Author: james rouvelle

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ND06VRnuelY[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81TPfSpKXrA[/youtube]

i love this project and its’ documentation.

the combination of the terrestrial and aerial footage in the documentation really brought out the complex interactions that occurred as the elements of the event drift in and out of phase with the simple gesture and intention to release, follow and retrieve a camera attached to a bunch of helium filled balloons. the piece was clearly a collaborative effort from start to finish and that was great to see.

if you’ve read any of the other things on this blog you probably realize that i love the intersection of simultaneous and linear time, and this project (and its’ documentation) seemed, at least to me, to portray that dynamic. while watching the footage it occurred to me that perhaps when our intentions are being efficiently realized we experience the simultaneous, and when they’re not, we experience the sequential.

i also detected a difference in persona between the american and german participants – and smiled as the american guy occasionally muttered ‘fuck!’ as things unfolded – because i, an american who has also incorporated balloons, the weather, cities, and the public into my own work, often catch myself muttering ‘fuck!’ as my own projects ‘drift in and out of phase’. when i watched the san francisco footage the amount of fuck muttering seemed to increase proportionally with the amount of american participation. i digress.

i visited their site and watched some other versions in other cities and a few things crossed my mind:

i imagine that running this project near large bodies of water would complicate the process. i’d do a test launch in each site by attaching a weight to a bunch of balloons first – just to see what’s what.

it might also be interesting to attach a phone running something like qik (streaming video from a phone camera) so that the video could be logged whether the camera was retrieved or not. if they bought a used nokia 6682 (or something) with an unlimited data plan it might not cost much more than the current version, even if the phone was never rescued – and if the phone disappeared they could just report it stolen and start over – or, of course, they could extend the work by incorporating whatever the people who found the phone would do with it. i suppose they could also add some GPS stuff with a suitably enabled phone and use that data, etc.

but it is beautiful as it is.

Pearl Montana Exploration and Production LTD, of Calgary, Alberta, seeks a permit to drill oil wells in the Great Salt Lake about five miles southwest of Rozel Point and the Spiral Jetty. Drilling activities will be based on floating barges anchored to the lake bottom.

The public may comment on the proposal through Feb. 13 through the state Resource Development Coordinating Committee, E-210 State Capitol Complex, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84114, or http://governor.utah.gov/planning/rdcc.htm.

The public may also express their concerns by sending emails to John Harja who runs the state’s public land policy coordinating office: johnharja@utah.gov

By RANDY KENNEDY >>

An oil company’s plan to begin exploratory drilling near the remote site of Robert Smithson’s “Spiral Jetty” along the Great Salt Lake in Utah has stirred an impassioned response from artists and others who fear that the project could endanger that massive artwork. The jetty, a 1,500-foot-long curlicue of salt crystals, rocks and mud jutting into the lake, was completed by Smithson in 1970, three years before he died in a plane crash. The State of Utah, which must approve any plan for drilling in the area, decided recently to extend a period for public comment on the proposal until Feb. 13. John Harja, who runs the state’s public land policy coordinating office, said on Tuesday that the office had received 900 letters, e-mail messages and calls about the issue in the last several days. Richard Moe, president of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, issued a statement calling the jetty “a significant cultural site” and saying that the trust was “deeply concerned about the potential harm that energy development could bring” to it.

from Jaron Lanier’s One-Half of a Manifesto

“…In Turing’s famous thought experiment, a human judge is asked to determine which of two correspondents is human, and which is machine. If the judge cannot tell, Turing asserts that the computer should be treated as having essentially achieved the moral and intellectual status of personhood.

Turing’s mistake was that he assumed the only explanation for a successful computer entrant would be that the computer had become elevated in some way; by becoming smarter, more human. There is another, equally valid explanation of a winning computer, however, which is that the human had become less intelligent, less humanlike.

