Oxford Dictionary‘s definition of the term “friction”: noun. the resistance that one surface or object encounters when moving over another • conflict or animosity caused by a clash of wills, temperaments, or opinions : a considerable amount of friction between father and son.

The key difference here lies in the word “creative.” While not necessarily negative, friction does not usually have positive connotations. Friction implies resistance, tension, clash. Yet in Tsing’s account, positive forces can arise out of specific localized encounters. Ultimately, this blend of realism and optimism, of the critical and the Utopian is what really stuck out for me in Tsing’s ethnography. In the last chapter, in her discussion of her encounters with the Ford Foundation, she describes the friction between academics and activists in the discussion of community-based resource management. The former tended to concentrate on the re-inscriptions of imperial power and the latter questioned the former’s pessimism toward the programs (at least that was my interpretation of it). Tsing asks “might it be possible to use other scholarly skills, including the ability to tell a story that both acknowledges imperial power and leaves room for possibility?” This question gets to the heart of my own worldview, and attitude toward scholarship. When conversations exclusively focus on criticism of the relations of power and imperialism that constitute a given relationship, object, or text, while knowledge may result, agency becomes something predetermined and static. When discussions are opened up and possibility for agency and movement are allowed, hope can be regained and to paraphrase Tsing, the mystery of our times is re-opened.

As an ethnographic work, Tsing adopts an unconventional approach. Rather than using specific cultural practices to show some unified pattern, Tsing focuses on “fragments”–the unpredictable details of global connections:

Instead of positing a triumphant global regine, these methods guide us to the disjunctions of global travel, such as those [she has] traced in the excesses of capitalist proliferations and the awkward conjunctures of social movement building. Here it is possible to consider the practical shape of global politics and culture without the interference of self-fulfilling prophesies. (271)

Tsing’s focus on localized encounters of the global relates to Fatimah Tuggar’s work. In her talk, Tuggar claimed that in her explorations and use of technology present in her work, she “explores power dynamics.” Yet, Tuggar does not stop there. Her work (here I am thinking of photo collage piece Working Women) does not condemn technology nor does it praise it. Instead it produces “conversation.” In her focus on technological objects, Tuggar echoes Tsing in her embrace of both imperialist critique and (technological) utopianism.

STORIES. Back to Friction. I especially enjoyed the “Tracking Traveling Stories” section of Chapter 6 (“Movements”). Tsing shows how “activism moves in ‘charismatic packages,’ allegorical modules that speak to the possibilities of making a cause heard…formed in a political and cultural location that gives their stories meaning…” (227) and “travel when they are unmoored from the contexts of culture and politics from which they emerged and reattached as allegories within the culture and politics of those with the institutional strength to spread the word” (234). Her discussion of the various translations of the Chico Mendes story illustrates the importance of narratives and localized circumstance. Allegories that are rejected at one historical moment may be relevant at another, and the same goes for different cultures.

Tsing’s concept of traveling packages echoes Stuart Hall’s concept of ‘decoding‘. In applying this concept, there have been many audience-based studies that show the divergent and unexpected readings of texts generated across cultural difference. Take the film Rambo. Some American viewers would derive meaning from the film out of its appeal to patriotism, a Ronald Reagan reading, if you will. To others who take a critical stance or a Cultural Studies text-based approach, the film is a pretty blatant articulation of White, American, imperial power (akin to the “imperial” analysis mention earlier). And Australian Aboriginals derive meaning in a completely different manner. As Eric Michaels discovered in his study (“Aboriginal Content: Who’s Got It–Who Needs It?”) Aboriginal viewers “rewrote” Rambo, deriving pleasure from Rambo’s hostility to authority, constructing him as having “tribal or family motivation by inserting him into an elaborate kinship network with those he was recusing, which enable them to make sense of the movie in a way that paralleled the way they made sense of their social relations both with each other and with white power” (Fiske 541)*. In other words, the meaning of Rambo was attached to the specific localized Aboriginal context. I guess in using this example, I am trying to add to Tsing in suggesting that cultural texts, as well as activism, moves in ‘charismatic packages’…just a thought.

* John Fiske, “Moments of Television Neither The Text Nor the Audience” in Remote Control : Television, Audiences and Cultural Power

(Body

not

Whole) We’re not who we say we are.

(Writing Mutt) My favorite writing is impure, improper, and disoreinting.

(Everything at Once) You’re not where you think (everything at once) you are.

I’m not where you say I am.

(No place)

You won’t get (Gaps, Leaps) where you think you’re (gaps, leaps) going.

It’s not what we wish it were. (Banished Body) What it’s not were we wish it.

We don’t think what we think we think. (Boundary Play)

It’s not what is says it is. (Reality Fiction) It says what it’s not.

She’s not what she says she is (The Feminine)

I’m not what you think I am. (Constellation) Neither am I.

We are not who we wish we were. (we like to make statues)
We don’t say what we mean to say. (Collage)

It’s not all you think it is. (Constraints and the Book)

It’s not how they said it was. (History)

“Hypertext is schizophrenic: you can’t tell what’s the original and what’s the reference. Hierarchies break down into chains of likeness., the thing is not more present that what the thing reminds you of.” (242)
New kind of self “desire rather than identity is its compositional principle” (243) Desire for what? What does the new self seek if it no longer seeks fixed knowledge?

“But just because reality is bigger doesn’t make it boss…Every fictional world competes wih the real one to some extent, but hypertext gives us the chance to sneak up on reality from inside fiction…Hypertext fiction thus begins to turn around and look back on reality as a text embedded in a fictional universe.” (247) The notion of reality as a text is very postmodern and some might scoff at relegating reality to this status. Yet, it opens up so many spaces to think in this way. We no longer fixate, obsess over distinguishing reality from fiction. Instead we explore.

“By writing we test the seams…trying to stretch the gaps between things to slip out through them into some uncharted space or to let something spring up in the real world that we don’t already know, something unfamiliar…” (247) Sounds like something Silverman mentioned in his article, “Analyzing Talk and Text.” For Silverman, in doing text-based (and conversational) analysis we are not discovering grandiose truths or proving theories but “reminding ourselves about things we already know.” But what we know is not obvious to us, it is hidden, as Wittgenstein says: “the aspects of things that are most important for us are hidden because of their simplicity and familiarity.” So, hypertext/nonlinear writing enables the recognition/occurrence of the unfamiliar in reality. Studying writing, on the other hand, enables the recognition of the familiar in reality.

“…the Internet seems to be making possible a gorgeous excess of personal syntactical or neural maps, like travel brochures for the brain” (249). The idea of mapping has been coming up a lot for me lately. In my “Emerging Media and Documentary Practice” class, we have split into interest groups that will be exploring new forms of documentation. I am in the mapping group. Then the other day, a friend of mine told me that he is writing his thesis on visual mapping, whether or not it is actually a new form of thinking or just a new form of organization. Maps are the new black.

