Transcript of 3/13 Java Chat session on "Lexia to Perplexia"
Kristin R. Gregory: we are narcissus and the computer is echo...
Joseph E. Azzano: yes, it can only repeat our commands
Brandon P. Christol: do you think echo an narcissus are in some way
analogous to humans and
computers - humans and computers are merging into one, and this page
seems to be saying that
echo and narcissus are doing the same
Wes Chapman: A thought about Narcissus..he falls in love with someone
he thinks is another, but
it's really himself
Joseph E. Azzano: computers just reflections of humans actions?
Wes Chapman: echo, on the other hand, tries to express herself, but
can only repeat what the other
says...
Jonathan R. Blalock: Using a computer, you don't know who is on the
other end
Katie E. Coleman: but according to what Wes said, wouldn't that mean
computers are trying to
express themselves, too?
Katie E. Coleman: that's a little freaky.
Jonathan R. Blalock: Echo, if supposed to be a computer, needs input
before it can express itself.
It needs a user or human for that input
Wes Chapman: I suspect that this screen is less about interactions
between humans and
computers than it is about interactions between humans VIA the
computer...but maybe there's no
real distinction there...
Joshua P. Shull: There are two machines: the originator (humans) and
the simulator (the
computer)...maybe the computer functions as the human self
Kristin R. Gregory: the computer echoes the human self
Joshua P. Shull: just repeating, echoing everything humans do
Wes Chapman: is a cell...(f) just a self, or some new hybrid of self
and something else?
Katie E. Coleman: just an interesting sidenote - there seems to be a
hint of Hindu-sentiment here ...
maybe Carlie could help me out here because she was in my class ...
but, in Hinduism and I think
Buddism as well, there are also two "selfs": the actual, physical self
and the "other" self you have to
seek out
Joseph E. Azzano: so where does the narc. fit in? Are we narcissisic
when we use the comp.?
Joseph E. Azzano: looking at ourself (other human)?
Brandon P. Christol: but we're looking at others - not ourselves
Kristin R. Gregory: but, is the actual self you, or what you put in
the computer? is there a distinction?
Joseph E. Azzano: is the .tmp mean our interaction is temporary?
Wes Chapman: On THIS screen, are echo and narcissus one or two?
Joseph E. Azzano: yes
Jonathan R. Blalock: there is no distinction because "the originating
and the simulative collapse
and collate to from the terminal
Kristin R. Gregory: they're two
Kristin R. Gregory: but they form into one
Jonathan R. Blalock: but only when Narcissus
Jonathan R. Blalock: wants it
Joseph E. Azzano: why narcissus?
Joseph E. Azzano: are computers reflective of ourself\ves since they
are created by us and signify
our technological advances?
Joseph E. Azzano: so using it would be praising our own tech?
Kristin R. Gregory: here's a side note...at the top of the page, we
gather that the exo represents the
outer skeleton, and taking fingersteps into the apparatus is typing,
thereby putting yourself into the
computer.
Katie E. Coleman: a little variation: humans are Narcissistic because
they're attempting to imitate
their brains by creating computers ... everytime a human builds
something as an extension of himself
- i.e. a computer or other technology - he is building something that
echos his "self," something
immortal that will live beyond him
Wes Chapman: "the two machines--the original and the
simulative--collapse to form the terminal-I, a
Cell.f"...what does this mean? what IS this self?
Brandon P. Christol: well i think computers have to be reflective of
us - they echo us - we created
them, so anything they can do is only a product of our creation and
input
Wes Chapman: Kristin, not a side note, I think, but part of this whole
idea. Somehow.
Kristin R. Gregory: if you are the computer merge to make one self,
are you the same self without
the computer?
Jonathan R. Blalock: a cell is a small part of computer memory
Wes Chapman: Katie...could be...but I'm getting stuck on the "face to
face" and "other to other"
tags at the top...this looks to me like INTERACTION is the central
issue, not creation in the way
you're talking about.
Katie E. Coleman: Cell.f is the merging of the 2 technologies - for
some reason, this image makes me
think of a marriage ceremony(at least a Catholic one), where the bride
and groom light a candle
together and "become one"
Jonathan R. Blalock: so using the word "cell" when saying cell.f is
another way of using the creole
lang to pull humans and computers together
Joseph E. Azzano: a computer and human holding hands...
Joshua P. Shull: Okay...the significance of the myth is this: just as
Echo could only repeat fragments
of Narcissus' words, computers can only "repeat" what their human
operators "tell" them to do
Wes Chapman: can anyone do anything with the TECHNICAL aspect of
cell.f or cell....(f)? This
ring any bells to anyone as a reference to math, CS, or some other
science?
Katie E. Coleman: interaction is creation
Wes Chapman: Josh...could be...but I'm still stuck on thinking, as I
was with Katie, that this is more
about interactions between humans than between computers and humans.
Maybe I just need to let
go of that idea.
Katie E. Coleman: like the interaction it takes all over the world to
create the vaste WWW
CREATES it ...
Jonathan R. Blalock: I don't know if this means anything but, .tmp
files on a computer are temporary
files. A Narcissus.tmp is just a temporary user of the computer
Joseph E. Azzano: cell . f could be a computer function, type of
file,...
