2014/05/25 § Leave a comment
While writing Bombastic Distributor, about how simply searching the web is a now a form of publishing, out came a couple of news stories which underlined and re-fram this claim.
A ruling forcing Google to remove search results has been described as “astonishing” by Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales. The European Courts of Justice ruled on Tuesday that an individual could demand that “irrelevant or outdated” information be deleted from results. Mr Wales said it was “one of the most wide-sweeping internet censorship rulings that I’ve ever seen”.
Notice that it is the engine providing search results not the old webpages which hold the outdated and irrelevant information which is held responsible.
“If you really dig into it, it doesn’t make a lot of sense. They’re asking Google… you can complain about something and just say it’s irrelevant, and Google has to make some kind of a determination about that. That’s a very hard and difficult thing for Google to do – particularly if it’s at risk of being held legally liable if it gets it wrong in some way. Normally we would think whoever is publishing the information, they have the primary responsibility – Google just helps us to find the things that are online.”
This makes sense as an old world argument, except I’d argue that the search returns as much a form of publishing as the original webpage makers are (and even any web-search itself).
The medium became the message a while ago, but now everything is publishing. The product is the advert, the reference is the real, the search for data is the information, if not the wisdom.
The other story is more about where everything, the internet of everything, is heading. The web search is a form of publishing because it is all part of a secret herbs and spices recipes of algorithms and past results which have an economic impact. This impact is at a base level of economic activity, and it already structures our lives. The other story is about a set of algorithms in corporate governance.
A venture capital firm has appointed a computer algorithm to its board of directors. The program – called Vital – will vote on whether to invest in a specific company or not. The firm it will be working for – Deep Knowledge Ventures – focuses on drugs for age-related diseases. It said that Vital would make its recommendations by sifting through large amounts of data.
If we can get rid of humans from corporate boards, then we will soon be able to get completely rid of managers, particularly if roboticised labour has already got rid of jobs generally. I.E. if there are no workers, there is no need for managers. If there are no managers there is no need for human governance at all. This venture capital firm is showing the way by putting an algorithm on it’s board. They probably think it is just a marketing lark but really it is very good news.
The end result will be that there will be no difference between the dividend and the dole. No difference between tax and rent.
What were once different can no longer be differentiated, no doubt libertarians will still wank on about their property fetish, no doubt socialists will want to defend workers rights even though no one works, or even consumes, one merely desires this or that, and no doubt the religious will still pray for the poor in spirit that are always with us… but all this is good news.
2014/03/30 § Leave a comment
Wink reviews one remarkable paper book every weekday. “We take photos of the covers and the interior pages of the books to show you why we love them.”
2013/03/21 § Leave a comment
A sign is less.
A symbol is more.
Less is more.
A sign is a symbol.
They are signs and symbols of each other.
2013/01/08 § Leave a comment
What was Of Grammatology about? When Madeleine, the heroine of Jeffrey Eugenides’s campus novel The Marriage Plot, asks a young theory-head this question, she is immediately set straight: ‘If it was “about” anything, then it was about the need to stop thinking of books as being about things.’
That’s not so far off. In all three books, Derrida’s argument was that Western thought from Plato to Rousseau to Lévi-Strauss had been hopelessly entangled in the illusion that language might provide us with access to a reality beyond language, beyond metaphor: an unmediated experience of truth and being which he called ‘presence’. Even Heidegger, a radical critic of metaphysics, had failed to escape its snares. This illusion, according to Derrida, was the corollary of a long history of ‘logocentrism’: a privileging of the spoken word as the repository of ‘presence’, at the expense of writing, which had been denigrated as a ‘dangerous supplement’, alienated from the voice, secondary, parasitic, even deceitful.