This reminds me of an article I read by David Lapoujade, “From Network to Patchwork” (from The Pragmatist Imagination. Thinking about Things in the Making). Lapoujade explores the philosophy of William James’ who said: “what really exists is not things made but things in the making.” He then traces James’ ideas on cognition to explain how things are in the making. Thought moves from point A to point B to point B by successive links. “To know is to traverse the relations that permeate experience…to know is to draw lines” (54). So the line is knowing.  When fragments and bits are added to the successive linkages, knowledge is formed. “The textile matter of experience reveals itself as composite. Although continuous and homogeneous, it is nevertheless the case that it consists of patches linked to each other in different ways. This means that knowledge and consciousness, but also the entire world are constructed like patchworks, from next to next” (55). Lines and patches, network and patchwork, traveler and city. And like Shelley Jackson says, “the body is a patchwork.” Lines, relations of experience, are overlapping networks. The Internet is therefore a patchwork consisting of patches of hypertext.
“A patch, or a bit, or a piece, must be considered as a whole, but as a fragmentary whole. The whole is full of itself; still there is always something that escapes…A patch is always prolonged by something that turns into another whole. That’s what James calls the ‘fringes.’ The fringes link the whole together” (Lapoujade 59).

And fringes of hypertext.

I wonder how we can map the “gorgeous excess of personal syntactical maps”? Gorgeous, because new possibilities and forms of knowledge arise, excessive because as we all know there is simply too much information to navigate. In a world without time and deadlines, I would really do well with this concept.  On the one hand, hypertext compliments the way that the human mind works. Hyperlinks are a manifestation of the non-linear mental process of associations, of the natural stream of consciousness. But hypertext represents the part of my mind that is already excessive. Sometimes I do not really want to know the entire career history of Wallace Shawn. Nor do I need to spend 4 hours searching the Second Life known issue navigator in search of the answer to my technological issues. Sure, I am incredibly resourceful and determined (bordering on obsessive compulsive) but let’s be honest about things, I am also a huge procrastinator. While sometimes the  journey is more important than the destination (and I really believe this) sometimes I wish my mind would be more focused on the destination.)

I found their clarifications useful in trying to decipher exactly what this distinction means. First, their example of a piano: its use being its function as a musical instrument and its presence as the meaning and significance that it holds for its owner, the place is occupies in his or her life.

Here I will jump to Paul Dourish’s “What we talk about when we talk about context” because the word “meaning” is important to his differentiation between context and practice. In a way, practice is similar to presence because both emphasize the importance of particular ways that technology make meaning in our lives and in our interactions with others. When H&R discuss the mobile phone as a “talking-to-yourself-loudly device,” or a “flirting-device” or a “check-that-nothing-has-happened-device”–the expressions in various acts of phoning–they are implicitly referring to meaning. The functions/use equivalents of these expressions of a cell phone would be: speaker phone, text messaging etc. Though H&R refer to expressions as “surface level” descriptions, they are actually more meaningful ways of describing the technology. And while the use the linguistic distinction of use vs. presence, they are still referring the the ways that tech. is “used” in practice, in life, to make meaning.

Ah, and then we get to yet another distinction between ‘practice’ and ‘context’ underlined in the Dourish article. Practice is negotiated, lived use while context is stable, known use. Context is location and activity specific but practice is even more specific because it is the ‘what’ that emerges from each specific interaction. And this is how we get to meaning.

Meaning is made, negotiated and emergent. And this is why both Dourish and H&R argue that design must reflect this rather than simply how a device functions or where it is used. It is really about what is made possible at the moment.

As for the Smith article on Literalism and Magic, his decision not to “attempt much in the way of a general discussion of the tension between majgic and literalism” was a bit disappointing for me. But this absence let me to create my own dialog about this tension and relationship. For me it sparked something that I discussed in my first post about SL: the connection between SL (and virtuality more generally) and the literary genre of magic realism. I think we are inherently drawn to texts and experiences that blur the boundaries between realism and magic/fiction. We want SL to resemble our own world yet we also want to to enable things not possible in real life, like flying, building etc.

I am going to explore this further.

Apparently, this is the thing to do on all these types of criminal investigation shows because Law & Order: SVU is also doing an episode  called Avatar.

It always seems like Law & Order uses current issues and controversies as the basis of their fictions, and in doing so confirm the status of such issues as “important” in cultural consciousness. Despite reports of its decreasing popularity amongst users, it appears as though Second Life is still popular enough to make it onto the story lines of our favorite TV shows…despite their focus on SL’s sinister potential for murder plots.

“Memory is the way we keep telling ourselves our stories–and telling other people a somewhat different version of our stories. We can hardly manage our lives without a powerful ongoing narrative. And underneath all these edited, inspired, self-serving or entertaining stories there is, we suppose, some big bulging awful mysterious entity called THE TRUTH, which our fictional stories are supposed to be poking at and grabbing pieces of. What could be more interesting as a life’s occupation? One of the ways we do this, I think, is by trying to look at what memory does (different tricks at different stages of our lives) and at the way people’s different memories deal with the same (shared) experience. The more disconcerting the differences are, the more the writer in me feels an odd exhilaration”.

Later in the article one of the audience members critiques this type of writing as a kind of voyeurism, playing into the same fears and desires that reality TV does. I found this comparison very interesting.  Although Art does a fine job of addressing this critique, I think the comparison is an interesting way of looking at a cultural moment. In the preface to Connected, Shaviro explains the “structural affinities” between contemporary cultural theory and science fiction, comparing it to the way that 19th century realism is the genre of choice for Marxism (literary) criticism.  Going back to my reality TV tangent, perhaps autoethnography and reality TV, blogging, personal disclosure do bear structural affinities. This is not a value judgment. I am not comparing them as a way to devalue autoethnography as the audience member did in the audience. But perhaps in narrative terms, we are fluctuating between realism and personal narrative. And perhaps this reflects a shared cultural desire to share our stories with one another, voyeuristic or not…

I really like the idea of weaving the personal and cultural experiences when doing ethnographic writing. It is a way of probing how personal experience and culture co-exist, react and relate to one another but ultimately it does not attempt to generalize. It is an exploration of the particular and hence is very much a posthumanist way of writing, and embodied writing and knowledge.

In Connected, Shaviro uses a similar approach to Hayles in his use of the science fiction genre to explore the current networked age. I suppose I will return to my reality TV tangent now. Shaviro states and re-states the premise that in our contemporary media landscape, “to be is to be perceived.” He uses celebrity, Warhol, philosophy and examples from the Internet to illustrate his point. When we think about the proliferation of webcams we usually think of them as a type of voyeurism or surveillance, but the truth is, as Shaviro says, that their are more webcams than there are eyes to watch them. Our virtual presence is enough to redeem our real existence. Here, we go back to the idea of the desire to narrate our lives except with the very important fact of virtuality added to the picture. If narration is a way to make sense of our lives and virtual presence is a confirmation of identity, the two must necessarily go hand in hand. The narratives we construct online are both for ourselves and for others. For ourselves as a way of organizing our lives and bringing continuity to them and for others as a way of “being perceived.” Shaviro cites McLuhan and follows his logic that the medium is the message: “what the JenniCam shows us is unimportant, compared to the sheer fact  that it is always on, so that Jenni’s life is presented to the world in its sheer ordinariness” (78). So narrative is content and virtual is form.

