Comments on: Something Has Changed http://edc13.education.ed.ac.uk/phild/2013/01/15/something-has-changed/ Experiential aesthetics the mechanics of learning behaviour Thu, 28 Mar 2013 09:42:59 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.1 By: Phil Devine http://edc13.education.ed.ac.uk/phild/2013/01/15/something-has-changed/#comment-31 Phil Devine Thu, 24 Jan 2013 17:59:06 +0000 http://edc13.education.ed.ac.uk/phild/?p=192#comment-31 If the web is all about content (web is content that resides on the internet), the web must be acting as a mirror - one step on from TV. The web maybe an affirmation of the existent, but what is it that is unique to the digital domain that defines digital cultures? And what is the relationship between digital culture and existent phenomena? For instance, the economic shift from production to spectacle (referred to in other posts). If the web is all about content (web is content that resides on the internet), the web must be acting as a mirror – one step on from TV. The web maybe an affirmation of the existent, but what is it that is unique to the digital domain that defines digital cultures? And what is the relationship between digital culture and existent phenomena? For instance, the economic shift from production to spectacle (referred to in other posts).

]]> By: Jen Ross http://edc13.education.ed.ac.uk/phild/2013/01/15/something-has-changed/#comment-26 Jen Ross Thu, 24 Jan 2013 14:32:38 +0000 http://edc13.education.ed.ac.uk/phild/?p=192#comment-26 "If a painting is an affirmation of the existent, maybe the ‘Web’ is also an affirmation of the existent" - I find this convincing! “If a painting is an affirmation of the existent, maybe the ‘Web’ is also an affirmation of the existent” – I find this convincing!

]]> By: Phil Devine http://edc13.education.ed.ac.uk/phild/2013/01/15/something-has-changed/#comment-17 Phil Devine Sun, 20 Jan 2013 10:12:30 +0000 http://edc13.education.ed.ac.uk/phild/?p=192#comment-17 Thank you Gina, interesting link to Derrida's concept of 'différance'. Berger has developed a great deal of his thinking with relation to Derrida and 'différance' ( < Spinosa < Descartes ). Berger, I would say is one of greatest visual thinkers of our time. I've read some Derrida, more Wittgenstein I would say... I think Derrida is possibly less important in this instant than Berger and/or Wittgenstein. Wittgenstein 'Tractatus' needs to be read 'A logical picture of facts is a thought', where Berger continues Derrida by grounding 'différance' in visual culture, visual culture being directly related to #ededc by generation of Digital Artifacts. Digital Artifacts I'm thinking is possibly a distraction? I'm starting to consider the Web 'as a whole' as an existent cultural artifact, this then repositions what is created online in mirroring psychology (back to Berger!). Thank you Gina, interesting link to Derrida’s concept of ‘différance’. Berger has developed a great deal of his thinking with relation to Derrida and ‘différance’ ( < Spinosa < Descartes ). Berger, I would say is one of greatest visual thinkers of our time. I’ve read some Derrida, more Wittgenstein I would say… I think Derrida is possibly less important in this instant than Berger and/or Wittgenstein. Wittgenstein ‘Tractatus’ needs to be read ‘A logical picture of facts is a thought’, where Berger continues Derrida by grounding ‘différance’ in visual culture, visual culture being directly related to #ededc by generation of Digital Artifacts. Digital Artifacts I’m thinking is possibly a distraction? I’m starting to consider the Web ‘as a whole’ as an existent cultural artifact, this then repositions what is created online in mirroring psychology (back to Berger!).

]]> By: Giraf87 http://edc13.education.ed.ac.uk/phild/2013/01/15/something-has-changed/#comment-16 Giraf87 Sat, 19 Jan 2013 20:19:09 +0000 http://edc13.education.ed.ac.uk/phild/?p=192#comment-16 re: your first post: I wonder if Derrida's writing on ‘différance’ is useful in the context of ‘apparent’ and ‘existent’? Through the internet, meaning is both suspended through space and time, attaching volatility. I thought this web resource is quite useful http://courses.nus.edu.sg/course/elljwp/differance.htm re: your first post: I wonder if Derrida’s writing on ‘différance’ is useful in the context of ‘apparent’ and ‘existent’? Through the internet, meaning is both suspended through space and time, attaching volatility.
I thought this web resource is quite useful
http://courses.nus.edu.sg/course/elljwp/differance.htm

