CRDM 701

Week 12 - Kathy

Hayles and Gannon argue that digital media have "reinforced and extended the ways in which human intelligence is enfolded together with machine cognition" making compositional practices "fluid transformative processes " influenced by humans and machines (forthcoming, p. 4). Further discussing this enfolding, Hayles and Gannon use the example of the book "House of Leaves", arguing that the novel "suggests that postmodernism has not so much disappeared as been swallowed up ? or better, engulfed ? by the flood of data, associations, information, and cross-references unleashed by the World Wide Web" (p.21). Humans may be at risk of being swept up in the digital since we are, as Haraway notes (1991) "nowhere near so fluid, being both material and opaque" (p. 153).

In order not to be overwhelmed by this information, humans might have to find ways to better deal with an increasingly digital world. Hayles (2005) notes that "strategies can emerge from a deep understanding of code that can be used to resist and subvert hegemonic control by mega corporations, ideological critiques can explore the implications of code for cultural processes...  code is increasingly positioned as language's pervasive partner" (p. 61). This quote in particular made me think about where the enfolding of people and digital technology can be most productive - and (surprise) got me to thinking about hackers again. As the Internet is increasingly moving toward being a tool for mega corporations rather than thriving as a democratic and expressive space, we are going to need help from all kinds of people who have a deep understanding of code -- even hackers.

Because computer hackers have knowledge of systems that seems to range from clever to some kind of communion with code, they can find ways to work around systems of control. For instance, ISPs are beginning to look at packet flow and packet inspection technologies that would classify information in order to identify what customers are doing with the bandwidth. If you use Skype rather than your provider's VoIP service, for instance, the ISP may choose to degrade or block your Skype service. With a true understanding of the way that these systems work, hackers can find ways around such issues - in this instance, the solution involves re-assigning ports (VoIP has a port it generally uses - but since port 80 is HTTP, you can make the info look more like a website than a phone call - clever indeed).

Of course, individuals with this level of understanding are working on all sides ? for themselves, the consumer, the government,  big business -- sometimes no one. It seems to have more to do with a relationship to the technical that Wajcman (1991) points out with a quote from Oppenheimer: "when you see something that is technically sweet you go ahead and you do it and you argue about what to do about it only after you have had you technical success" (p. 138). I would argue is part of the hacker way of being - the desire to (following Wajcman?s argument) "give birth" to something technological.

In Traumas of Code, Hayles argues that code is a resource that could potentially mediate the human cognitive system, opening up new channels of communication "between conscious, unconscious, and nonconscious human cognitions" (p.6). Thinking about trauma as stored sensorimotor experience rather than language was interesting, particularly as I thought about the final stages of writing my thesis. I remember being stressed out (pretty badly) and often without a lot of time to eat. As a fix for that, I started packing in 4-5 of these wonderful double cocoanut eggs a day to get more fuel. Long story short, when they started showing up again last spring, I bought a few and went home to enjoy. I started to chew, and soon got sick in the stomach and started "freaking out" from stress. Doesn't seem like a big deal when I write it down here, but I assure you, it was not fun to bite into stress.

Peters (1999) writes that "If the fear of the Lord is the beginning of all wisdom, or if all philosophy is learning how to die, then machines will have difficulty sounding the strength humans call from their imperfections" (p. 236). If computers are not able to "freak out" in the sense that we can, how will they know when they have finally reached an understanding of something? If they can think, do we want them to take credit for our work since they were there the whole time we were working? Think about it - "Future Dissertation" by 00012C4JAX445Z45 and Kathy O (authors listed alphabetically). yikes.

See you all tomorrow!

Posted at 05:15PM Nov 14, 2007 by kfoswald in Week 12  |  Comments[1]