I have heard stories of people meeting their RL significant others on SL but it was very interesting to hear about it firsthand. SL offers so many different things to so many different people and ultimately the one thing that cannot be virtually replicated is real physical contact. Here I am reminded of the passage from Hayles where she emphasizes that humans can never fully integrate with machines because the experiences of embodiment differ greatly. So, as I’m sure Gothotta would attest, the RL time spent with Jinger is very different than the time they spend together on SL.

We then went to the couple’s farm. I pet their dog Molly and hearts appeared on the screen. (This was in no way similar to petting a dog in RL). Kamran then teleported Ainat and I to a place where a bible predictions video was playing. I did not really understand the content of the video, nor did I wish to. I was more interested in the experience of spectatorship–the idea of watching a video playing on a television screen on SL through my computer screen. In order to get the best view of the video, I had to situated my avatar as if she was watching the screen. When I became bored with the video, I had my avatar sit cross-legged on the sofa, and I could no longer see the screen.

Mirra then teleported us to her friend’s island. I ended up in the pool, which was pretty funny to me. We then spoke about how his neighbors are Dutch lesbians in SL but live straight lives and have families in RL. This is a very interesting thing. Although there is no way of knowing, I would imagine that some of these people know that they are gay in RL but for whatever reason remain on the closet. And there way of expressing their “true” sexual identity is through SL. While the Internet has always provided this avenue via chatrooms etc. SL adds a whole new dimension. Something worth exploring I think. And perhaps an interesting research topic.

Mirra then teleported me to an 80′s dance club. We danced and communicated via IM (private chat). This would have been more fun if I could hear the music. For some reason I was unable to at the time. There were quite a number of avatars at this club. After not hearing anything for a while, all of a sudden I started to hear other people’s voice chats. This was VERY STANGE. One of them sounded like there were children playing in the background (in RL) and another fellow had a deep Southern accent. At one point he spoke about the redneck (his word) places he usually frequents. If my own personal engagement with voice chat was weird, this was even weirder because I really felt like I was involuntarily eavesdropping on others’ conversations. Not only was I invading their SL space, but I was also hearing their RL space.

Mirra and I danced a while more and then we both had to go. I think I will return to the 80′s club.

Here is what it looked like, but there were many more people than shown in the snapshot. Notice the two avatars slow dancing…

Here are the conversations that took place:

[17:22] Connecting to in-world Voice Chat…
[17:22] Connected
[17:24] Gothotta Zander: yes
[17:24] Trash bin wooden whispers: Loran Sirbu looks at the trash can and suddenly feels an insane desire to harvest it!
[17:24] Gothotta Zander: first wife in SL then wife in RL
[17:24] Ainat Lunasea: How long after you met in SL did you meet in RL?
[17:24] Gothotta Zander: 2 months and 7 days
[17:24] Waxakla Voom: i thought it a rule not to reveal or talk about RL here
[17:25] Gothotta Zander: May 13 2005 was when we first met in RL
[17:25] Mirra Fredriksson: people talk about rl
[17:25] Ainat Lunasea: Do u mind talking to us about RL Gothotta?
[17:25] Gothotta Zander: well, you see.. there are different views of the online world..
[17:25] Gothotta Zander: my online world is part of my real world.
[17:25] Gothotta Zander: I dont seperate the two
[17:25] No Schridde: how so?
[17:26] Gothotta Zander: I am me here as I am in RL
[17:26] Gothotta Zander: except for looks..lol
[17:26] Ainat Lunasea: Hehe
[17:26] Kamran Talaj: yeah, i noticed you look different than last summer
[17:26] Kamran Talaj: but your personality is the same
[17:26] Gothotta Zander: yes.. I keep it real in here..
[17:27] No Schridde: if you don’t distinguish between RL and SL generally, are there any distinctions you make?
[17:27] Gothotta Zander: the only problem when one looks at Online and RL as one.. can get hurt easily
[17:27] Gothotta Zander: there are distnctiongs
[17:28] Gothotta Zander: SL is like being in another place..
[17:28] Gothotta Zander: like going to the bar
[17:28] Gothotta Zander: in RL
[17:28] Gothotta Zander: or
[17:28] Trash bin wooden whispers: Naima Narcissus looks at the trash can and suddenly feels an insane desire to harvest it!
[17:28] Gothotta Zander: but I guess its easier for me to look at it that way because I’ve been connecting online before the internet was even popular
[17:29] Ainat Lunasea: So do you see Gothotta as you?
[17:29] Gothotta Zander: not the looks
[17:29] Gothotta Zander: it isnt me..
[17:29] Ainat Lunasea: An extension of you? Representation of you? Idea of you?
[17:29] No Schridde: what about your RL duties (say the tea kettle in RL is on?)? how do you interplay between the screen and your RL sight?
[17:29] Gothotta Zander: yes
[17:30] Gothotta Zander: lol
[17:30] Gothotta Zander: on there are distinctions
[17:30] Gothotta Zander: I dont get them mixed up if thats what you mean
[17:30] Gothotta Zander: I still know that this is a digital location
[17:30] Gothotta Zander: is that whatyou want to know?
[17:31] Gothotta Zander: but I also understand that everyone here is a human behind the keyboard and has feelings.
[17:31] You: do you think ppl forget that sometimes?
[17:31] No Schridde: but still, you have tea here as well. do you enjoy a cup of tea from your kettle here more than in RL
[17:31] Mirra Fredriksson: can you talk more about the transition from SL to RL
[17:31] Gothotta Zander: sure
[17:31] Mirra Fredriksson: did you talk on the phone?
[17:31] Gothotta Zander: yes
[17:31] Gothotta Zander: webcame
[17:31] Gothotta Zander: err talked on the phone all day
[17:31] Gothotta Zander: sometimes 15 hours
[17:31] Mirra Fredriksson: yea
[17:32] Gothotta Zander: each day
[17:32] Mirra Fredriksson: were you in the same country?
[17:32] Gothotta Zander: yes
[17:32] Mirra Fredriksson: ok
[17:32] Gothotta Zander: but 1100 miles away
[17:32] Kamran Talaj: yes — tell them about that….
[17:32] Gothotta Zander: I lived in Ohio
[17:32] Ainat Lunasea: lol
[17:32] Gothotta Zander: she lived about 15 minutes from New Orleans
[17:33] Kamran Talaj: and then events occurred…
[17:33] Gothotta Zander: yes, we planned a RL meeting
[17:33] Gothotta Zander: May 13 2005 I flew down to see her
[17:33] Kamran Talaj: it was Katrina that spurred it a bit, right?
[17:33] You: did you exchange photos before?
[17:33] Gothotta Zander: yes
[17:33] Mirra Fredriksson: they talked on webcam
[17:33] You: oh right
[17:34] Ainat Lunasea: Were you nervous?!
[17:34] Gothotta Zander: we would even go out to eat together to the same place while on the phone and order food together
[17:34] Gothotta Zander: like a dinner date
[17:34] Gothotta Zander: lol
[17:34] Gothotta Zander: I know it sounds silly
[17:34] Gothotta Zander: lol
[17:34] Mirra Fredriksson: i found that people do that on sl
[17:34] Mirra Fredriksson: when they are in long distance relationships
[17:34] Ainat Lunasea: Was it the first time you met someone from SL in RL?
[17:35] Gothotta Zander: in SL yes
[17:35] Kamran Talaj: you mean SL restaurants…?
[17:35] Gothotta Zander: no
[17:35] Gothotta Zander: lol
[17:35] Mirra Fredriksson: using sl to be together
[17:35] Gothotta Zander: yes we did that too
[17:35] Gothotta Zander: but while we were offline, we would decide where we were going to go eat in RL
[17:35] Gothotta Zander: and both leave at the same time
[17:35] Gothotta Zander: to get it.
[17:35] Gothotta Zander: lol
[17:35] Mirra Fredriksson: haha
[17:36] JEVN – Gothinger Ink Tattoo 1 whispers: Transaction will complete in a few secs…
[17:36] Gothotta Zander: we had the same Cell phone carrier so we both got unlimited mobile to mobile
[17:36] JEVN – Gothinger Ink Tattoo 1 whispers: Thank you for your purchase
[17:36] Mirra Fredriksson: who initiated making it change to rl
[17:36] No Schridde: do you live together now, and go out together in both RL and SL
[17:36] Gothotta Zander: not so much SL anymore..
[17:36] Kamran Talaj: how do you think things might have been different with this new voice function, but back t hen?
[17:37] Gothotta Zander: I never used the voice function on SL
[17:37] Ainat Lunasea: Did she move to Ohio or u to New Orleans?
[17:37] Gothotta Zander: I moved
[17:37] Gothotta Zander: I flew down to rescue her from Hurricane Katrina
[17:37] Gothotta Zander: and thats how we ended up together perm
[17:37] Waxakla Voom: what reactions do u get from ppl when u tell them how u met
[17:38] Ainat Lunasea: Good question
[17:38] Trash bin wooden whispers: Kamran Talaj looks at the trash can and suddenly feels an insane desire to harvest it!
[17:38] Gothotta Zander: alot of people think its crazy
[17:38] Gothotta Zander: and some thinks its awesome
[17:38] Kamran Talaj: i think it’s awesome — will she be on SL tonight?
[17:39] Gothotta Zander: yes, shes on now
[17:39] Ainat Lunasea: Me too… I think it’s great
[17:39] No Schridde: can you bring her here
[17:39] Ainat Lunasea: Bring her!
[17:39] Kamran Talaj: yeah
[17:39] Gothotta Zander: yes, shes gonna be on her way
[17:39] Gothotta Zander: shes shopping at the moment..lol
[17:39] Kamran Talaj: in rl or sl?
[17:39] Gothotta Zander: sl
[17:39] Gothotta Zander: lol
[17:40] Kamran Talaj: do you hve a joint account?
[17:40] Gothotta Zander: its funny how you have to clairfy that
[17:40] Gothotta Zander: lol
[17:40] Ainat Lunasea is Online
[17:40] Gothotta Zander: no not a joint account
[17:40] JEVN – Gothinger Ink Tattoo 1 whispers: (47/52) Tat 72 – L$ 65
[17:40] Kamran Talaj: how old are you two, gottotta
[17:40] Gothotta Zander: im 35 shes 29
[17:41] No Schridde: how do you divide your time betwen RL or SL?
[17:41] Gothotta Zander: more RL then SL
[17:41] Gothotta Zander: but even if we are online, were still together right next to each other in RL
[17:41] Gothotta Zander: so its not like we are doing our own thing
[17:41] No Schridde: so SL doesn’t affect your relationship in any way?
[17:41] Gothotta Zander: no, not at all
[17:42] You: so there are moments when you are both on SL, in the same place and also together in real life?
[17:42] Gothotta Zander: we like right now
[17:42] Trash bin wooden whispers: Ainat Lunasea looks at the trash can and suddenly feels an insane desire to harvest it!
[17:42] No Schridde: does it enhance your relationship
[17:42] Trash bin wooden whispers: tongue Ellils looks at the trash can and suddenly feels an insane desire to harvest it!
[17:42] Gothotta Zander: shes on her way
[17:42] Trash bin wooden whispers: Ainat Lunasea looks at the trash can and suddenly feels an insane desire to harvest it!
[17:42] Trash bin wooden whispers: Jinger Curie looks at the trash can and suddenly feels an insane desire to harvest it!
[17:43] Gothotta Zander: there she is..
[17:43] Jinger Curie: Hello all
[17:43] No Schridde: hi
[17:43] Mirra Fredriksson: hi jinger
[17:43] Waxakla Voom: helo jinger
[17:49] Kamran Talaj is Online
[17:49] Kamran Talaj: i called them all back