]]> By: Phil Devine http://edc13.education.ed.ac.uk/phild/2013/01/15/something-has-changed/#comment-8 Phil Devine Thu, 17 Jan 2013 13:33:59 +0000 http://edc13.education.ed.ac.uk/phild/?p=192#comment-8 I'm trying to explore (I think) the effect (and affect) of 'the separation of the apparent and the existent' as defined or propagated by the digital domain with resulting existent dystopias. This direction of thought seems to me to have a direct relationship with #ededc and the term culture in general. How is culture defined/created? Maybe by the representation of experience through imagination and the production of artifacts (thinking of Babel Fish re learning). This includes language, but possibly not from a linguistic perspective, but from a metaphorical perspective. The sharing of artifacts (and ideas 'linguistically') then may define a culture as a value set; which I'm presuming is one reason why the development of language is messy and the resultant structure is borderline ridiculous. In this direction of thought can I begin to see the 'Web' (as a whole) as a cultural artifact in its own right? If a painting is an affirmation of the existent, maybe the 'Web' is also an affirmation of the existent? A painting as an artifact is a cultural vehicle, if I walk into a gallery I encounter a physical response to the existent, so further defining my cultural bubble and identity. How is this replicated by/in the digital domain? Is the Web a mirror image of the existent (the physical)? If so, then what is it that we create when online, and what is lost or gained in the production of artifacts and propagation of culture in the digital domain? The NewYorker article is excellent! I couldn't get access to the first link, will try again later. I’m trying to explore (I think) the effect (and affect) of ‘the separation of the apparent and the existent’ as defined or propagated by the digital domain with resulting existent dystopias. This direction of thought seems to me to have a direct relationship with #ededc and the term culture in general.

How is culture defined/created? Maybe by the representation of experience through imagination and the production of artifacts (thinking of Babel Fish re learning). This includes language, but possibly not from a linguistic perspective, but from a metaphorical perspective. The sharing of artifacts (and ideas ‘linguistically’) then may define a culture as a value set; which I’m presuming is one reason why the development of language is messy and the resultant structure is borderline ridiculous.

In this direction of thought can I begin to see the ‘Web’ (as a whole) as a cultural artifact in its own right? If a painting is an affirmation of the existent, maybe the ‘Web’ is also an affirmation of the existent? A painting as an artifact is a cultural vehicle, if I walk into a gallery I encounter a physical response to the existent, so further defining my cultural bubble and identity. How is this replicated by/in the digital domain? Is the Web a mirror image of the existent (the physical)? If so, then what is it that we create when online, and what is lost or gained in the production of artifacts and propagation of culture in the digital domain?

The NewYorker article is excellent! I couldn’t get access to the first link, will try again later.

]]> By: jross3 http://edc13.education.ed.ac.uk/phild/2013/01/15/something-has-changed/#comment-7 jross3 Thu, 17 Jan 2013 09:05:05 +0000 http://edc13.education.ed.ac.uk/phild/?p=192#comment-7 “technological inovation has made it easy to separate the apparent from the existent” - I am interested in this line of thought, and where it is leading you. Are you saying that it is our separation from the 'existent' that results in digital dystopias? This is a classic humanist narrative, and one that will be taken up later in the course (and in the EDCMOOC). I wonder whether it's overly simplistic, though - it has been argued that existence is volatile as well, at least in terms of what can be known about it. Do we have access to anything but representation (of nature, reality, our own experiences)? You *might* like to do a bit of exploration of poststructuralism to get an alternative take on the notion of representation - maybe try this article by Bronwyn Davies, which I find accessible. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09540259721259 . And I think you would really like this recent New Yorker piece about creating new languages: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/12/24/121224fa_fact_foer “technological inovation has made it easy to separate the apparent from the existent” – I am interested in this line of thought, and where it is leading you. Are you saying that it is our separation from the ‘existent’ that results in digital dystopias? This is a classic humanist narrative, and one that will be taken up later in the course (and in the EDCMOOC). I wonder whether it’s overly simplistic, though – it has been argued that existence is volatile as well, at least in terms of what can be known about it. Do we have access to anything but representation (of nature, reality, our own experiences)? You *might* like to do a bit of exploration of poststructuralism to get an alternative take on the notion of representation – maybe try this article by Bronwyn Davies, which I find accessible. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09540259721259 . And I think you would really like this recent New Yorker piece about creating new languages: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/12/24/121224fa_fact_foer

]]>