Tools and Humans - 14 views

• 
  #1 Alessandro Marcon on 25 Jan 14

   

  Although I had wanted to write this reflection at the end of the first week, it, for some reason or another, eluded me. I'll try to formulate some of the ideas I was, and still am, thinking about with the hope that they might have still some relevance. The readings in the first week of the course, which were further augmented and dynamicized by the readings in the second, had me reflecting specifically on a book I read this past summer titled, The Stardust Revolution: Our search for our origin in the Stars and more generally on the concept of 'tools.'
  
  In Stardust, author, and Ottawa-area resident, Joseph Berkowitz tracks the history of astronomical inquiry into the origins of the elements on earth. Most salient in this book was the manner in which the expansion and sharing of tools (including of course the knowledge, and, to reference Kuhn, the paradigmatic shifts which that knowledge provoked) allowed humans to an (and not 'the') understanding of how life came to be on earth. Without going too deeply into intricate explanations of the tools which I only vaguely understand, essentially the tools dramatically augmented our senses (seeing and hearing were the big ones - seeing obviously the biggest) in order to (re)conceptualize our understanding of the stars. For example, although the parallax method was pioneered by Freidrich Bessel , it was Henrietta Leavitt's meticulous use of the method (through 'computers' no less - this was 1912, the quotation marks are very necessary) to determine distances of stars from the earth and from one another. It was through the use of the Bunsen burner that scientists learned that each element burns a different colour set, and which meant that each element had its own light fingerprint. This discovery led to the understanding of the elements which existed in space (they could observe the colours burning in the sky). Other tools included the telescope (naturally) as well as infared telescopes (after the invention of infared, naturally). Scientists used microwaves and even radio-ways (yes, they were listening to the stars) in order to get an understanding of what was going on in space. They discovered space was full of water. They gained inside into how stars, die, and how new ones were born. Ultimately the discovered that stars are like cauldrons of elements which dusted our earth a long time ago. Finding meteorites on earth has confirmed these findings and studies are now being undertaken which seeks to illuminate the fine lines that divide life and non-life, that is, how life comes to be life. It also raises questions of what we can adequately categorize as life.
  
  But, to return to the discussion of tools… The collaborative use of tools and knowledge (which I'm sure at times was bellicose and rife with contentions) has helped astronomers to gain an understanding of the 'objective' world they are trying to understand. Since I've been thinking about DH and what DH is trying to do, I keep returning to a feeling that DH needs to incorporate reflexive inquiries which ask questions not only concerning the development of tools, but also, and necessarily so, how our tools and inquiries are changing us, as humans - how these practices change what it means to be human. Lev Manovich's reading from last week was engaging with such discussions, as were Derrida's ideas in Archive Fever which were contested and reconceptualised by Marlene Manoff. From our first week, Rafael C. Alvarado's article, illustrates the same point as he mentions quite succinctly, "To a humanist, any computational technology is potentially tool, text and metaphor." (p. 53) In our presentation, Shawn Green echoed these thoughts as he closed his presentation with the view that tools only for the sake of creating tools (while it does seem a lucrative endeavour) is essentially a waste of time.
  Extending these thoughts, Martin Heidegger in his essay, The Question Concerning Technology posits (and I'm being pretty reductive, here) that understanding technology is actually understanding our relationship to technology, or more specifically, understanding that technology can serve as a means of distancing ourselves from our acts (turning the world into an endless series of instruments with seek to order and compartmentalize our surroundings), or as a means of further 'revealing' our connections to our tools, our practices and ultimately our ways of existing in the world.
  
  So, some practical questions arise:
  What does it mean to be able to do extensive text-mining on articles produced in a certain time period? For example, I think that one huge benefit is that it allows us, in the case Green mentioned about creating programs of apartheid in Australia, to understand universal 'othering' practices in which masses can become manipulated and dominated through the discourse and actions of government initiatives. Comparing massive amounts of documents across numerous countries and time periods could allow us to see patterns of suppression and domination - especially in the discourses. In this case, the tool could prove to be a revealing tool into the human condition. But does the opening sharing of all knowledge in turn allow a more acute set of tools for those who wish to manipulate?
  
  I've heard that there is momentum in the development of digitizing scents. I think it was my Dad who told me about this and while I'd initially thought he'd had a few when sharing that info, it turns out that these projects are in fact taking place: http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/digital-scents/ . I think a question arises in terms of replicating spaces and environments. What gets lots when the entire experience of visiting a museum is made digital? Imagine the sounds, textures of ancient Greece included in the virtual museum. What changes about how we interact with places and spaces? Anything? Does completely encapsulating a place digitally somehow destroy the essence or experience of what that place can offer?
  
  I've thought a lot about how the internet has destroyed not only modes of being but actual personalities through the intensified proliferation of information. Has anything been lost there?
  