[17:49] Connecting to in-world Voice Chat…
[17:50] Connected
[17:50] Gothotta Zander: ok, cool
[17:50] Trash bin wooden whispers: Loran Sirbu looks at the trash can and suddenly feels an insane desire to harvest it!
[17:50] Jinger Curie: welcome back
[17:50] Ainat Lunasea: Jinger is the land very expensive here?
[17:50] Kamran Talaj: the sim chucked us all off, apparently
[17:50] Jinger Curie: it is kind of high right now….but i hear the prices are dropping
[17:50] Gothotta Zander: yes, SIM crashed
[17:50] Mirra Fredriksson: thanks
[17:51] Ainat Lunasea: It’s nice here
[17:51] Jinger Curie: it is…i love it here
[17:51] You: oh
[17:51] Jinger Curie: i’ve lived here for 3 years….in Kane
[17:51] Gothotta Zander: have you seen the ground level yet?
[17:52] Kamran Talaj: no — let’s go..
[17:52] Kamran Talaj: did you mean part of this sim?>
[17:52] Jinger Curie: yep….i’m rezzing some teleporter balls for everyone
[17:52] Jinger Curie: just hop on one
[17:53] Mirra Fredriksson: yea
[17:53] Kamran Talaj: hear the windchinmes?
[17:53] Ainat Lunasea: Yes
[17:53] Mirra Fredriksson: thanks
[17:53] You: no i dont
[17:53] Jinger Curie: this is our house
[17:53] Mirra Fredriksson: yea
[17:53] You: but my sound has been acting up
[17:54] Ainat Lunasea: It’s no nice here!
[17:54] Gothotta Zander: they are in the backyard
[17:54] Kamran Talaj: i hear turkeys…
[17:55] Gothotta Zander: yep
[17:55] Ainat Lunasea: sorry – so nice
[17:55] Gothotta Zander: thats one strong turkey
[17:55] Jinger Curie:
[17:55] Jinger Curie: lol
[17:55] Kamran Talaj: it’s quite relaxing
[17:55] Gothotta Zander: yeah
[17:55] Kamran Talaj: and dignified
[17:55] Waxakla Voom: lol thats very fuuny
[17:56] Kamran Talaj: is this a home you built together?
[17:56] Ainat Lunasea: Look at the cows!
[17:56] Gothotta Zander: no, she always chaning that
[17:56] Gothotta Zander: lol
[17:56] Jinger Curie: lol….i change houses alot
[17:56] Ainat Lunasea: So with animals… question…
[17:56] Gothotta Zander: get settled in, and whamo.. new house
[17:56] Gothotta Zander: lol
[17:56] Jinger Curie: lol
[17:56] Ainat Lunasea: are there people behind the animals too?
[17:56] Jinger Curie: i get bored…i like to redecorate lol
[17:56] Jinger Curie: nope….they are just scripted objects
[17:56] Mirra Fredriksson: kamran
[17:57] Ainat Lunasea: OK
[17:57] Kamran Talaj: yes, mirra
[17:57] Mirra Fredriksson: why did that happen
[17:57] Jinger Curie: some people do run around in animal costumes though
[17:57] Ainat Lunasea: lol
[17:57] Kamran Talaj: gothotta, why would someone get booted from this land?
[17:57] Gothotta Zander: like what happened?
[17:57] Mirra Fredriksson: i was trying to pet the dog
[17:57] Mirra Fredriksson: lol
[17:57] Kamran Talaj: beware of dog
[17:57] Ainat Lunasea: Jinger did u script Molly?
[17:57] You: i pet him
[17:58] Jinger Curie: no, i bought him from someone else
[17:58] Ainat Lunasea: He’s so cute!
[17:58] Jinger Curie:
[17:58] Jinger Curie: I just bought another one this evening….so she would have a friend
[17:58] Ainat Lunasea: If I wanted to buy a dog but have no land… what would happen to it when I log off?
[17:59] Kamran Talaj: has anyone seen the Bible predictions video…?
[17:59] Jinger Curie: well…you would have to be on land that allows you to put him out…..and you would have to take him back into your inventory before you logged out
[17:59] Jinger Curie: or he would get lost
[17:59] Gothotta Zander: no
[17:59] Ainat Lunasea: I see
[17:59] Ainat Lunasea: I want a cow!
[17:59] Ainat Lunasea: lol
[17:59] Jinger Curie: lol
[17:59] Kamran Talaj: i found it earlier this evening — if you’re interested in a quick run there…
[18:00] Ainat Lunasea: I wanna see
[18:00] Kamran Talaj: i’ll pop over there and be back in a few — if anyone wants a tp, let me know…
[18:01] You: ok
[18:01] Ainat Lunasea: OK
[18:01] Gothotta Zander: we’ve sold some of the land we had
[18:01] Jinger Curie: Charlie
[18:01] You: thats mollys friend ?
[18:02] Jinger Curie: yep…i just named him Charlie
[18:02] You: cute
[18:02] Jinger Curie: they are so much easier to care for than real life pets
[18:02] Jinger Curie: lol
[18:02] Gothotta Zander: so how long have you three been in SL?
[18:02] You: i would think so
[18:03] Waxakla Voom: i have been for six months
[18:03] You: so i guess i am going to teleport to this bible place
[18:03] You: brb
[18:03] Visitor Counter 1.8: Hello Loran Sirbu. Welcome to the Way Station. Feel free to look around.
[18:03] Connecting to in-world Voice Chat…
[18:03] Connected
[18:04] Ainat Lunasea: Loran follow us!
[18:04] Ainat Lunasea: Is this someone’s home?
[18:04] Kamran Talaj: it’s for getting a little god in you
[18:04] Ainat Lunasea: lol
[18:05] You: i dont feel god yet
[18:05] Ainat Lunasea: I lost you!
[18:05] Ainat Lunasea: upstairs
[18:05] Kamran Talaj: upstairs…
[18:05] Ainat Lunasea: oh
[18:05] Ainat Lunasea: hi
[18:06] You: how do i teleport mirra here?
[18:07] Kamran Talaj is Offline
[18:07] You: where did he go?
[18:07] Ainat Lunasea: lol
[18:07] Ainat Lunasea: no idea
[18:07] Ainat Lunasea: Hmm…
[18:07] You: he prorbably had to restart the program
[18:08] You: hell be back
[18:08] Ainat Lunasea: Should we go back to the others?
[18:08] You: yeah but how do we get there?
[18:08] Ainat Lunasea: Good question… have no idea where that was
[18:08] Ainat Lunasea: Kane or something?
[18:08] You: do you know how to teleport?
[18:09] Ainat Lunasea: Oh I think I know how to do this…
[18:09] Waxakla Voom is Offline
[18:09] You: because i can go there and then send you a teleport
[18:09] Ainat Lunasea: hold on…
[18:09] Ainat Lunasea: Never mind…
[18:09] Ainat Lunasea: yeah…
[18:10] Ainat Lunasea: please do that
[18:10] You: i dont know how to
[18:10] You: thats the problem
[18:10] Kamran Talaj is Online
[18:10] Ainat Lunasea: lol
[18:10] Ainat Lunasea: guess we r stuck w Jesus
[18:10] You: hi kamran
[18:10] Kamran Talaj: ok — did you see the video?
[18:11] You: kamran- how do you send a teleport to someone?
[18:11] Kamran Talaj: communicate == at bottom right
[18:11] Kamran Talaj: then select contacts
[18:11] Kamran Talaj: then select name
[18:11] Ainat Lunasea: Nope… didn’t see it
[18:11] Kamran Talaj: then offer teleport
[18:11] You: got it thanks!
[18:11] Ainat Lunasea is Offline
[18:11] Kamran Talaj: go to final events here and activate media fn on bottom right of your interface
[18:11] You: where is this video?
[18:11] Kamran Talaj: i’m facing it
[18:12] Kamran Talaj: the activate media button is to the left of your talk button
[18:12] You: now i see it
[18:12] Ainat Lunasea is Online
[18:13] LadyDawn Starbrook: great, I don’t want to bother you, I’m just putting up a notecard
[18:13] Kamran Talaj: loran/ainat — you managing to watch it
[18:13] Kamran Talaj: ?
[18:13] Visitor Counter 1.8: Hello Mirra Fredriksson. Welcome to the Way Station. Feel free to look around.
[18:13] You: yeah what is this?
[18:13] You: mirra- activate the media stream
[18:13] Kamran Talaj: hi ladydawn, just showing my friends this video
[18:13] Kamran Talaj: ou’ve seen it?
[18:13] You: so you can watch the video with us
[18:13] Ainat Lunasea: I’m watching!
[18:14] Mirra Fredriksson: how?
[18:14] Thario Botha is Online
[18:14] Mirra Fredriksson: i gotta go work on my film
[18:14] Mirra Fredriksson: bye class
[18:14] Kamran Talaj: there’s a button on the bottom right of your interface — to the left of your talk button…
[18:14] LadyDawn Starbrook: ejoy
[18:14] Kamran Talaj: bye mirra
[18:14] LadyDawn Starbrook: enjoy
[18:14] Mirra Fredriksson is Offline
[18:15] Visitor Counter 1.8: Hello Thario Botha. Welcome to the Way Station. Feel free to look around.
[18:15] Kamran Talaj: hey — did anyone buy a tatoo?
[18:15] You: no
[18:15] Kamran Talaj: we need to reciprocate for their time…
[18:15] You: we didnt say bye to them, did we?
[18:16] Kamran Talaj: no
[18:16] You: should we go back there?
[18:16] Kamran Talaj: yeah, but i saw he got off line
[18:16] You: oh
[18:16] Kamran Talaj: did u landmark the place
[18:16] Kamran Talaj: ?
[18:16] Ainat Lunasea: What is up w this video?
[18:16] Kamran Talaj gave you Curie Creations – GOTHOTTA ZANDER.
[18:17] Ainat Lunasea: I didn’t landmark Kane Kamran
[18:17] You: got it
[18:17] You: but i have no money to buy a tatoo
[18:17] Kamran Talaj: that’s a landmark to the tatoo dude — please return sometime and buy something…
[18:17] Kamran Talaj: daddy didn’t give you money today?
[18:17] You: no
[18:17] Kamran Talaj: thought i did
