdom of an older and wiser poet to the Greek youth. For Cavafy, a destructive ignorance is embedded in the convictions of youth.

The poet’s words are meant to be taken as an oracle. The clarity in Cavafy’s instructions seems to make his prophecy different to the cryptic prophecies given by Oracles. But, like the Oracle’s prophecies,  foresight of the [self-repeating] future does not prepare us for the disaster, for the disaster is time-less.

In a sense, Cavafy’s words cancel themselves out in the face of the disaster and render him just as powerless as the youth he is trying to educate.

Finalities

Τελειωμένα

Μέσα στον φόβο και στες υποψίες
με ταραγμένο νου και τρομαγμένα μάτια,
λυώνουμε και σχεδιάζουμε το πώς να κάμουμε
για ν’ αποφύγουμε τον βέβαιο
τον κίνδυνο που έτσι φρικτά μας απειλεί.
Κι όμως λανθάνουμε, δεν είν’ αυτός στον δρόμο·
ψεύτικα ήσαν τα μηνύματα
(ή δεν τ’ ακούσαμε, ή δεν τα νοιώσαμε καλά).
Αλλη καταστροφή, που δεν την φανταζόμεθαν,
εξαφνική, ραγδαία πέφτει πάνω μας,
κι ανέτοιμους — πού πια καιρός — μας συνεπαίρνει.

Κωνσταντίνος Π. Καβάφης (1911)

Finalities

Amid fear and suspicions,
with agitated mind and frightened eyes,
we melt and plan how to act
to avoid the certain
danger that so horribly threatens us.
And yet we err, this was not in our paths;
the messages were false
(or we did not hear, or fully understand them).
Another catastrophe, one we never imagined,
sudden, precipitous, falls upon us,
and unprepared — there is no more time — carries us off.

Constantine P. Cavafy (1911)

• Before reading and attempting to comprehend Maurice Blanchot’s The Writing of the Disaster, I would have taken Cavafy’s words at face value (as much as I can bring myself to take poetry at face value).
• However, after reading Blanchot, I revisited this poem and realized that the words had changed. Or was it I that changed? How did I change myself?
• Growing up with Cavafy’s poetry, I was taught by my Greek literature teachers to appreciate the beauty and eloquence of his poetry. I tended to absorb the words but not their meaning.
• But there is so much more. More than I can express or convey, without the fear of distortion.
• How do I force myself to escape the burden of representation?
• Poetry passively acts as a means of approaching the disaster. Approaching but not quite. This is not a paradox.
• The disaster is in Cavafi’s writing. The disaster carries him off as it exists within him. And yet, he is outside of the disaster, just as he is outside of his poetry.
• What stuck with me the most about Cavafy from my high school days is that he was thought to be GAY.