I was interested by the idea of the unfinished text or archive
as the instrument of research and learning. Ansley wondered if
the existence of the text as an unfinished entity would change
the way in which we interact with it. By text, I mean say, a
hypertext that radiates from one source and is continually
updated and transformed, or linked to new areas. Like the
archive that we read about for last week.
When we see knowledge as a process and not the acquisition of
petty facts, does this improve our approach, our livelihood?
I'm sure that it does. But really, scholarly work has been
seen as a process for a long time, and the explicit way in
which hypertext embodies the idea does not really change
anything.
It does seem though that we have turned Plato's argument on its
head, in that writing to him destroyed the appropriate
relationship to knowlede and learning, and hypertext, a vast
extension of the textual medium, now brings us closer to the
platonic, dialogue form of learning. Except that we also get
to take advantage of vast databases etc etc.
see you in school,
chesney floyd