Mayumi Blogger Template

In relevance to the reading we read for last Thursday on Google, this video is pretty much a visual representation of the discussion-I thought it was very interesting!

Find it here.

Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guittari propose the idea of the rhizome in the "Introduction" from A Thousand Plateaus. The rhizome is related to the botanical idea of a plant that grows in multiple directions from a bulb as oppose to taking root from a seed. The authors posit that this structure can be related to the structure of thought (or lack thereof) in literature, though they seem to also suggest that the idea of a rhizome is a generalized structure that can be applied to a large number of other concepts (NMR 408-9). The authors break books down into three types of structures: the "root-book," the "radicle-system, or fascicular root," and the "rhizome" (408-9). The "root-book" refers to a book whose structure reflects that of a rooted tree, having a very well-defined structure (408). The "radicle-system" is defined to be more disjointed than the "root-book"; however, this model can still be considered to be a whole work (408). The rhizome is not supposed to reflect the world, and, "connects any point to any other point..." in the work (409). The authors are previously-published, stating at the beginning of the work that they published a previous work, Anti-Oedipus. As with the exact argument and the general writing style, the intended audience of the book is not made particularly clear. The introduction given in the New Media Reader suggests that the authors are very influential cultural writers.

The authors seemed to leave the actual definition of the "rhizome" very much open to interpretation, while setting some standards for what it is not. As the Introduction in the New Media Reader suggests, there definitions would likely be much clearer after reading the entirety of A Thousand Plateaus, or Anit-Oedipus (405). I have to disagree with the idea that such an unstructured style could exist and serve to transmit any useful or coherent information, though I also acknowledge that the authors never state a purpose for rhizomatic writing. The authors suggest that the movement through "Binary logic" in the "root-book" is limiting; however, I fail to see why another "root-book" could not expand on the first root-book in a different dimension to connect to a more complex analysis, as in the rhizome. The ability to use rhizomatic writing to describe hypertext escapes me, and I cannot think of a use or purpose; to me this article seems like the authors are being contrary purely for the purpose of being contrary. With that in mind, I propose the following discussion questions:

1. What other areas of knowledge could rhizomatic writing be used as a "better" method than the other writing methods defined in this work ("root-book" and "radicle-system")?
2. Is this work an example of rhizomatic writing?
3. Are the "root-book" and "radicle-system" methods of writing limited?

In her article, "Autistic Culture Online: Virtual Communication and Cultural Expression on the Spectrum," Joyce Davidson gives a call for awareness of the social movement of those on the Autistic Spectrum (AS). She cites evidence that the autistic community has a related 'form of life,' a "cultural grouping" of "... members who are 'related' in terms of the flexible notion of 'family resemblance'" (794). She then proceeds to discuss how those on the AS have difficulty communicating in 'neurotypical' (NT) social settings are finding the ability to form online communities centered around their AS 'form of life' (793-6). Davidson concludes by discussing different views on autism, including those who wish to 'cure' autism and those who would prefer to be identified as a minority group, and calls for an awareness of the latter.

Davidson appears to be appealing to those "neurotypical" people who are unaware of the movement for autism to be identified as a minority group. Though little is directly stated about Davidson in the article, it is shown to be published from the Department of Geography in Queen's University in a journal entitled Social & Cultural Geography. The title of the department would suggest that Davidson is a geographer, and not necessarily an expert in the subject of autism. Davidson does, however, have great respect for minority groups given her writing style; she uses the pronoun 'her' as a gender-neutral pronoun (793) and refers to the deaf community as "D/deaf," (798) possibly in consideration of those who do, and those who do not consider it a community. It is unclear if Davidson has anything to gain through the argument.

After reading the article, I felt embarrassed that I had only thought of people with autism as having a disorder, not as being associated with a larger community that was simply different. I would have to agree that with the author's argument that people on the AS should be treated as a minority community rather than as having a curable disorder. Davidson's wording became somewhat confusing in the discussion of a 'language game.' The description of autistic 'language games,' moving from Wittgenstein's definition of the link between, "a particular use of language with the 'actions into which it is woven'" to Davidson's definition of 'autistic language games' as something that, “might be seen as emerging from partially shared experiential background and 'identity'-that is, self-identification with a place on the spectrum" (794) seems like a very confusing way to identify a shared background among those on the AS; nonetheless, her argument stands. I would like to propose the following questions for discussion:

1. Should the argument for autistic individuals to be identified as a minority group rather than a group with a disorder apply to low-functioning autistic individuals? Seeing as there are distinctions in other groups, such as deaf versus hard of hearing, should there be other distinctions in the autistic community?


2. Several major online games, including World of Warcraft and Everquest involve other social interactions outside of text-based communication, such as forming guilds and groups, and allowing character gestures (such as waving, bowing, etc.). Do autistic communities have a harder time forming on these major online games?