An official Turing test is held every year, and while the substantial cash prize has not been claimed by a program as yet, it will certainly be won sometime in the coming years. My view is that this event is distracting everyone from the real Turing tests that are already being won. Real, though miniature, Turing tests are happening all the time, every day, whenever a person puts up with stupid computer software.

For instance, in the United States, we organize our financial lives in order to look good to the pathetically simplistic computer programs that determine our credit ratings. In doing this, we make ourselves stupid in order to make the computer software seem smart. In fact, we continue to trust the credit-rating software even though there has been an epidemic of personal bankruptcies during a time of very low unemployment and great prosperity.

We have caused the Turing test to be passed. There is no epistemological difference between artificial intelligence and the acceptance of badly designed computer software.”

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zuhCbNHJ2A[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zD1GQJHcq0[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRx43ud9tas[/youtube]

After my post on narrativity and cross-media events I recalled an interview with the artist Shannon Spanhake where she said:

“Recently, I have been experimenting with this idea of what I call as “pokemon pedagogy.” The marketing of “Pokemon “was really brilliant, you can make your own playing cards by doing well in the video game, you could get pointers for the video game by watching the cartoon on television, the cartoon advertised discounts on the toys, the toys came with teaser bonus cards to win the card game, and the card game motivated the need for the video game. This is very interesting because it offers so many levels of access which all become interdependent. Each entity has its own narrative, and also as a whole it is a continuous narrative that takes different forms and mediums to complete the entire story.“

It occurred to me that perceived cohesion among elements within a cross-media event is a lot like noticing similar characteristics among members of a family. As we all know, sometimes members of a family share similar physical attributes – like hair color, or body type, and sometimes the visual cues are less apparent but similar behaviors help identify members of a group. The members of the group obviously carry their looks and behaviors into other relationships where the same aspects produce different effects in different contexts. We seem to excel at being able to understand how one form (a person, for example) can have many traits, and how different situations favor specific characteristics more than others – but that all of these traits and situations involve the same person. To me, this is the difference between a concept of self (personal attributes) , and a concept of identity (which attributes are prominent in different interactions). I am not aware of any other animal that can think in this way. Pokemon Pedogogy, and other cross-media projects, model, teach and develop this innate ability.

We are able, in other words, to understand that objects have different potentials in different contexts, and we seem to have a very strong will to develop and essentially play with this ability. And as we play, we learn. I also note how this same will, to put elements together and create complex forms and systems out of whatever we can reach, seems to be accompanied by the inevitable unforeseen consequences of our tinkering. Our ability to think abstractly seems to coincide with our often disastrous effect on our environment. Where other life forms seem holistically connected within broad, ‘cross-media’ cycles of interactions and cause s and effects that seem to produce a sort of planetary homeostasis, our actions often seem profoundly out of sync with the ‘needs’ of the other life forms we share this environment with. We seem to be destroying our planet the way a group of unsupervised children would make a mess out of wherever they happen to be.

I wondered why, given what we percieve as nature’s efficiency, coupled with the fact that we are clearly natural products of this world, that such a condition would continue. I thought about comments suggesting that we, as a species on this planet, are essentially a virus that will ultimately be eliminated.

I again considered how clumsy and childlike our collective behavior is and thought about how the behaviors of a mature human race might differ from our current immaturity.

I thought again about narrativity, and self-similarity and fractals, and Pokemon Pedagogy, and how distinct forms can be understood as aggregates of elements exhibiting complementary potentials in relation to each other. I imagined iron filings in a sealed, clear plastic container and how they suddenly organize themselves into specific shapes when a magnet is placed nearby. Similar elements bound by similar physical laws will create distinct forms under specific conditions.