Jonathan R. Blalock: I said it about, cell is a small part of computer
memory
Katie E. Coleman: computers are just the "VIA", the medium through
which humans interact
Brandon P. Christol: well i think that's part of the point - we no
longer interact simply as human to
human, or face to face - we interact as computer to computer. we have
created something which
allows us to communicate through computer screens. we don't even need
faces any more - we've
created new ones
Wes Chapman: Jon, I like that...so self = temporary computer
function... how about cell...(f)?
Katie E. Coleman: in math, isn't (f) = function? what does that mean
... it's been a while since I've
taken a math class
Jonathan R. Blalock: Well, tying it back to the .tmp (temporary
files), when using a computer you
create a new temporary self
Katie E. Coleman: i like what brandon said
Joseph E. Azzano: cell could be function and f could be the variable
Joshua P. Shull: If we keep in mind the new, hybrid, creole language
we've already discussed, then
Cell.f and cell...(f) are likely a part of this new language. We need
to translate them into our English...
Kristin R. Gregory: so, if their joining is temporary, what is
solipstatic? because that seems to say
something about the community that is being formed.
Wes Chapman: OK, maybe I need to take back what I said....the "2
machines, the original and the
simulative,"--presumably that would be the human user and the
projection of the self into the
computer...they collapse into one, the cell.f or terminal I.
Wes Chapman: Kristin, good question. What does "solipstatic" even
mean?
Katie E. Coleman: could it just be that humans are interacting, as
they always have, but they've just
changed/added to the way they do it ... the same thing happened with
the advent of the printing
press, telegraph, telephone, internet, etc...
Jonathan R. Blalock: static is unchangin
Joshua P. Shull: So what's the difference between Cell.f and
cell...(f) ?
Wes Chapman: solipstatic = solipsistic + static
Kristin R. Gregory: static means stay the same, so. what does that do
to our temporary idea?
Wes Chapman: Josh, I have no idea
Wes Chapman: Kristin, good point
Jonathan R. Blalock: solipsistic = The theory that the self is the
only thing that can be known and
verified, from www.dictionary.com
Jonathan R. Blalock: also from the web site The theory or view that
the self is the only reality.
Wes Chapman: OK, maybe: the collapse of the two machines is the
merging of human and
computer..but the merging of people occurs in the second part, in the
bi.narrative exhcange. ??
Katie E. Coleman: so, you are reality, and that reality is constant?
Joshua P. Shull: My reading of the text implies Cell.f as something
that "is formed", and cell...(f) as
something that "acts" or actually does some work
Joshua P. Shull: one creates, the other is created
Brandon P. Christol: well i think when using computers, we realize
that we truly are the only reality.
the computers are not "reality," we simply created them. no one else
out there on the computer is
actually "real," they're just somewhere "in" the computer.
Wes Chapman: Josh, good. How does the second one work? What's the
reference of cell...(f)?
Katie E. Coleman: humans merge all the time - i think wierd business
people call it "interfacing,"
which is interesting because isn't that also computer-lingo?
Wes Chapman: Brandon, what do you mean? How are you defining
"reality"?
Joseph E. Azzano: so what about exe.change, seems to imply an action,
not just passive
Jonathan R. Blalock: cell...(f) is said to process something in the
text so it is definitely a possible call
to math; maybe a function
Joseph E. Azzano: maybe cell, as in the memory unit, and (f) as in a
function, so the cell is only
operable through a human function?
Jonathan R. Blalock: I agree
Joseph E. Azzano: versus cell(f) which would be just humans
Katie E. Coleman: does anyone else find it interesting that, although
we're in the same room, we all
speak more easily to one another through this forum that we do through
just speaking
outloud...that's kinda frightening in a way
Wes Chapman: processes the self as outside of itself....makes
sense...what selves are we
"processing" as we speak right now? Is it inside or outside of
ourselves?
Katie E. Coleman: both
Joshua P. Shull: we're processing our inside selves into a forum
outside
Kristin R. Gregory: this is an outward expression of our inner selves?
Brandon P. Christol: isn't talking the same thing?
Brandon P. Christol: writing, typing, talking - all attempts to show
others (outside) what's inside
Katie E. Coleman: just like in Hinduism ... it kind of seems like a
contradiction that our "SELF" is not
within"OURSELF"
Kristin R. Gregory: if we relate this to the instant messenger
service,we find that it is sometimes
easier to communicate this way
Joseph E. Azzano: we've made literature and writing into a momentary
exchange just like
talking...neato
Wes Chapman: And what is "con.gress"? is that human/computer or
cell.f/cell.f?
Brandon P. Christol: both
Joshua P. Shull: Maybe that's why this processed, computerized version
of ourselves is not just
labeled our "SELF"...the language requires (f)...implying that our
complete "selves" cannot be
processed to the screen
Kristin R. Gregory: it seems easier because you get some time to think
about and share your
thoughts in "realtime" as opposed to directly outside of yourself, if
that make sense?...
Brandon P. Christol: human to human interaction has become a function
of human/computer
interaction, therefore the two forms of interaction are now merged
Joshua P. Shull: Echo was a babe