[18:17] Ainat Lunasea: lol
[18:18] You: thanks dad
[18:18] Kamran Talaj: mark this place…
[18:18] Kamran Talaj: i’ll be right back…
[18:19] No room to sit here, try another spot.
[18:20] Visitor Counter 1.8: Hello Klee Makira. Welcome to the Way Station. Feel free to look around.
[18:26] You: im leaving this place
[18:26] Ainat Lunasea: Loran should we wait here?
[18:26] You: its scares me
[18:26] Ainat Lunasea: lol
[18:26] Kamran Talaj is Online
[18:26] Ainat Lunasea: There he is…
[18:26] You: oh hi kamran
[18:27] Kamran Talaj: hi — just trying to track down our host … too late
[18:27] You: too bad
[18:27] You: i will definitely buy at tatoo from him at some point
[18:27] You: thario, welcome back
[18:28] Thario Botha: hey
[18:28] Kamran Talaj: do any of you three have a place to share with us?
[18:28] Kamran Talaj: just one more excusion before i log off…
[18:28] You: im open to going anywhere
[18:28] Thario Botha: I am actuall on my way out. I was just saving my chats
[18:28] Thario Botha: see ya’ll in class
[18:29] Ainat Lunasea: Bye Thario
[18:29] You: later
[18:29] Ainat Lunasea: I’m looking over my lanmarks…
[18:29] Ainat Lunasea: one se[18:29] Thario Botha: yes
[18:29] Kamran Talaj: bye thario
[18:29] Thario Botha: bye
[18:29] You: satan masquerades
[18:29] Thario Botha is Offline
[18:30] You: wow this is quite the film
[18:30] Kamran Talaj: did u watch it all? i ddnt’ have the patience for it
[18:30] Mirra Fredriksson is Online
[18:30] You: i havent been paying attention
[18:30] Ainat Lunasea: Sorta
[18:31] Ainat Lunasea: who did it?
[18:31] Mirra Fredriksson: i had a false alarm
[18:31] Kamran Talaj: nice tats mirra
[18:31] Mirra Fredriksson: thanks
[18:31] Quantum Portal whispers: Say HELP for detailed Instructions.
[18:31] You: do you guys know what it means when it says that something whispers?
[18:31] Mirra Fredriksson: where are we?
[18:32] Kamran Talaj: the house of prophecy
[18:32] Mirra Fredriksson: i see
[18:32] You: lets go somewhere else!
[18:32] Mirra Fredriksson: yea
[18:32] Kamran Talaj: let me see if there is a place to take u — wait a sec…
[18:32] Mirra Fredriksson: lets go to my friends house
[18:33] Ainat Lunasea: OK
[18:33] You: ok
[18:33] Kamran Talaj: sure — take us there
[18:33] You: lets go
[18:33] Mirra Fredriksson: hes not thome
[18:33] Mirra Fredriksson: but whatever
[18:33] You: then we shan’t go there
[18:33] Kamran Talaj: k — hold a sec…
[18:33] You: oh i think she left
[18:34] Connecting to in-world Voice Chat…
[18:34] Connected
[18:35] Mirra Fredriksson: hey
[18:35] You: hey
[18:35] Mirra Fredriksson: can you swim kamran?
[18:35] You: im in the pool apparently
[18:35] Kamran Talaj: u don’t have a bathing suit?
[18:35] Mirra Fredriksson: they have elephants and giraffes and stuff
[18:36] Mirra Fredriksson: i like this ocean
[18:36] You: its nice here
[18:36] Mirra Fredriksson: so this is my friend on sl’s land
[18:36] You: wow
[18:36] Mirra Fredriksson: he built it
[18:36] You: he has his own island?
[18:36] You: wherre is kamran and ainat?
[18:37] Mirra Fredriksson: he has a beach house too
[18:37] Kamran Talaj: right here
[18:37] Kamran Talaj: show us the beach house
[18:37] Mirra Fredriksson: he builds things
[18:37] Mirra Fredriksson: i dont have the lm
[18:37] Mirra Fredriksson: next time
[18:37] Lean Cuddle/hide: Touched.
[18:37] Lean Cuddle/hide: Kamran Talaj, say ‘/1 Hide’ to hide me, or ‘/1 Show’ to make me show. Or just right-click and sit on me to use me.
[18:37] You: whats that?
[18:37] Kamran Talaj: yes
[18:37] Mirra Fredriksson: his neighbors are dutch lesbians in sl
[18:38] Mirra Fredriksson: but in rl
[18:38] Mirra Fredriksson: they have families
[18:38] Mirra Fredriksson: ?
[18:38] Mirra Fredriksson: then we got into a conversation about families on sl
[18:38] Mirra Fredriksson: lots of stuff going on here…
[18:38] You: are they dutch in real life?
[18:38] Kamran Talaj: is it on your blog?
[18:38] Mirra Fredriksson: not sure…
[18:38] Mirra Fredriksson: not yet…
[18:38] Kamran Talaj: very interesting duality
[18:38] Mirra Fredriksson: and straight in rl
[18:39] Mirra Fredriksson: so their gay in sl
[18:39] You: probably gay in RL too, some of them
[18:39] You: but not out of the closet
[18:39] Mirra Fredriksson: who knows
[18:39] You: true
[18:40] Mirra Fredriksson: i went racing the other day in sl
[18:40] Mirra Fredriksson: its fun
[18:40] Ainat Lunasea: Yeah
[18:40] Ainat Lunasea: lets
[18:40] You: car racing?
[18:40] Mirra Fredriksson: yea car racing
[18:40] Mirra Fredriksson: we should go sometime
[18:40] Mirra Fredriksson: my friend whose house this is
[18:40] Mirra Fredriksson: races cars in rl
[18:40] Mirra Fredriksson: and in sl
[18:40] You: wow
[18:41] Mirra Fredriksson: so next time when he’s on we will go
[18:41] Ainat Lunasea: Did u meet in RL or SL?
[18:41] Mirra Fredriksson: in sl
[18:41] You: im down
[18:41] Ainat Lunasea: Me too
[18:41] Mirra Fredriksson: he knows al ot about sl
[18:41] Mirra Fredriksson: so it will be good to meet him
[18:41] You: nice
[18:41] Ainat Lunasea: Sure
[18:41] Mirra Fredriksson: he can help
[18:41] You: lets walk around this place
[18:41] You: ?
[18:41] Kamran Talaj: ok — se let’s put it on our next group agenda
[18:41] Ainat Lunasea: OK
[18:41] Mirra Fredriksson: yea i tried to get him to come this time
[18:41] Mirra Fredriksson: but he’s racing
[18:41] Kamran Talaj: when can you all meet again === a week from this wed?
[18:42] Mirra Fredriksson: no i’m going out of town
[18:42] Ainat Lunasea: Sure
[18:42] Kamran Talaj: maybe next sunday then?
[18:42] Mirra Fredriksson: i’ll be back on the 9th
[18:42] Kamran Talaj: All Hail The Great Shamalama!!!
[18:42] Kamran Talaj: Get lost!
[18:42] Kamran Talaj: All hail the great Shamalamadingdong!
[18:42] Mirra Fredriksson: whoa
[18:42] You: ????
[18:42] Ainat Lunasea: lol
[18:42] You: lol
[18:42] Mirra Fredriksson: what was that
[18:42] Kamran Talaj: excuse me
[18:43] You: do you have SL terrets?
[18:43] Mirra Fredriksson: that was funny
[18:43] Kamran Talaj: it’s like a burp
[18:43] Ainat Lunasea: lol
[18:43] You: lol
[18:43] Mirra Fredriksson: hmmm
[18:43] Ainat Lunasea: so I could do either one eh…
[18:43] Ainat Lunasea: but gotsa go now
[18:44] Ainat Lunasea: so c u guys in class
[18:44] Kamran Talaj: i do too
[18:44] Mirra Fredriksson: bye
[18:44] Kamran Talaj: will see you thurs
[18:44] Ainat Lunasea: this was fun
[18:44] Kamran Talaj: yes
[18:44] Kamran Talaj: bye loran
[18:44] You: bye kamran
[18:44] You: see you in RL
[18:44] Kamran Talaj: indeed
[18:45] Ainat Lunasea: Bye guys
[18:45] Kamran Talaj is Offline
[18:45] Ainat Lunasea is Offline
[18:45] You: mirra, its just you and me
[18:48] Mirra Fredriksson: the elephants arent out
[18:48] Mirra Fredriksson: or the giraffes
[18:48] Mirra Fredriksson:
[18:48] Mirra Fredriksson: i sit on them
[18:48] Mirra Fredriksson: i dont know
[18:48] Mirra Fredriksson: lol
[18:49] Mirra Fredriksson: lets go back to the rave
[18:49] Connecting to in-world Voice Chat…
[18:49] Connected
[18:50] You: k
[18:50] You: im into that
[18:52] Polgara Weyland: I’m glad to know SOMEONE is, Trin, LOL
[18:52] Welcome Greeter 4.3: Loran Sirbu Welcome to Blackhearts II, Please take time to rez and read our rules thank you
[18:52] Connecting to in-world Voice Chat…
18:52] trinity Zenovka: lol, pol!
[18:52] You: is there music ?
[18:52] Polgara Weyland: HB CALI
[18:53] Polgara Weyland: Yes, Loran
[18:53] Polgara Weyland: try stopping your stream and restarting it
[18:53] Polgara Weyland: ☻ IF YOU’D LIKE TO BECOME A V.I.P. OF THE GREATEST SL CLUB EVER ☻
[18:53] Polgara Weyland: ☻ JUST IM ME, AND I’LL V.I.P. TAG YA ☻
[18:53] You: thans
[18:53] Sean Schmooz: I don’t know about you all, but I have a very hard time stopping my stream
[18:54] 0Ian0 Thorne: im the opposite lol
[18:54] Sean Schmooz: … of music, of course
[18:54] Sean Schmooz: sheesh
[18:54] Polgara Weyland: LOL SEAN
[18:54] Whisper Streeter: nice riff Henry! lol
[18:54] Polgara Weyland: ZOIKS
[18:54] Unable to load landmark. Please try again.
[18:54] Welcome Greeter 4.3 owned by Robert Giacomin gave you ‘Blackhearts II Verney (245, 9, 301)’ ( http://slurl.com/secondlife/Verney/244/7/303 ).
[18:55] Polgara Weyland: Wait a minute….a PG club dancing to a song about Cocaine? lol
[18:55] Polgara Weyland: of course, we dance to She Bop, too, I suppose
[18:55] Polgara Weyland: lol
[18:55] Polgara Weyland: FALCON
[18:55] Polgara Weyland: *•.¸(‘*•.¸♥¸.•*´)¸.•*