When we perceive ‘unique’ shapes (a brick, or an ARG, for example) we are observing (and as such, a part of) the most significant relationship of a set of elements to the forces in that environment, to us, at a given moment – and it is entirely possible that other people, plants and animals in that ‘same’ environment at that ‘same’ moment would be experiencing (and participating in) other distinct shapes comprised either out of that identical elemental set or some subset mixed with another set, etc, as the most significant, simultaneously. As an example, when participants in ‘i love bees‘ held up a banner at a political convention some people connected that banner to the game, while others connected it to some other understanding of the event, while others didn’t see it at all. What is so interesting to me is that we can understand this simultaneity of differing shapes (and behaviors count as aspects of these ‘shapes’) from similar element sets. Again, I’m not sure whether any other living thing on this planet can. This seems to be a matter of our unique consciousness, which is inextricable from our unique physiology.

I returned, again, to how much we seem to have screwed up the planet yet how nature, as we understand it, is so highly efficient. What could possibly be the ‘point’ of our presence here?

Our ability and passion to consciously understand and actively manipulate all manner of relationships on this planet is, it seems, killing it, and we seem to know that, yet we continue to do it. Strange. I thought about our complex consciousness.

I thought about self-similar, symmetrical patterns. I wondered if self-similar elements would be ‘naturally’ drawn and held together, and their subtle differences would make them, together, have a greater ‘understanding’ of their environment. Their similarities would permit them to ‘compare’ their respective experiences and ‘learn’ from the experience of other, similar, elements. I thought about single and multiple cell organisms, and I thought about different members of a surgical team and how they must have enough in common (self-similarity) to be able to successful engage in different tasks at the same time to accomplish a specific, yet highly variated goal.

It occurred to me that, perhaps, when multiple layers of self-similar, interacting elements accrue into significantly complex symmetrical patterns (symmetry seems important, perhaps it is the root of being able to compare sense data, as symmetry creates points of comparison within a self-aware structure), they seem to become self-aware. Demonstrating behaviors in response to their environment that suggests a will to develop and preserve their form. From plants turning toward light to animals hunting and playing – all seem to be networks of interacting self-similar elements in complex symmetrical patterns. Is there a relationship between ‘depth’ of self-similarity among elements, symmetry, and degree of consciousness? Are more complex aggregations of self-similar elements more likely to integrate a wider variety of other elements? Will more complex aggregations of self-similar elements have more in common with more ‘exterior’ elements? Could a highly complex, self-aware and sufficiently large enough aggregation of self-similar elements engage in behaviors to essentially expand itself by actively incorporating other elements with which it has similarities? Do you see where I’m going with this? What would be the point of such a structure?

As gravity bound outcroppings of the earth we share the same elements and physical laws as every other thing on, in and around this planet. We are composed of those elements in unique, specific, self-similar, symmetrical patterns. We are earthly tendrils.

It occurred to me that the planet is indeed conscious, and we are that consciousness. As much as I am dismayed, saddened, puzzled, and disgusted by much of what we (including myself) do, it occurred to me that our trajectory may evolve from sloppy, egomaniacal, conflicted, fractured, individuated, symmetrical, self-similarity to greater appreciation and understanding of the complex causes and effects that literally connect us with other people (increasing the overall sense of self-similarity among our species), other species, and with the ‘inanimate’ systems (natural laws) that exist on this planet. I’m reefering to acknowledging genuine physical connections with a vast array of elements that will dissipate our ‘anthropocentric’ point of view and lifestyle.

Each step in realization of self-similarity with other elements (human, animal, plant, etc) will foster a hightened interaction and empathy with those elements, and that hightened interaction will produce a resonance that will incorporate that element into our evolving system. As we integrate more environmental elements and forms into our system our consciousness will expand.

Our ability to think abstractly and alter things on a massive scale – which is currently cripling the planet, will turn out to be what aids earth’s evolution as something will need to build the bridges connecting the varied elements. I know that earlier I wrote about the seemingly holistic interplay between most other systems on this planet, and how we seem to be the odd men out of this configuration, which may lead a reader to think that the grand integration I’m proposing already exists and we’re screwing it up. My thinking is that things change, life continually evolves, nature is highly efficient, and we are natural beings. What this form I’m proposing will actually look like I can’t say, but my feeling is that we are a necessary part of whatever it’s going to be.

