Social + Adamic computing
Social computing, therefore, can be an Adamic inquisition of what does not compute at all and of what defies our present assumptions. More relevantly, our social computing can take us to the very penumbra of what is so uncertain about how the paths will form among our essays. What connections are possible? Why those connections? Moreover, to compute Adamically is to open up the gaps in our knowledge. What is it in the universe of the ballad that seems so disproportionate, or what about anything in the ballad process seems so resistant to a “frugal” quantification? What elements of the ballad process cannot be articulated in a path formation? Such a spirit of questioning means that we must be willing to dispute the papal authority of the Scalar conclave: we must be willing to admit that some of the paths or tags we end up thinking are ill-conceived, plain crap, or that the path feature will just not work when we have to discuss a hypothetical series of x-issues. Indeed, in the same way that Adam questions the mechanisms of the physical universe, the Adamic social computing agent can pose before the digital Firmament doubts about its usefulness and relevance. The zodiac of Scalar's wit could quite possibly be astrology and superstition, and some of our own connections are just constellations, mere myths and wishful thinking. Or perhaps not. Perhaps we are astronomers really trying to pinpoint the right scales, the right relationships, and the right reading strategies. We "compute thir magnitudes," we hope.
If we are indeed to compute the proper magnitudes of our journal, we must be effective makers, and that requires being ready to deal with doubt. After his computing, Adam is left with the surplus remainder of doubt. We, meanwhile, are sure to leave behind a detritus of rejected ideas and/or questionable and irresolvable notions. Through our networked engagements we will inevitably run into conundrums and disagreements and acknowledge the possibility that some or many of our ideas and discovered connections are mere dung and offal. Just as early papermaking was an extremely wasteful affair, so our initial foray into Scalar may be as well. No doubt there will be doubts as we use Scalar. And what we may want to do is a degree of moderation. As Raphael himself cautions Adam,
Should our journal become too unnecessarily disproportionate and highly distracting, it would be but junk food “oppressing” the reader “with Surfet” and spoiling their “Nourishment” into flatulence and hot air.
There we have it. Social computing is our practice. It reveals the sweeping sociality of our literary objects and acknowledges the stellar impossibility of absolute certainty. Computing, moreover, leads to more questions than answers, and encountering such excess can temper us to moderate and fine-tune the architecture of our journal. Of course, excess is not necessarily bad. We can always aim for a well-conceived and instructive excess of paths, tags, and other features. After all, a carefully constructed and ornate Gothic cathedral—I know it’s ironic to invoke a Catholic context after invoking the fiercely anti-papal Milton—can be just as marvelous and scintillating as the plain style of a New England Puritan chapel.
If we want to create a well-designed excess, then we could let our audience witness also what we reject or find too problematic. We present to them our heap of excreta and enigmas and offer them the chance to make something out of what we judge to be nothing. Sharing our ephemeral refuse may very well be our parting gift to the reader. It is the gift of what cannot be processed immediately and tidied neatly. In turn, readers encountering the gift of disproportion are invited to compute as Adam did and begin the cycle of questioning, creating, interpreting, doubting, and rejecting. This is what it means for us prospective Scalar editors to compute socially and Adamically with our readers: it is to foster relations with readers and allow for the possibility that they may reject and deny the light of our knowledge.
If we are indeed to compute the proper magnitudes of our journal, we must be effective makers, and that requires being ready to deal with doubt. After his computing, Adam is left with the surplus remainder of doubt. We, meanwhile, are sure to leave behind a detritus of rejected ideas and/or questionable and irresolvable notions. Through our networked engagements we will inevitably run into conundrums and disagreements and acknowledge the possibility that some or many of our ideas and discovered connections are mere dung and offal. Just as early papermaking was an extremely wasteful affair, so our initial foray into Scalar may be as well. No doubt there will be doubts as we use Scalar. And what we may want to do is a degree of moderation. As Raphael himself cautions Adam,
Knowledge is as food, and needs no less
Her Temperance over Appetite, to know
In measure what the mind may well contain,
Oppresses else with Surfet, and soon turns
Wisdom to Folly, as Nourishment to Winde. (7.126-130)
Should our journal become too unnecessarily disproportionate and highly distracting, it would be but junk food “oppressing” the reader “with Surfet” and spoiling their “Nourishment” into flatulence and hot air.
There we have it. Social computing is our practice. It reveals the sweeping sociality of our literary objects and acknowledges the stellar impossibility of absolute certainty. Computing, moreover, leads to more questions than answers, and encountering such excess can temper us to moderate and fine-tune the architecture of our journal. Of course, excess is not necessarily bad. We can always aim for a well-conceived and instructive excess of paths, tags, and other features. After all, a carefully constructed and ornate Gothic cathedral—I know it’s ironic to invoke a Catholic context after invoking the fiercely anti-papal Milton—can be just as marvelous and scintillating as the plain style of a New England Puritan chapel.
If we want to create a well-designed excess, then we could let our audience witness also what we reject or find too problematic. We present to them our heap of excreta and enigmas and offer them the chance to make something out of what we judge to be nothing. Sharing our ephemeral refuse may very well be our parting gift to the reader. It is the gift of what cannot be processed immediately and tidied neatly. In turn, readers encountering the gift of disproportion are invited to compute as Adam did and begin the cycle of questioning, creating, interpreting, doubting, and rejecting. This is what it means for us prospective Scalar editors to compute socially and Adamically with our readers: it is to foster relations with readers and allow for the possibility that they may reject and deny the light of our knowledge.
This page is a tag of:
| Previous page on path | “and compute / Thir magnitudes” : Some Further Thoughts, page 5 of 5 | Path end, return home |
Discussion of "Social + Adamic computing"
Add your voice to this discussion.
Checking your signed in status ...