<HTML><HEAD>
<BASEFONT FACE="Arial" SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000">
</HEAD>
<BODY bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Chris, Artur and all</p>
<p> </p>
<p><i>On Tue, 28 May 2002 11:56:11 -0700, Chris Corrigan wrote:<br>
</i><i><br>
</i><i><br>
</i><i>> Presupposition 1 - Human beings have volume!<br>
</i><i><br>
</i><i><br>
</i><i>Volume certainly shows up in a chat room for example, be the sheer<br>
</i><i>numbers of<br>
</i><i>people. </i></p>
<p> </p>
<p>As you write: it is numbers, and of course numbers can be to large to be handled. But it is not volume in the strict sense (extension in physical space), and I think numbers is really the better metaphor than volume in this case.</p>
<p><i><br>
</i><i>seems totally acceptable, and some services, like Yahoo even have<br>
</i><i>colours and fonts<br>
</i><i>so you can create threads within rooms, discussions within<br>
</i><i>discussions. I find<br>
</i><i>this very cool, and actually find it easier to be involved in two or<br>
</i><i>three things<br>
</i><i>at once if they are all on the screen.</i></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Okay, my point above does not apply to this argument.<i><br>
</i><i><br>
</i><i>Sometimes servers get slow too. That's REAL volume...<br>
</i></p>
<p>That is the question. For me it is not so clearly REAL volume. Looking at a level of electrons, we start thinking in large quantities of them needing large space. But here we touch the level of quantum-physics where Galileis discovery of a presupposition is not true: "There can not be two bodies in the same volume". So it is not real volume, it is more time I think. And that is what you wrote (slow/fast).</p>
<p><i><br>
</i><i>> Presupposition 2 - Human beings are animals<br>
</i><i><br>
</i><i>True. The digital world has forced us to wonder about how we sort<br>
</i><i>people out when we can't see them. I have developed some very good </i><i>personal friendships that started online, long before I met or even </i><i>saw the other person. OSonOS IX was pretty much birthed that way (hi </i><i>Laurel!) and the recent exploits ofmyself, Julie Smith, Michael </i><i>Herman and Judi Richardson in Alaska were all done that way too.<br>
</i><i><br>
</i>So it is possible to communicate nicely and productively in such a way (i.e. under conditions of high sensorial deprevation, not-integration of various senses.</p>
<p>We still have to learn, how to do it without producing lots of misunderstandings. The tendency of our brain seems to be, to substitute external/sensorial inputs automatically by internal ones.</p>
<p>Great place for fantasy, but also the danger of delusions, chimeras and phantoms. I perceive that I get pictures of persons,after a while of communicating electronically with them although/because I never had met them physically.</p>
<p>We will have to learn to deal with this. I am still at the beginning, because although I use computers, email, egroups, online-conferences for quite a while now, I still feel quite counterdepentent towards the sensorial deprevation aspect. Of course we can metaforically dance in cyberspace, but Me-animal is roaring with laughter at that, because there are richnesses in feelings during REAL/PHYSICAL/SOCIAL dancing, which make it really another thing.</p>
<p><i><br>
</i><i>> Presupposition 3 - In OST the non-verbal signals that people<br>
</i><i>>transmit to each other are vital ingredients as important (more </i></p>
<p><i>>important?) as the law and principles.<br>
</i><i><br>
</i><i><br>
</i><i>Meeting people online and then in person turns on it's head the way<br>
</i><i>we interact socially. Now the last thing we do is shake someone's </i><i>hand. We first get into their brain, their thoughts and feelings, </i><i>often hear them in a phone call before meeting and then when we see </i><i>them for the first time, we notice their physical appearance and then </i><i>we touch. It is the opposite in many ways with how we are used<br>
</i><i>to relating, from the outside in. In it's most benign form, this </i><i>poses an interesting challenge to our notions of bias, as skin </i><i>colour, appearance, gender and so on play less and less a role in </i><i>building community. It took me about a year<br>
</i><i>before I figured out that Chris Weaver was a man, for example. ( :-)<br>
</i><i>)<br>
</i></p>