The fact that pretty much every other thing on this planet seems to exist in a vastly less conflicted relationship with it than us is, in my point of view, real, but temporary. Our tinkering, clumsy and seemingly detrimental as it often is, functions as a pedagogy for us, and, as we are part of this planet, for the planet, too. We learn as we go by fostering interactions among varied elements that reveal potentials that resonate as self-similar with other elements we have interacted with. Bridges are built and integration expands. My feeling is that other species don’t have the capacity for the abstract thought necessary for this step.

So our networking ability, coupled with our incessant tinkering, together with our presence all over the globe indicate that we are a potentially unifying, and essential, force on and for this planet.

Our consciousness is a mechanism for greater integration among various elements on our planet and at our young age we are making a mess of things, but that mess, coupled with our survival instinct and our ability to perceive subtle causes and effects across a broad spectrum of interrelationships (to think ‘globally’ in a way other living beings on this planet don’t) will cause us to expand the symmetrical, self-similar pattern of which we are a part, and that expansion will broaden ‘our’ consciousness as it connects otherwise disparate elements. This broad conscious form seems to me to be an (or the) earth’s consciousness – as it is utterly connected to all major phenomena on this planet.

Just consider how so many of our efforts are to understand this place and the vehicle of our understanding is often observations of subtle self-similarities and how our ability for abstract thought allows us to make such realizations in ways other species seem incapable of. I think, at least today, that this expansion is natural and necessary for our planet and is our role here. It won’t happen, in other words, without our participation. I’m imagining a green version of Asimov’s The Last Question.

Considering this just a bit further, when I become self-aware I am not aware solely of my own self – which, to me, indicates that my self-awareness encompasses everything that I am aware of at a given moment (including my memories and anticipations). The fact that you are self-aware and aware of me and vice versa indicates that we are together in a certain pattern of self-similarity that has reached the point of a distributed self-awareness – and that self-awareness is contingent on a vast array of self-similarity and that vastness manifests ‘self-awareness’ in many forms (many people and things) simultaneously. In a sense what I’m describing as self-awareness isn’t self-awareness at all but, as I wrote at the top, a perception of identity within varied contexts. The system, if you will, is ‘self-aware’, and we are an aspect (an identity – ie, a specific role within the system at a given moment) of that high degree of self-similarity within the vast, symmetrical pattern. In order for the self-similar pattern to expand I imagine that we would need to develop a method for understanding our ‘unique’ perspective as being simultaneously ‘unique’ and an aspect of, and integral part of, the larger pattern simultaneously – what I’ve just been describing as identity. As I’ve written earlier, I think we already know this but haven’t put that knowledge into wide-spread, and explicit, practice, but I think things like Pokemon Pedagogy are examples of our evolving mind, and, by extension, our evolving relationship with our environment.

And to be clear, I am not proposing that we will raze the land, then murder every other living thing, and finally cover it all in asphalt and strip malls and assume our identities in this putrid new world.

I think as we evolve as a species we will get past our current egomaniacal, anthropocentric (self-centered), ‘contrary’ phase in relation to the rest of the planet and become a necessary force of integration – utilizing who and what we are to work synergistically with our fellow lifeforms and physical laws. We will no longer be the outliers, but this will take time, and a concept of sequence and conflict and abstraction – all human attributes, will be necessary to achieve this broader, global aim.

But we will have to cultivate, tinker, develop and work on this potential holistically within our own minds as well as in our interactions outside of our selves in order not to wreck the place.

Three years ago I gave a talk to some students on narrativity. I didn’t pick the topic and it was hard work. I ended up explaining that narrativity is the degree to which a specific element within a given structure advances the goal of that structure. In a story, narrativity is the ability for specific elements to move the story along.

In a cross-media form like an Alternate Reality Game (link is to a .pdf – it is concise and an excellent introduction) the specific technologies employed in the various actions can be understood as having levels of narrativity – specifically, the relationship between the goal of a specific action and the technology used to reach that goal, and how those elements work together to reach the ultimate intention of the project.

