[1] From: Dene Grigar <dene@eaze.net> (142)
Subject: Re: 13.0171 humanities computing
[2] From: "Michael S. Hart" <hart@prairienet.org> (31)
Subject: Re: 13.0171 humanities computing
--[1]------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 20:30:00 +0100
From: Dene Grigar <dene@eaze.net>
Subject: Re: 13.0171 humanities computing
They are quickly becoming transparent and many folks are now writing and
speaking about that phenomenon. Se Cynthia Selfe's CCCC keynote, now
article in CCC, about "paying attention" to the transparency of computer
technology. Also, Michael Joyce, in his book _Of Two Minds_ writes about
mindfulness. . .
Dene
On Sat, 4 Sep 1999, Humanist Discussion Group wrote:
> Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 13, No. 171.
> Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
> <http://www.princeton.edu/~mccarty/humanist/>
> <http://www.kcl.ac.uk/humanities/cch/humanist/>
>
> [1] From: Matt Kirschenbaum (30)
> <mgk3k@jefferson.village.virginia.edu>
> >
> [2] From: Willard McCarty <willard.mccarty@kcl.ac.uk> (48)
> Subject: after the Revolution
>
>
> --[1]------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Sat, 04 Sep 1999 09:09:49 +0100
> From: Matt Kirschenbaum <mgk3k@jefferson.village.virginia.edu>
> Subject: Re: 13.0169 humanities computing
>
> > Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1999 22:37:42 +0100
> > From: Hope Greenberg <hope.greenberg@uvm.edu>
> > >
> > Re: The Legitimacy of Humanities Computing
> >
> > Two questions:
> >
> > What happens to Humanities Computing when computers go away (i.e., when
> > they are no longer "The Box" but are truly ubiquitous and remarkably
> > invisible)?
>
> My own opinion is that this is a false predicament. The so-called
> "technological base" is an ever-receding plateau. Witness the Apple G4,
> which cannot be legally exported to certain countries because it is
> technically classifiable as a supercomputer. What will humanists do with
> a supercomputer on their desktop? There will _always_ be pockets of
> high-end users who refuse to permit their tools to become transparent.
>
> > What happens to arguments of "is it book/text/media" when it's all bits?
>
> To paraphrase Bill Clinton, that depends on how you define "it." ;-)
>
> > - hope.greenberg@uvm.edu, U of Vermont
>
> Best, Matt
>
>
> : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
>
> Matthew G. Kirschenbaum
> Assistant Professor, Department of English
> Research in Computing for Humanities Group
> http://www.rch.uky.edu
> University of Kentucky
>
> Technical Editor, The William Blake Archive
>
> mgk@pop.uky.edu
> mgk3k@jefferson.village.virginia.edu
> http://www.iath.virginia.edu/~mgk3k/
>
>
> --[2]------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Sat, 04 Sep 1999 09:10:06 +0100
> From: Willard McCarty <willard.mccarty@kcl.ac.uk>
> Subject: after the Revolution
>
> In Humanist 13.162, Hope Greenberg mischievously (I assume) asks,
>
> > What happens to Humanities Computing when computers go away (i.e., when
> > they are no longer "The Box" but are truly ubiquitous and remarkably
> > invisible)?
>
> and
>
> > What happens to arguments of "is it book/text/media" when it's all bits?
>
> These are questions asked many times before -- but still interesting to
> consider and reconsider. I think of the implied argument as a "withering
> away of the State" assertion, which is not an unintelligent thing to
> imagine, just to assume or act as if it will ever actually happen.
>
> I'd think that if computers were to become ubiquitous, the questions to
> which we are occasionally awakening would be considerably more urgent
> because more widely instantiated in the things of academic and daily life.
> There is, however, a partially hidden assumption in the idea that
> computation will be invisible in scholarship, at the edges of rational
> thought where what can be said in computationally recognisable form breaks
> down into what we know but cannot say how we know -- though we know we must
> keep on trying. (Ah yes, thank you, Mr Eliot, "The rest is not our
business.")
>
> As John Searle notes in his discussions of the Chinese Room parable -- for
> example, in the brilliantly accessible Minds, Brains and Science: The 1984
> Reith Lectures (read it tonight!) -- the problem fundamentally has nothing
> whatever to do with how powerful the machine is or how clever the algorithm
> -- or how cheap the product. For us as humanists, in other words, there
> will always be interesting problems, though we may quickly be able to put
> to bed the uninteresting impediments to reaching them. (Yes, I see the
> metaphor struggling to free itself to better use -- please be patient.) For
> us as human beings, I dare say, we will continue as long as we are *alive*
> to spend our lifetimes in unpacking such mad, totally unjustifiable
> utterances as "I love you", however thoroughly these might be collocated
> with all other things we have said, thought, done, or however quickly such
> utterances may be flashed across the distances separating those who would
> communicate.
>
> Ok, computation is all around me and I don't think about it much, in my
> microwave oven, in my clock-radio, in the machine that gives me money too
> often. Ceasing to think about these, as I will again in a few minutes, they
> become invisible -- though they are part of a world I wonder about
> consciously for much of the time I am awake. But more importantly, I think,
> it's not that the target of thought has vanished, rather it has moved on.
> In mathematicians' terms, a problem has been rendered trivial (which
> doesn't mean I can solve it, just that I know it has been solved, so I can
> move on). Since with computers the problem has always to do with the fuzzy
> boundary between computation and knowledge, there's no threat to us, only
> opportunities. Do we have the wit and energy to realise them?
>
> When all books are bits? Oi veh es mir! I urge you to look again at The
> Bed, <http://www.acm.org/sigchi/chi97/proceedings/short-talk/cd.htm>,
> formerly brought to your attention in Humanist 12.609, and meditate on why
> this provokes (I very much hope) a profound uneasiness.
>
> Yours,
> WM
>
--[2]------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 20:30:32 +0100
From: "Michael S. Hart" <hart@prairienet.org>
Subject: Re: 13.0171 humanities computing
My own opinion is that the entire question of what is a supercomputer
is silly, and only an issue because governments move so slowdly as to
like fall under the label of "permanently constipated."
ALL computers you can buy off the shelf today are FAR more powerful
than the CRAY XMP supercomputers. . .ANY of them. . .but governments,
while they can see clear to buying a literal million of these for the
desktop, or lap, of a million employees, cannot, in their infinite wisdom,
decide what IS and what IS NOT a wartime supercomputer. . .after all, they
JUST got permission to export ZIP [compression], etc. _I_ still have some
LAPLINK programs! on my shelf right here that say "NOT FOR EXPORT". . . .
Total silliness. . . .
Let us not confuse the map with the territory. . .NONE of the computers
we are discussing here are "supercomputers" even if you eventually buy
one that can beat Gary Kasparov at chess. . .by the time there are millions
of them out there, they will not be, by [any other that government] super-
computers. . . .
>
> > What happens to arguments of "is it book/text/media" when it's all bits?
>
What really REALLY piss them off is when you can "print out" a Maserati,
and drive away in it. . . .
Of course, under these rules, the government will forbid it under the
grounds that a hacker could print out a tank. . .or The Bomb. . . .
So, fax yourself in a pizza from Domino's. . .and think about it. . . .
Thanks!
So nice to hear from you!!
Michael S. Hart
[hart@pobox.com]
Project Gutenberg
"Ask Dr. Internet"
Executive Director
Internet User ~#100
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humanist Discussion Group
Information at <http://www.kcl.ac.uk/humanities/cch/humanist/>
<http://www.princeton.edu/~mccarty/humanist/>
=========================================================================