2012/05/01 § 1 Comment
Literature is a form of expression whose temporal structure, both in content and style, provides a historical record of the evolution of culture. In this work we take on a quantitative analysis of literary style and conduct the first large-scale temporal stylometric study of literature by using the vast holdings in the Project Gutenberg Digital Library corpus. We find temporal stylistic localization among authors through the analysis of the similarity structure in feature vectors derived from content-free word usage, nonhomogeneous decay rates of stylistic influence, and an accelerating rate of decay of influence among modern authors. Within a given time period we also find evidence for stylistic coherence with a given literary topic, such that writers in different fields adopt different literary styles. This study gives quantitative support to the notion of a literary “style of a time” with a strong trend toward increasingly contemporaneous stylistic influence.
I can’t read the PDF of the article so I’ll rely on the following from Literature Runs From Its Past
“Make it new!” declared Ezra Pound (shown), demanding that writers shrug off the literary influence of the past. Indeed, an analysis published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences shows that Pound and his Modernist peers obeyed the dictum to a degree never before seen in English literature. Scientists examined the statistical patterns of words in 7733 English-language works in the Project Gutenberg database, starting in 1550 and spanning 4 centuries. This analysis differed from previous works in its large scale and its focus on how authors used 307 “content-free words” such as prepositions, articles, forms of “to be,” and pronouns. Researchers discovered that most authors wrote in a similar style to those immediately preceding them, and that this influence diminished steadily over time—which is not surprising, but it bolsters the largely subjective idea of a distinct style for each era. The scientists also found that not all eras treated the past equally. Overall, writers showed the most stylistic similarity to those who preceded them by about a quarter century, but authors between 1907 and 1952—which included the heyday of Modernism—showed the most stylistic differences to their immediate predecessors. Researchers attribute this early 20th century “revulsion” partly to the make-it-new ethos, and partly to the increasing number of books published in modern times, which left writers less time to ruminate on scribes who came before.
One comment here is that writers may create new styles when they break with tradition, but it is readers who maintain the formats writers are allowed to use. True experimentation occurs when readers notice and try something new.
“Look at me! Look at me! Look at me! Look at me! Look at me! Look at me! Look at me! Look at me! Look at me! Look at me! Look at me! Look at me! ”
Another comment is that most readers have put the best of the modernist writers in a boxed set, and put them on the shelf, to be safely ignored, even if admired when they add to footage of total books to the library.
2012/04/02 § Leave a comment
In 1994 in Hobart, Tasmania, I invented ‘Compositional Poetry’. I say invented because I have never seen anything like it anywhere else.
I was pushed into creating this new form because I had been wrestling with a very long poem for months, and could find no way to trim it back into some sort of coherency, so I started to chop it into phrases and allocated these phrases to voices of various responsibility, as if this voice would say that wouldn’t it?
I decided on eight voices or responsibilities because eight is a natural group size for humans from a hunter-gatherer background. Beyond a dozen many human brains start to loose track.
I decided these voices were not ‘characters’ or ‘roles’, but ‘responsibilities’ because the voices were not personalities but drives, concerns, attitudes, needs and desires. Each voice was articulating this ‘energy’ as their responsibility, adding to the performance when necessary, but they were not necessarily competing, nor necessarily co-operating. That was the work of the readers.
To read the compositional poem eight people had to read it aloud together. If you watch or listen to this reading, it is only then a performance. Each performance will have its own character because of those who read it, not because of how I may have written the voices.
Below is the first page from all)bitternessandapathy. Click on it to see it at a better size.
Back in 1994 I called this form ‘multi-voice poetry’ but I was never very happy with the term. Six years later while writing Shag Bay I realised that as it was structured like music then it was ‘composed’ not written. Also, a choir is multi-voiced if usually aiming to a uni-vocal completeness, so calling a it multi-voiced after voice rather than how it was written was a bit confusing.
By then I had also read Bergsonism by Delueze and loved the idea of a compositional space. Might be completely wrong for science, but compositional space is great for animals like us to live in. Compositional space feels more alive because it describes the evolutionary reality of our umwelt among umwelten. Of multiple compositions all going on at the same time, and so bringing together competitive cooperation. Relativity in time-space continuums is meh.