As an example, the ‘beginning’ of the Alternate Reality Game “i love bees” featured a brief shot of a url at the bottom of the last frames for the trailer for Halo 2. As the ARG was part ad campaign for the upcoming release of Halo 2 this was an appropriate choice, and as the game required keen observation skills placing it in such a way made it available, primarily, to keen observers and, as the game required people willing to participate, showing just a URL, briefly, would require someone with the necessary motivation to go home and visit that sight. The fact that the URL was hard to see required, perhaps, a few viewings of the trailer so that both persistence (another trait essential to a successful ARG), and a willingness to spend money on entertainment (an essential trait in a potential consumer…) were also required. Jane Macgonigal’s choice to snail mail jars of honey with letters (spelling out “i love bees”) inside of them to a highly active ARG player (here for more details) thereby announcing the game to a wider audience let people know that the project would be highly cross-media, etc. Each of these technologies was used to advance specific elements of the overall narrative of the project in a highly skillful, very intelligent way.

Over the intervening years since my talk, and inspired by seeing this interview with physicist Lee Smolin (middle of page), where he talks about some string theorists favoring a discussion of area over volume, my thinking on the narrativity of objects has developed into a metaphorization of objects as surfaces, where each specific surface conveys different concepts/different information, more efficiently than other surfaces.

I’ll explain:

Imagine a chladni plate with, instead of salt or sand, different three-dimensional objects on it. As different frequencies vibrate the place, different objects on the plate respond to those frequencies by vibrating more or less. At any given frequency one or more objects will vibrate more than others – those objects can be understood as optimal forms to convey those specific frequencies. If, instead of frequencies you imagine ‘vibrating’ the plate with certain elements of a given story or project, you get the idea.

During a class last semester I described this as Multi-Surface, Cross-Media Computing, and I feel it is an important concept to wrap one’s head around if the goal is a cross-media application – ARG or otherwise. Some students seemed stuck on the word ‘surface’ and thought I was suggesting that this sort of activity was ‘superficial’ and, hence, shallow. I wasn’t.

I also feel that this sort of narrativity/resonance exists within objects that are not explicitly designed for this purpose.

I think that the objects we embed in our environment resonate with the concepts that are important to our culture. The web is such an ‘object’ or ‘surface’.

Even further explanation:

Imagine again the chladni plate, and this time it is wrapped around the surface of the earth and we, and everything else in our environment, is resting on it. This time, our ideas are what make it vibrate and our ideas are passing through our feet. As before, there are objects on the plate, and as before some objects vibrate harder – let’s say twice as hard, than others in response to the different frequencies (ideas) rippling from our minds, through our bodies and across the plate. The ideas we’re feeding into the plate are varied, obviously, and many ideas are rippling across the plate at any moment, just like at any moment people’s minds are considering all sorts of things. In my analogy people’s thoughts are ‘freely’ their own, so they run the gamut of whatever people happen to be thinking about at any time.

After a while we would begin to make connections regarding thoughts we had and objects that responded strongly to those thoughts. As consummate tinkerers, we would begin to build and assemble things that would respond to various thoughts/vibrations. Sometimes these objects would be designed specifically to respond to a specific idea, and sometimes that would work. Sometimes there would be unexpected consequences in the form of the object vibrating to some frequency that we hadn’t really been paying attention to.

If the object that vibrates to this unfamiliar frequency vibrates long and loud enough we’d have no choice but to pay attention to it and an aspect of our paying attention to it would produce a change in our focus and behavior. We would probably stop what we were doing and try to understand what was making this thing hum. Some people would explain it, and other people would listen and think about the explanation and test it out by incorporating it into other things. Eventually we would ‘understand’ it well enough to use it, at which point it would have been classified and probably named.

In this example the ‘new’ object would have a high level of narrativity for a concept that has evolved to be utterly real, prominent (it responds to a strong vibration emanating from us) and useful, but that seemed to emerge from our collective tinkering, and was not explicitly understood and designed first in our heads, and then projected into the environment where it was embodied in a specific resonant object solely via our explicit intentions. We certainly had a lot to do with it but its origins were not explicitly predicted by previous understandings.