3. How is Wittgenstein's idea of a 'language game' used in other contexts?

Again, sorry about not doing the primary blog during 3/11... I'll be primary blogging with Kyle.


Summary:
Joyce Davidson’s paper Autistic Culture Online: Virtual Communication and Cultural Expression on the Spectrum provided an interesting analysis of how people on the Autistic Spectrum (AS) have their own way of communicating. This form of communication through virtual interaction is even being expressed as comparable to the spread of sign language amongst the deaf (Singer 1999; 67). Davidson explains that the emerging AS culture online is attributed to differences between neurotypical patterns of expression, which may cause confusion with expressions and interruptions, and saying what you have to say in its entirety and then waiting for the other to respond (Davidson 795-796). AS do the latter, and virtual communication is the medium, or “accessible meeting place”, that allows them to communicate in a clear, straightforward manner and to alleviate the anxieties that are coupled with physical social interaction (Davidson 796). Furthermore, the computer enables people on the AS to communicate better because of non-typical delays in a response, something that wouldn’t never allowed in real life. The virtual reality, such as online chat rooms, forums, and video games, have allowed for them to share a ‘form of life’, a term of Wittgenstein’s that implies certain groups are understanding, communicating, and relating with each other. The paper is intended for anyone, but could be specifically directed to those interested in online communities, specifically the Autistic culture. Davidson claims that the Internet is a medium for distinctive autistic styles of communication and that their form of communication is often misunderstood. The autism culture online is what many on the AS identify with and now isolated members of the autism community can join an participate (Davidson 800). Questions of self-definition and self-advocacy have risen from challenges in social interactions, but Davidson claims that has now changed. Davidson’s paper disputes that AS cannot effectively communicate because now their identifiable online autistic community is effectively showing how they do so and how their collective voice and community are growing stronger.

Inquiry:
I found Joyce Davidson’s paper to be extremely interesting and to be the most surprising of the articles that we’ve read thus far. The online autistic culture that was explained has definitely opened my eyes to how enabling the computer and Internet can be to people on the Autistic Spectrum. Through her claims that people on the AS are misunderstood with how they communicate, I have to fully agree because I never knew that these types of online communities were developing and that so many could relate themselves to them and effectively communicate in them. The most interesting to me was the Autism Island in Second Life. Seeing how people already identify with groups with online video games (like the guy that came in and talked about Guild Wars), I find it even more amazing that the autistic community even do this as well. Online gaming really has shown me that it can bring people together of all kinds of backgrounds and that maybe it is the most important of all new media. I also find it very interesting that they even wanted official recognition by the UN that they are indeed a minority group (Nelson 2004: n.p.). With Davidson’s explanation, however, it makes sense because they have their own way of using language and have a form of communication that is different than the general population (Davidson 799). I find that their different ‘language game’ is often misunderstood and support Davidson’s arguments that it may not be a disability, especially with new media enabling them to effectively communicate and identify with each other. The paper did bring a few questions to mind as well:

1. Do you believe that the autistic community should be recognized as a legitimate minority group by the United Nations?
2. Do you belong to a ‘form of life’ online? If so, how do you identify, understand, and communicate with that community?
3. Do you agree or disagree that new media can enable different things such as communication, organization, relationships, etc.? Why or why not?
4. Do you know anyone with autism, and do they participate in the forms of online communities that Davidson discussed? If they don’t, do you think it would be beneficial for them to?


This is pretty off-topic but the paper reminded me of J-Mac. If you haven't seen it, you won't be disappointed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmaIsE2nLZk

Hey guys, I was actually supposed to do a primary blog on 3/11 but I messed up on the dates so ended up not doing that. Sorry about that, so I'll be doing a primary blog alongside Kyle for this week.

Summary:
Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guatarri provide an abstract and extended metaphor to help explain the structure of thought in their introduction to A Thousand Plateaus. Their metaphor is the rhizome, which they explain as a something very different from roots and radicles. Roots and radicles “have beginnings and endings”, whereas a rhizome at any location has no beginning or ending and it “connects any point to any other point” (NMR 409). They argue that a book is “the image of the world”, but it is difficult to decipher what exactly they mean by this in the introduction (NMR 409). Through their explanations, a book has two figures: the root-book and the radicle-system (NMR 408). With the root-book, there must be a strong principle unity that creates a system of ramification and with the radicle-system, the “principle root is aborted and an indefinite multiplicity of secondary roots grafts into it” (NMR 408). These explanations help Deleuze and Guatarri’s point of the distinction between object and subject, or the signified and signifier, and that “a book has neither object nor subject” (NMR 407). Finally, the authors mention that the rhizome operates by variation, expansion, conquest, capture, and offshoots that is defined solely by a circulation of states. This dense piece is full of plant terminology but is directed towards a computer-oriented audience because the multiplicity and linkages they discuss are similar to that of the Hypertext. Regardless, the authors make use of the rhizome metaphor to explain the importance of multiplicity, like that of a potato, rather than linkages with roots and radicles, like that of a tree.

