I wanted to title my post Are We Pancake People? because Sparrow et al’s research reminded me of Nicholar Carr’s article: Is Google Making Us Stupid? In his article, Carr quotes the playwright Richard Foreman who talks about how our intelligence is evolving: the replacement of complex inner density with a new kind of self—evolving under the pressure of information overload and the technology of the “instantly available. Thus, the connected world enabled by google has spread our intelligence wide and thin – like a pancake. This kind of information processing wherein we rely on our connections with other people, a kind of distributed neural network, is transactive memory – a term coined by Daniel Wegner, a social psychologist, in 1985.
For the past 163 years the code of “if value, then right” has been used as a defense in providing legal justification for the fair use of copyrighted material. In non-legalese, “if value, then right” means that fair use is permitted if the derivative work (or copy) (1) adds value (i.e. is of public benefit), (2) does not reduce the value of the original work, (3) is not an excessive amount and (4) is not for commercial use. In assessing the applicability of the fair use criteria, we must consider the commercial implications for the original work, the commercial value of the derivative and copy, the amount and substantiality of the portion used, the purpose and character of the use, as well as the purpose and character of the original (copyrighted) work. Under these guidelines, is use of copyrighted material for educational purposes always in the public interest? Many of these assessments require a subjective assessment of commercial impact, purpose and character and public interest. This subjectivity makes the determination of value disputed.
Can’t we just ignore history and get on with the educational media and technology show? To what degree ought we pay attention to history? Who cares about old media— the future is in new media, isn’t it?
‘Who controls the past,’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’ says George Orwell in 1984. The discourse around educational technology often touts technological advancements as the future of education. However, the future cannot be constructed without understanding the past. The present is always conflicted between the intractable, deterministic drive of an id-like past and the aspirational ambitions of a super-ego-like future. The present, ego-like, must be the mediating agent that understands the drive of history (and its impacts) to help us better navigate the road to the future. It is only by understanding and dissecting history that we can perceive the future as a network of choices rather than a destined, immutable inevitability. The past, the present and the future become the past, the present and the possible in light of history. This understanding allows us to evaluate and pursue options with greater understanding and responsibility. Jacques Ellul might argue that examining the historical dimension of technology allows us the true freedom of evaluating technology from a moral and ethical perspective, thus enabling a freedom that the interminable drive of technology seeks to suppress by valuing mechanistic efficiency above reflection.
In The garden of forking paths Jorge Luis Borges describes a novel where a character can choose a path such that it does not eliminate the option of pursuing a mutually exclusive path. Thus, the character can traverses a future wherein their paths diverge and then converge again, thereby allowing alternative possibilities to occur simultaneously. This fictional labyrinth is a fitting metaphor for understanding the hyperlinked, hyper-reality of the world wide web where infinite possibilities are laid out before the user like a labyrinth and they can walk along an endless trail along forking paths.
For my RIP.MIX.FEED activity I decided to return to my enduring interest in the value of storytelling in education. For this particular activity I used pinterest to pin resources on how web 2.0 facilitates collaborative and interactive storytelling. I have gathered resources in the following broad categories:
Lenny Bruce reached his peak as a nightclub performer in the 1950’s. Lenny’s routine was considered risqué for the era because of his use of obscenities and discussion of sex, drugs and religion. On April 3 1964, Lenny was arrested on obscenity charges on the basis of his performance at the Cafe Au Go Go in Greenwich Village. The indictment had been procured by presenting a transcript of Lenny’s routine before a 23 member grand jury. During the trial, the prosecution presented its evidence by calling on a police officer to read from the transcript of Lenny’s routine. Lenny just shook his head and said: “I’m going to be judged by his bad timing, his ego, his garbled language.” Lenny Bruce knew he was beaten because his oral text was going to be presented devoid of context.
Socrates, despite having a reputation as the foremost Greek philosopher who challenged the religion, philosophy, culture and the government of his time, is not credited as the author of any literary works. Instead, Socrates’ philosophical views were passed on through two of his students who learned at the feet of the master through oral discourse. In A History of Western Philosophy Bertrand Russell discusses the two philosophers who wrote extensively about Socrates – Xenophon and Plato. Plato has earned a stronger reputation because of his skillful writing. However, Plato often utilized the character of Socrates as a mouthpiece for his own opinions in order to hang his more subversive opinions on a man who had already been convicted and executed. Xenophon, on the other hand, presents Socrates as an honourable man who is less subversive. “There has been a tendency to think that everything Xenophon says must be true, because he had not the wits to think of anything untrue.” (Russell, 1971) Is Plato’s Socrates from Phaedrus a close approximation of the historical Socrates or is he entirely a literary invention facilitated by the invention of writing? Is this what Socrates means when he talks about writing presenting only a semblance of the truth? The irony is that Plato uses a fictitious Socrates as a literary figure to denounce writing, when in fact, Plato (the actual author) passed on the (alleged) words of the speaker (Socrates) through the written word.