If we were smart enough to accept the ‘new’ thing, listen to it, and integrate it into our collective toolkit our collective experience and future tinkering would be enhanced.

If we chose tell it what it is rather than listen to it by, for example, giving it a bizzaro nonsense description like, I don’t know, ‘alternate reality’, or ‘augmented reality’, or ‘virtual reality’, or ‘cyberspace‘ then our future tinkering and experience with and around it would be complicated…

As an aside, I just got this via email from transmediale that mentions their upcoming event which features a talk by Timothy Druckery (who I work with at MICA:

From ‘real’ to simulation, from simulation to virtualisation, the
assimilation of the reality function has haunted the continuing debates
about images and intelligibility. This, of course, is predicated on the
assumption that there is a stable, describable, ‘real’ that shares an
objective affinity to the world. Shattered by psychoanalysis, quantum
physics, semiotics, cybernetics, and, increasingly by computation, the
fiction of the ‘real’ is the indispensable conspiracy. This talk will
take aim at the ‘reality principle’ as the core tragedy of a culture
inebriated by a desperate illusion.”

A few months ago I heard the author Nassim Taleb say, “we are better at doing than understanding.” I feel that my analogy describes an evolutionary process based on, to put it simply, ‘doing’ (or, more accurately, ‘tinkering’) and then, when the sound gets loud enough, so to speak, and we can’t ignore it any more, applying an empiric (how things really are) point of view to understand the story we are collaborating on.

To me, we seem wired to pay attention to significant change. Sometimes the quality of the paying attention is a change in our tinkering (when the kettle squeals you go turn it off), and sometimes it requires intellection and understanding (choosing a candidate to vote for). I feel that the web has become loud enough (strong frequency) and it is one of those times when empiric (seeking to see things as they are) understanding is appropriate so that our tinkering can be more in tune with what our culture is trying to express.

I feel that the proliferation of streaming media is, as Caleb Waldorf declares in his work The Artificial Moon and The Post-Human and as I mentioned in my previous posting, presenting a different model of temporality, and I feel that if we consider that model empirically we will notice that other objects on our collective plate are resonating to the same frequency.

Here is, to me, is another example, from the offline world:

New Hair Follicles Created For The First Time, Mouse Study
Science Daily — Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine have found that hair follicles in adult mice regenerate by re-awakening genes once active only in developing embryos. These findings provide unequivocal evidence for the first time that, like other animals such as newts and salamanders, mammals have the power to regenerate. A better understanding of this process could lead to novel treatments for hair loss, other skin and hair disorders, and wounds.

“We showed that wound healing triggered an embryonic state in the skin which made it receptive to receiving instructions from wnt proteins,” says senior author George Cotsarelis, MD, Associate Professor of Dermatology. “The wnts are a network of proteins implicated in hair-follicle development.”

Researchers previously believed that adult mammal skin could not regenerate hair follicles. In fact, investigators generally believe that mammals had essentially no true regenerative qualities. (The liver can regenerate large portions, but it is not de novo regeneration; some of the original liver has to remain so that it can regenerate.)

In this study, researchers found that wound healing in a mouse model created an “embryonic window” of opportunity. Dormant embryonic molecular pathways were awakened, sending stem cells to the area of injury. Unexpectedly, the regenerated hair follicles originated from non-hair-follicle stem cells.

“We’ve found that we can influence wound healing with wnts or other proteins that allow the skin to heal in a way that has less scarring and includes all the normal structures of the skin, such as hair follicles and oil glands, rather than just a scar,” explains Cotsarelis.

By introducing more wnt proteins to the wound, the researchers found that they could take advantage of the embryonic genes to promote hair-follicle growth, thus making skin regenerate instead of just repair. Conversely by blocking wnt proteins, they also found that they could stop the production of hair follicles in healed skin.