What are the consequence of embodiment of identity? on technology? If free will and human agency possible in the posthuman future?

Hayles concludes her book as follows. “Although some current versions of the poshumans point toward the anti-human and the apocalyptic, we can craft others that will be conducive to the long -range survival of humans and of the other life-forms, biological and artificial, with whom we share the planet and ourselves.”
What does Hayles mean here? What does the conception of the posthuman subject make possible? what does it prevent?

The main discussion that the Reinghold readings provoke involve enhancement oflife from an individual level (cyborgs) to a logistical day to day level (smart things) to a societal level (wifi movement).  There are several arguments within these readings regarding what approach we
should take towards these new enhancements as far as design elements and how this will affect issues of privacy and control.  Another argument was what sort of policies should be enforced to make sure these new powers or extensions of ourselves do not get out of hand.

What should the agenda be for these new capabilities? (smart things, wifi etc.) Who should be in charge of them, or how should they be managed? How will access be provided to these new capabilities? Is individual enhancement more important than societal enhancement or
are they equally important?

The readings for this week’s class can be seen as representing three different lenses through which to discuss The Posthuman. Hayles provides the theoretical framework of The Posthuman, Rheingold conceptualizes the mode of relationality that exists when PHs act collectively, as “smart mobs,” and Horst and Miller zoom in on a particular cultural appropriation of technology where the PH is examined through an ethnographic lens.

[paraphrased from the back cover] N. Katherine Hayles investigates the fate of emodiment in a virtual age. As machines and technology become increasingly ubiquitous, how are we to theorize the human body? She uses information theory and cybernetics as well as science fiction literature to explore:
how information lost its body; the cultural and technological construction of the cyborg 3. the dismantling of the liberal humanist subject in cybernetic discourse.

Pretty much, Hayles is arguing for a new way to look at human subjectivity. I like to think of posthumanism as a particular way of seeing the word like feminism and Marxism. But this theory does not hold there to be any kind of universal truth, whether it be the relations of production in capitalist society or relations of gender in patriarchal society, or race etc. Rather this is a theory of the particular. Of potential. Potential because nothing is fixed. And identity is not a fixed -disembodied- construct. Rather, the posthuman is constantly changing, evolving and interacting with its environment. This ties in with the term “emergence.”