Compositional poetry is a making that brings together. The writing is an exploded soliloquy but the reading together is the thing.
2012/02/27 § Leave a comment
Most of my experimental writing investigates and utilises perspectives and their (imagined) intentionality covered by the phrase Theory of Mind.
I.E. on the back and forth between the writer and reader, in particular, lately, trying, as writer to second guess the reader’s reactions and to re-work them.
Earlier, 20 years ago, when i was young, I was trying to take over the reader’s mind with a sedgehammer of intense revelatory prosepoetry, a bit like running a suite of hacker programmes trying to find backdoors and gain access as root to the reader’s mind, and gain totally control. PWNAGE. Literally a literary attempt to transpose my consciousness to the reader’s wetware via the text i had written. At least for the duration of the time it takes you to read the work.
While the Theory of Mind is at the heart of all writing techniques, generally writers wish to seduce their readers, or indulge them, though I would argue it still comes from a certain still and quiet megalomania.
Generally the Theory of Mind is taken for granted, you win no points for pointing it out to the reader. Literature might encompass the sharing and exposure of experience but generally it is not interested in plumbing the depths of that writerly technology which transfers experience and fantasy from the writer’s wetware to the readers’.
All those rules about “show don’t tell” or critiques based on “ego transparency” of the writer come from lessons learned in that more dishonest, self-deceiving war. English literature as edifying propaganda for the people who keep themselves nice. General pulp fiction as simply the gift telling good stories as entertainment.
It’s a war because it’s a drama, and drama involves conflict.
My experiment failed, except perhaps on myself, which is an own goal in any case. It is only on noticing my failure that I am able to describe it as a megalomania. Before then it was art, and therefore, necessarily, it’s own virtue.
2012/02/16 § Leave a comment
It’s a piece of Lab lit, which is a genre of fiction that centres on realistic portrayals of scientists, and science as a profession. The science idea behind it was Richard Dawkins‘ suggestion in The Extended Phenotype that how genes are read from the DNA might be more important at times than the idea of DNA as lawgiver/formgiver, and I put it in the context of software and operating systems development.
The study of this area is called Epigenetics.
The big news in Nature is that bacteria do this to blazes.
Some bacteria, when stressed, deiberately go into a sort of Kernel panic. They actively ‘misread’ the DNA code, especially from regions otherwise ignored (called Junk DNA) in order to produce proteins, any proteins that might be able to help. In order that some or one can survive the stressful conditions.
Its like producing Word salad in order to mount your defence in the court to a charge of crimes against humanity instead of hiring a legal team to do it for you.
Totally, codingly, instructably berserk.
2010/11/17 § 1 Comment
New Scientist is currently running a Storytelling 2.0 theme. Well worth a look.
But this is what really caught my eye.
“State-of-the-art neuro-imaging and cognitive neuropsychology both uphold the idea that we create our selves through narrative.” When new narratives meet old brains.
This is why they are so important to organising institutions, like the state, the church, it’s all about the software. Also explains why, perhaps, fantasy novels follow a sports team sized group of characters in righteous support of some protag’s familial entitlements. Our brains find this easy to follow, especially if you’re coming off a low base of starvation, violence, and latterly, early access to brain-bending drugs.
Republican ideals, even of the Enlightenment’s economic ideals of the ‘free labourer’ citizen of butchers, bakers and candle-stick-makers (which is an improvement on medieval systems, let’s face it). Is just way too hard for most people’s brains to handle. Certainly explains the simplistic extreme of Ayn Rand’s super-individualistic ‘objectivism’ too: inadequate processing power? reduce the resolution, reduce the colour palette, make it black and white.
To avoid techno-feudalism, augmented processing power will have to be more or less evenly distributed to our humans brains, so we can all understand more complex stories, in counterpoint, and not just mindless propaganda. There is certainly no point offering more complex formats if the human brains at large can’t cope. This is why the Tea Party can only win, and their only natural control is a societal, economic collapse, once their stupidity is finally played out.