Increased wnt signaling doubled the number of new hair follicles. This suggests that the embryonic window created by the wound-healing process can be used to manipulate hair-follicle regeneration, leading to novel ways to treat hair loss and hair overgrowth.

These findings go beyond just a possible treatment for male-pattern baldness. If researchers can effectively control hair growth, then they could potentially find cures for people with hair and scalp disorders, such as scarring alopecia where the skin scars, and hair overgrowth.

This research was funded in part by the National Institute of Arthritis, Musculoskelatal and Skin Disease and the Pennsylvania Department of Health. Other co-authors in addition to Cotsarelis are Mayumi Ito, Zaixin Yang, Thomas Andl, Chunhua Cui, Noori Kim, and Sarah E. Millar, all from Penn.

Cotsarelis and Ito are listed as inventors on a patent application related to hair-follicle neogenesis and owned by the University of Pennsylvania. Cotsarelis also serves on the scientific advisory board and has equity in Follica, a start-up company that has licensed the patent from the University of Pennsylvania. Cotsarelis was also a co-founder of Follica.

These findings are published in the May 17 issue of Nature.

Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine.

To repeat: “Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine have found that hair follicles in adult mice regenerate by re-awakening genes once active only in developing embryos. These findings provide unequivocal evidence for the first time that, like other animals such as newts and salamanders, mammals have the power to regenerate.” To me, this seems to resonate with with Caleb’s statement “as real time media took over at the turn of the 21st century, a paradigm shift occurred in which humanity realized that time had ceased to exist. With everything happening all at once and available to everyone, the idea of linear time lost hold. Time became a flat surface and history no longer existed. At this moment, what had long been seen as the paradox of time travel was no longer viewed up as illogical and the concern with traveling back in time to change things in the future ceased to be of concern.” I understand that the context of Caleb’s quote is fictive, but I feel he raises a very real implication of current technology.

I feel that we have tinkered ourselves into a very interesting place where some potential forms are being realized that haven’t been prominent in a while, and we need to work to observe and understand these changes and potentials just enough to inform our tinkering so that we can benefit from the interaction of, specifically, two different temporal models existing simultaneously.

a brief note: Some people view evolution as a fight to the death, survival of the fittest, and winner take all. I see it as an interaction among elements within an environment where conditions favor the proliferation of different forms at different times – and nothing is ever, truly obliterated. Some form [species, etc.] may be dissipated to the extent that they exist as a potential outcome of a combination of other elements, but nothing ever literally and thoroughly ceases to exist. To me (and others, I’m sure), evolution can occur in elements other than genetic materials, and can affect change in any environmental property [gravity, speed of light, etc.]. I feel that there is an evolution of ideas that goes on in our species and what I’m writing about now is but one example.//

The potency (the degree to which the form can generate change) is in the synergy that results from the interaction of the two, their co-presence, their simultaneity – not in the struggle for dominance by one over the other, not in the illusory either/or, winner take all format. We’ve certainly lived through a lot of that, haven’t we, and how has that worked out for most of us?

I think we can manage this interaction of simultaneous and different synergistic elements if we carefully manage and balance our tinkering and thinking.

Now we’ll see if I take my own advice.

Up up up up

I’ve been having some wrist and hand issues lately from spending a lot of time on the computer and in an attempt to feel better I started using a speech to text program. When I turn it on, it often provides me with a few random words prior to the words that I intend to enter (ex. The “Up up up up” at the start of this post). When I started to quote Caleb Waldorf from his work The Artificial Moon and The Post-Human the first things I saw on the page were these:

Too cool Caleb Waldorf (No kidding. What I said was “to quote”, but I couldn’t agree more…)

Anyway:

Waldorf writes: “as real time media took over at the turn of the 21st century, a paradigm shift occurred in which humanity realized that time had ceased to exist. With everything happening all at once and available to everyone, the idea of linear time lost hold. Time became a flat surface and history no longer existed. At this moment, what had long been seen as the paradox of time travel was no longer viewed up as illogical (speech to text wrote: a logical entity) and the concern with traveling back in time to change things in the future ceased to be of concern. Ultimately there was no longer a past or future for humanity.”