Inquiry:
I found it very difficult to get through this short piece because of the dense language, but I did understand, to some extent, the rhizome metaphor that Deleuze and Guatarri used. The rhizome connects any point to any other point and is consisted of dimensions (NMR 409) and it seems the argument is that the rhizome is far superior to roots and radicles. I would agree with this because the points, with beginnings and endings, in roots and radicles may limit us, but a rhizome is made of lines of segmentarity and stratification that undergo metamorphosis and changes in nature. To me, this basically means that a rhizome is limitless because it is always and forever changing, adapting, and expanding, which seemed very similar to what we’ve discussed in class regarding Hypertext. Hypertext similarly has no limits and is continuously adapting because of the ability to edit, re-edit, link, and further link to other texts. The rhizome system seems far superior to a limited system of roots and radicles. While reading, Deleuze and Guatarri did prompt a few questions:

1. What is your take on the rhizome metaphor? How is this different, if at all, to the root and radicle systems?
2. Do you agree or disagree that a “book has neither object nor subject, but that it is made of variously formed matters, and very different dates and speeds” (NMR 407)?
3. What kind of challenges to Deleuze and Guattari’s writings offer to “Western thought” (NMR 406)?
4. What do you think Deleuze and Guatarri meant by these statements:
a. “A book exists only through the outside and on the outside” (407)
b. “The world has become chaos, but the book remains the image of the world” (409)

1. As I assume most of you are users of facebook or once of myspace, what did the term “hacked” mean in those context?  Does the writer of The Hacker Manifesto agree with the term applied in that manner?
2. Does this manifesto at all alter your idea of the “hacker” community?  Can you relate to the author?

Although this was written in 1986, is it still relevant to today?

The GNU Project Logo

Beforehand, I need to make clear I used an online pdf version of the manifesto, therefore I will not be citing pages from the NMR.  I apologize if this inconveniences anything for anyone.  The link I used is here.  (I apologize, the link is now down, but you can access it online at manybooks.net)

The GNU Manifesto was first written in 1985 by Richard Stallman and published in Dr. Dobb's Journal of Software Tools as an attempt to gain participation and support by others in the computer programming community to develop the project and call more attention for the free software movement.  

GNU, standing for Gnu’s Not Unix, was a Unix compatible software system that Stallman worked on to provide software for free for every user.  The Manifesto describes what technology was being used to create the system and what was still needed to further development—including tools and technology, monetary funding outside sources, and programmers willing to contribute time and skills (2).  Throughout the Manifesto, Stallman heads topics and questions and answers how GNU is a viable answer to social, ethical and political problems with the capitalist structured software systems of the time.  Stallman was concerned with the restricted access users of software were enforced with—the numerous license agreements and inability to manipulate codes or share the software with others name a few of his concerns.  “Many programmers are unhappy about the commercialization of system software. It may enable them to make more money, but it requires them to feel in conflict with other programmers in general rather than feel as comrades. The fundamental act of friendship among programmers is the sharing of programs; marketing arrangements now typically used essentially forbid programmers to treat others as friends. The purchaser of software must choose between friendship and obeying the law” (2-3).  Throughout the article, Stallman addresses common concerns with GNU such as “programmers need to make a living somehow.”  Stallman offers reasoning how GNU will advance software and programmers-users relationship (though he does note that the system is not perfect). 

I found the GNU Manifesto a very interesting read, particularly the portion that covered copyright laws and how programmers will continue the work because they love it, not just for monetary purposes.  I related it to my own life and digital artwork, which was a world I used to be greatly immersed in.  Artists would share Photoshop brushes and textures online for others to use, and the community itself is huge—note also the work a majority of the time by those who create for fun was not money based.  I associate Stallman’s programmers to that personal reference.  I also find the idea of a free software system a good idea (after doing some Googling, I discovered Linux is an extension of the GNU project), because how often have you bought a game or program and had to click through the “terms of agreement,” or input a serial number to prove you are the only holder?  A lot, and really why are program such as the Adobe studio so expensive?  It is no wonder many people torrent software illegally.  The computer business is a cash cow for big companies, but I found Stallman’s reasoning for a “free” system a better liberal view.

1. Do you think a free software system would ever be the norm or majority, or are the Big Name Corporations always going to have the upper hand? 

2. Have you ever been tempted to download or borrow software before?  What were your reasons?

3. Where in the Manifesto can you see Stallman’s philosophical ideals?  Do you agree or disagree with them, and why?