  For all our advances in technology what kind of technological waste are we producing? Do our computers not require some kind of rare quartz in order to function? Is this even a question worth considering in our field?
  Here's an article I just stumbled upon that I'm going to read. Mayhaps, there's something worthwhile in it: http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20140124-only-connect

   

  <div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">Although I had wanted to write this reflection at the end of the first week, it, for some reason or another, eluded me. I'll try to formulate some of the ideas I was, and still am, thinking about with the hope that they might have still some relevance. The readings in the first week of the course, which were further augmented and dynamicized by the readings in the second, had me reflecting specifically on a book I read this past summer titled, The Stardust Revolution: Our search for our origin in the Stars and more generally on the concept of 'tools.' <br /> <br /> In Stardust, author, and Ottawa-area resident, Joseph Berkowitz tracks the history of astronomical inquiry into the origins of the elements on earth. Most salient in this book was the manner in which the expansion and sharing of tools (including of course the knowledge, and, to reference Kuhn, the paradigmatic shifts which that knowledge provoked) allowed humans to an (and not 'the') understanding of how life came to be on earth. Without going too deeply into intricate explanations of the tools which I only vaguely understand, essentially the tools dramatically augmented our senses (seeing and hearing were the big ones - seeing obviously the biggest) in order to (re)conceptualize our understanding of the stars. For example, although the parallax method was pioneered by Freidrich Bessel , it was Henrietta Leavitt's meticulous use of the method (through 'computers' no less - this was 1912, the quotation marks are very necessary) to determine distances of stars from the earth and from one another. It was through the use of the Bunsen burner that scientists learned that each element burns a different colour set, and which meant that each element had its own light fingerprint. This discovery led to the understanding of the elements which existed in space (they could observe the colours burning in the sky). Other tools included the telescope (naturally) as well as infared telescopes (after the invention of infared, naturally). Scientists used microwaves and even radio-ways (yes, they were listening to the stars) in order to get an understanding of what was going on in space. They discovered space was full of water. They gained inside into how stars, die, and how new ones were born. Ultimately the discovered that stars are like cauldrons of elements which dusted our earth a long time ago. Finding meteorites on earth has confirmed these findings and studies are now being undertaken which seeks to illuminate the fine lines that divide life and non-life, that is, how life comes to be life. It also raises questions of what we can adequately categorize as life. <br /> <br /> But, to return to the discussion of tools… The collaborative use of tools and knowledge (which I'm sure at times was bellicose and rife with contentions) has helped astronomers to gain an understanding of the 'objective' world they are trying to understand. Since I've been thinking about DH and what DH is trying to do, I keep returning to a feeling that DH needs to incorporate reflexive inquiries which ask questions not only concerning the development of tools, but also, and necessarily so, how our tools and inquiries are changing us, as humans - how these practices change what it means to be human. Lev Manovich's reading from last week was engaging with such discussions, as were Derrida's ideas in Archive Fever which were contested and reconceptualised by Marlene Manoff. From our first week, Rafael C. Alvarado's article, illustrates the same point as he mentions quite succinctly, "To a humanist, any computational technology is potentially tool, text and metaphor." (p. 53) In our presentation, Shawn Green echoed these thoughts as he closed his presentation with the view that tools only for the sake of creating tools (while it does seem a lucrative endeavour) is essentially a waste of time. <br /> Extending these thoughts, Martin Heidegger in his essay, The Question Concerning Technology posits (and I'm being pretty reductive, here) that understanding technology is actually understanding our relationship to technology, or more specifically, understanding that technology can serve as a means of distancing ourselves from our acts (turning the world into an endless series of instruments with seek to order and compartmentalize our surroundings), or as a means of further 'revealing' our connections to our tools, our practices and ultimately our ways of existing in the world. <br /> <br /> So, some practical questions arise: <br /> What does it mean to be able to do extensive text-mining on articles produced in a certain time period? For example, I think that one huge benefit is that it allows us, in the case Green mentioned about creating programs of apartheid in Australia, to understand universal 'othering' practices in which masses can become manipulated and dominated through the discourse and actions of government initiatives. Comparing massive amounts of documents across numerous countries and time periods could allow us to see patterns of suppression and domination - especially in the discourses. In this case, the tool could prove to be a revealing tool into the human condition. But does the opening sharing of all knowledge in turn allow a more acute set of tools for those who wish to manipulate? <br /> <br /> I've heard that there is momentum in the development of digitizing scents. I think it was my Dad who told me about this and while I'd initially thought he'd had a few when sharing that info, it turns out that these projects are in fact taking place: <a target="_blank" href="http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/digital-scents/" rel="nofollow">http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/digital-scents/</a> . I think a question arises in terms of replicating spaces and environments. What gets lots when the entire experience of visiting a museum is made digital? Imagine the sounds, textures of ancient Greece included in the virtual museum. What changes about how we interact with places and spaces? Anything? Does completely encapsulating a place digitally somehow destroy the essence or experience of what that place can offer? <br /> <br /> I've thought a lot about how the internet has destroyed not only modes of being but actual personalities through the intensified proliferation of information. Has anything been lost there? <br /> <br /> For all our advances in technology what kind of technological waste are we producing? Do our computers not require some kind of rare quartz in order to function? Is this even a question worth considering in our field? <br /> Here's an article I just stumbled upon that I'm going to read. Mayhaps, there's something worthwhile in it: <a target="_blank" href="http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20140124-only-connect" rel="nofollow">http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20140124-only-connect</a></div>

  ...

  Cancel

To Top