I love this idea, and the piece is rich with other concepts and I hope you check it out. In brief the idea is that post-humans went back in time to create the moon as a map for us to understand them, and ourselves. The piece uses some information on the physical relationship of the earth and moon I’ve seen before in, among other places, Who Built the Moon, by Christopher Knight and Alan Butler and is also infused with the concepts of Lacan.

When I read this quote I immediately thought of Tolstoy’s remarks about history and historians in the epilogues of War and Peace – these quotes are from the second epilogue, chapter 3:

The only conception that can explain the movement of the peoples is that of some force commensurate with the whole movement of the peoples.

So long as histories are written of separate individuals, whether Caesars, Alexanders, Luthers, or Voltaires, and not the histories of all, absolutely all those who take part in an event, it is quite impossible to describe the movement of humanity without the conception of a force compelling men to direct their activity toward a certain end. And the only such conception known to historians is that of power.

To me, this implies that our will to monumentalize individuals, to make super heroes out of selected people, exemplifies the critical fault at the root of historical perspective. The historian wrestles to, as Tolstoy writes several times in the epilogue, “answer the question no one asked” – the historian attempts to elucidate the cause and effects that drive events from his/her lone perspective – and the creation of a super human who galvanizes an entire population and induces them to follow him or her is an analogy to what the historian himself is trying to do. This story, this method of understanding the world, seems embedded in our culture as a dominant narrative form, and we repeat it in various media, at various scales, persistently. When we repeat it we re-learn it, and we tend to analyze our experiences along the lines of the dominant analytical model.

To me, this model relies not only on the idea of super heroes, but also on the understanding that most of us exist to essentially serve a single dominant power at every given moment. This form seems embodied in our sense of time as an arrow moving from past to future, where the past is understood in the historical terms described above, and the present is at the service (‘duty now for the future’) of a future whose goals are determined by, inevitably, a higher authority that we may never even speak with or meet. This temporal/historical form effectively destabilizes our individual connection to the present because the past and future are managed officially by other, ‘higher’ powers than ourselves. The people are essentially farming the present for the officers of the state (or whatever agency defines a given cultures past and aspirations [future]).

A proliferation of real-time media means the web would be alive with, predominantly, broadcasts of what is going on right now, constantly, from many, many people. “Webtime” would equal right now always, and each visit to this web would give one access to the complexity that comprises the present, and would, as Tolstoy’s idea implies, permit each (or at least many) of us to report on our experience while interacting with others engaged in the same effort. This participatory, collective, and simultaneous ‘history’ would belie the narrow, linear, remote historical/temporal lens that we tend to understand and analyze most events through. A highly available web of predominantly real-time, and, one assumes, interactive ‘broadcasts’ may indeed alter our current model of historical/temporal perspective so dramatically that it would become one available method of understanding, and not the sole option. Perhaps this is the direction we are evolving towards.

A highly available, real-time streaming, collaborative, interactive web would also reinvigorate the notion of the local, as more and more people would be broadcasting and interacting from their homes and are becoming more comfortable speaking for themselves as opposed to expressing themselves primarily through consuming someone else’s products. This would minimize the destabilizing effects of the ‘scalable’ economy – in other words, it would re-empower the local citizen as a local citizen, foster an appreciation of being authentic and local, and in so doing potentially ward off the wandering professional who, in our current model, has unseated so many locals (chain stores, movies, recorded music, mass produced, professional touring whatevers, etc.).

In any case, Caleb’s project got me thinking about the relationship of our sense of time, and how that sense is maintained by the technologies we develop and surround ourselves with. His piece also got me thinking about the evolution of things other than species – ideas, technology, etc. Rather than explore that further here I will take a moment and then post another entry.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ICcnE15UdY[/youtube]