<p>Yeah, I agree completely, and it is interesting (especially from a systemic-contructivistic point of view), that being "blind" can be a great advantage. It seems to be easier in that case to stay alert to the fact that your brain produces a fantasy, than to perceive during normal (physical-social) communication, that your sensorial perceptions automatically match with your internal convictions, paradigms... and that what you see, hear, smell is what YOU see,... <i><br>
</i></p>
<p>And this again shows me the importance of this new thread about pre-suppositions, because if they are not perceived, externalized, shared, they stay pre-judices. <i><br>
</i><i>> Presupposition 4 - People (volumes) cannot be in two places (rooms)<br>
</i><i>>at the same time<br>
</i><i><br>
</i><i><br>
</i><i>And the neat thing about the digital world is that we "can" be in two<br>
</i><i>"places" at the same time....we can occupy a myriad of rooms and </i><i>online environments simultaneaously. </i></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Now, my argumentation starts to become a bit anal-fixed and paltry, but sometimes I prefer to you look very closely to the phenomenons (well being an ex-scientist, ;-):</p>
<p>it is not really "at the same time", but concentration can jump from one conversation to the others, we are able to "hold on and continue later, recalling the point where we left" . The phenomological pedagogics analized this in the 80'ies.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>And it is not myriads, which is a metapher for "infinit" or perhaps "without limits", but still - quite a lot:</p>
<p> </p>
<p><i>I have carried on three or four conversations at once with people </i><i>without becoming overloaded or people feeling like I was distracted. </i></p>
<p> </p>
<p><i>This ability to disperse ourselves might be related somehow to the </i><i>recent thread on the collective Buddha.<br>
</i></p>
<p>Yes, yes, yes, great you made that connection. I did not perceive that, but now, as you say ist, I think it is more than just "related somehow", it is an essential part for learning to become/create our collective Buddha<i><br>
</i><i>><br>
</i><i>> Presupposition 5 - To go from one session to another people have to<br>
</i><i>>LEAVE the first one </i></p>
<p> </p>
<p><i>>they are NOT real bumblebees - the bumblebee metaphor is<br>
</i><i>> just that - a metaphor) </i></p>
<p><i>To continue being paltry, Artur: also bumblebees need time to fly, or </i><i>did I get the metaphor wrong?</i></p>
<p><i>>and then ENTERING the new room (again, being seen by<br>
</i><i>> everybody that is there).<br>
</i><i><br>
</i><i><br>
</i><i>Still happens online, if indeed you leave a room. What is a little<br>
</i><i>creepy actually is people who stay in rooms for a long time without </i><i>saying anything.<br>
</i><i>One begins to wonder if they are lurking maliciously, just listening, </i><i>carrying on other conversations or not even at their computers. In </i><i>that respect it can be confusing. Silence in real life is usually </i><i>appreciated. </i></p>
<p> </p>
<p>I do not share this experience in my life-context. I perceived, that this is only true in communication contexts which aproach the ideal of "domination free/Herrschaftsfreie Kommunikation" as one guy from Frankfurt called it. Being quiet and staying silent is often interpreted as, and sometimes is a power/domination-strategy.</p>
<p>The psychoanalytical cure works basically with the therapeuts staying silent being an irritation for the client. </p>
<p> </p>
<p><i>Silence<br>
</i><i>online is often<br>
</i><i>treated with suspicion.<br>
</i></p>
<p>Yes, I perceived that, and reminding us of the law of the two feet is sometimes necessary to overcome this point.<i> </i></p>
<p><i><br>
</i>So I will try to stay silent about P-S 6, because I have nothing new to say about it</p>
<p>???</p>
<p>(Well, I tried ;-)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>In physical/social communication you can be silent, but stay present, and your presence can be perceived. In electronica communication people do not know if you are present and silent, or not present, or absent.</p>
<p><i><br>
</i><i>I fully agree with what you wrote about P-S 7,8,...Chris<br>
</i><i>And try to be silent here.</i></p>
<p> </p>
<p><i>Thank you Artur, thank you Chris,</i></p>
<p><i>my heart is working<br>
</i></p>
<p><i>Bernhard</i></p>
</body></html>
*
*
=============================
OSLIST@LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
------------------------------
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
view the archives of oslist@listserv.boisestate.edu,
Visit:
http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html