I think a useful starting point in approaching Hayles is her conclusion, “What does it mean to be posthuman?” In this chapter she delves into the terror and pleasure elicited by the prospect of becoming posthuman. Post has apocalyptic connotations, bringing to mind sci-fi scenarios. Yet this terror of the loss of human agency, of humanity being taken over by machines. But Hayles reminds us that no matter what, no matter how integrated we become with computers, a computer’s experience of embodiment is completely different that that of a human. Thus, we cannot become machines. When we talk about intelligent machines, computer-mediated environments where machines are able to do certain human task (Rheinghold’s “sentient things”) many of us get freaked out, scared to give up our control. But as Hayles points out, we were never really in control. This is not to say that we live in a matrix-like world, but instead that our bodies, our consciousness and our environment interact to make up emergent structures. The ultimate – and very hopeful I think – implication is that if we accept posthumanism, we can give up our desire for mastery (over knowledge, over others, over the environment, the list goes on). So in “distributive cognition environments” where humans and non-humans share the work- we shape the machines and the machines shape us.

EMBODIMENT: “There is no body as such; there are only bodies.”
In “The Materiality of Informantics,” Hayles proposes an alternative to the ideology of disembodiment that pervades throughout much of Western thought. Cultural theory–specifically poststructuralist and postmodern–deemed the body as simply another system of signs, a discursive formation rather than a physical object in space and time. Hayles proposes a “more flexible framework in which to think about embodiment in an age of virtuality” (193). This framework consists of “two dynamically interacting polarities”: body/embodiment and inscription/incorporation.

Hayles discuess how in Foucalt’s use of the Panopticon as a metaphor for surveillance society (in Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, 1979) similarly abstracts the members of that society into a “universalized body” constituted through discursive formations which engulfs individual context(s) and embodiment(s). Here, Foucault could be any number of theorists who negate embodiment in favor or The Body.

Body is to embodiment as inscription is to incorporation. I find Hayles’s use of the goodbye wave helpful in understanding these terms. The cultural practice of waving one’s hand is an INSCRIPTION. It is a SIGN where an arbitrary signifier signifies a referent–over time, our culture has come to understand that when some waves his or her hands, s/he is saying goodbye. When the inscription is actually performed by a specific person in in a specific context–say when I waved my hand goodbye to my friend at 4:45pm on 1/10/06–it becomes an INCORPORATING PRACTICE. So, while I probably always wave my hands to someone because this act has been naturalized in our culture to mean goodbye, the specific way I wave my hand each time is different every time. My wave will look different depending on my level of energy that day. My wave might look different depending on who I am waving to and how I feel about them. etc. etc.

When embodiment is applied to knowledge, the implications become clearer. Disembodied knowlege, like the body, erases context in favor of abstraction. But “because bodily movements sediment into habitual actions and movements” they become unconscious and therefore cannot be abstracted or intellectualized. She talks about subvocalized sound-what happens in our minds when we read a text-as an incorporating practice that affects both subjectivity and literary language. Embodiment once again. We are not just floating minds, but minds that reside in bodies that have biological processes, some of which make certain things happy unconsiously.

So when new practices arise, they are often tied to technological innovation. Then she goes on to explain how bodily experience is encoded into language through metaphoric networks. So when we say “he got high” or “she is down” these reference the body in space in time. So inevitably, when technological and cultural shifts cause people to use their bodies in new ways, new expressions pop up. eg “surf the net, channel surf” “browsing.”

Rheingold echoes Hayles in many ways. He differs in that he uses different words to describe similar processes and pays much more attention the collective “smart mob” than the individual posthuman. Rheingold talks a lot about wearable technology and I think this can give some, at least it did for me, a science-fiction-y feeling once again. Yet much of what he discusses is very much being used. What I am now seeing is that the science fiction that Hayles uses and the research examples used by Rheingold are two sides of the same coin. They both can appear “geeky” or elicit fears but ultimately they are not terribly far off.

“Used together, wireless network applications, portable computation, and tag readers make possible new applications that could chang he naure of products, places, and social action. For a consumer society, the transformation of consumption may be profound.” (Reinghod 101) I wonder about this. We have access to that information now and does it have a profound effect on consumption? Maybe. Maybe not. But I do like the idea of politicizing consumers.

Steve Mann, the first online cyborg confused me. He is somewhat paradoxical given his intense desire to maintain control (albeit control against corporate power) yet he wants to completely immerse himself in virtual reality.

Erving Goffmans “Interaction Order” is embodiment! Embodiment is “Interaction Order.” : “Although people use the ways they present themselves to ‘give’ information they want others to believe about themselves, Goffman noted that people also “give off” information, leaking true but uncontrolled information along with their more deliberate performance.” Here we have the unconscious habitual element of a person that cannot be abstracted into discourse.

In Amy Bruckman’s “Ethical Guidelines for Research Online,” she lists a set of guidelines for online research, all of which follow the human subjects research model where the rights of the subjects always take precedence over the integrity of the research.

The Netnography article based on Kozinets (2002) was more interesting for me because it went from simply listing either questions or guidelines to an actual discussion of online communities and how they construct social meaning. What is particularly interesting is the way that advertising and market research uses ethnographic form “useful conclusions about how [a] group constucts itself, how it develops social meaning, and how it derives personal gratifications.” From this information, advertisers are able to determine ways to brand their products, not just selling the product itself but to sell a constructed experience. Netnographic ethical guidelines in this article are very similar to those listed in the other articles. The main points are that: researchers should fully disclose their role as researcher, confidentiality and anonymity of the participants must be ensured, informed consent should be obtained, and the researcher should obtain and incorporate feedback from the subjects.

The last article was by far of the most interest for me due to my experience with and enjoyment of literary theory. Here, E.H. Bassett and Kathleen O’Riordan contest the Human Subjects Research Model. The HSRM is based on the metaphor of spatiality applied to the Internet meaning that the Internet is understood as a space where human social actors engage in activity. These authors argue that this conception can lead to unethical practices because “overly protective research ethics risk diminishing the cultural capital of those engaging in cultural production through Internet technologies , and inadvertently contributing to their further marginalization.” Instead they argue that a textual metaphor should also be applied to the Internet. Because the Internet is a medium of publishing and an object of cultural production. It is here where the authors invoke literary theory as a way of exploring the various theories about authorship–the relationship between the text and its author. Ultimately, O’Riordan and Bassett argue that ethical considerations be based on a hybrid model of the Internet that incorporates text, space, and bodies where texts are considered “neither virtual selves nor objecs completely distinct from those who write them.” In addition, the researcher’s role as a textual interpreter who contributes to the meaning must also be considered. They draw inspiration from the fields of Life Writing and feminism as useful ways of seeing texts and their producers. What I find especially interesting about this article is its acknowledgment that neither texts nor boies can be seen as having any kind of fixed meaning.

I also like this last view because it acknowledges the separation that exists between self and virtual self. Here I do not mean that there is no connection between the two but that their are elements of construction and narrative that go into one’s online experience. I think about Facebook, for example. If I write on someone’s wall I am not just writing a message to that person. I am publishing my comment to everyone else that will go to his or her page and therefore I will write with this knowledge in mind. When I compose my profile, I choose which books and films and quotes so as to construct a picture of “who I am.” This is not to say that there is no connection between my virtual and “real” self (if there even is such a thing) but just that I am engaging in an act of representation, in addition to being part of a social network or an online space.