for the internet?
It seems for me, that at least to some partial extent, the ability of entities like google to use our content/data is precisely because We tend to imagine the data in static/object terms. For example, we might imagine this writing as data that is in effect residing statically on a server somewhere – hence can be easily indexed, and accessed time and again while receiving the same data at all times..
Does it have to be like that?
In ’98 I was involved with a project called “building bable 2” in Coventry university, as far as I can recall.. One of my contributions to the event was a live application of simulating a net-bot which operated as an avatar. That “organism” was the representative of a person in the digital “space”, and linked between the various physicalities.. (the digital and organic) Hence a person did not have to have a “web-page” to be “online” nor required all their information to be readily available at all times on the network. A person, for example, could get a request from their avatar-bot for information about some subject, and then, they could relay that data directly to the person that wanted it – via the bot-avatar.
In a sense, the bot-avatar was more of a live, active, moving and thinking link that enabled people to use data as when and how They fancied – as well as having a digital entity to do some mundane stuff for them.. eg check for information about subjects/topics.. Negotiate information exchanges with other bots, etc..
I got reminded of these ideas when attempted to consider stuff rhythmically and the idea of personal servers. (eg on mobile devices)
Rhythmically – why do I need to had a constant instant information/data always online? Isn’t the always on more appropriate for a more active “application” rather than data?
What if I placed my data on a *Secure* device of myown – perhaps something like blackphone??!! – and then use various means that it can be accessed at various times..?
Perhaps I should experiment and use this static data place to report..? 😉
Had a bit of a feedback from someone am not sure fancies their name here.. The feedback goes to the tune of:
an interesting idea aharon but:
– is it not kind of taking us back to tv..? (with program schedules)
– power play that comes with rhythms and how might that affect information?
OK.. to be fair, the idea here is a modified version of why i told the said person.. Forgot about this idea at the time and was talking only about personal servers that operate when people fancy to turn them on..
However, I think there are still some relevant issues/questions that prickle my mind from the feedback..
To begin with, a meta prickle.. It seems – perhaps wrongly – that I gave an impression of sort of cure-it-all-panacea. Nope what so ever. The idea is to try some new ways and bump into new problems/difficulties/etc.
If the question is then Why this particular new way, then my reply would be that because this dynamic imagination does not preclude today’s static – while today’s static has a bias – if it was a person – that makes dynamic data imagination if not entirely impossible, harder to do..
So this is not a rhythmism – be rhythmic or be gone/die. This, I think is more subtle and hence radical – rather than extreme – than that. The claim is that via rhythmic imagination we can include the static, it is just element that has a slower rhythmic nature. However, while imagining only in static, rhythmic imagination is having a hard time to Be. (..am making a bit of allusions to democratic processes because it seems very similar to me.. For example saying that we strive towards ever growing equality between people, does not prevent prejudicially some groups/units/companies to have an unequal hierarchy. However if society is to have a per-ordained hierarchy of one kind or another – it is constitutionally prejudiced towards certain elements and prevents having non hierarchical groupings.. As they, by nature, will question the very social constitution..)
The TV thing..
Not sure exactly what is meant by the scheduling problem.. I take it meaning/reffering to times. eg, if you want to watch X program, you want to “catch it” on time.
Well.. There are a few elements here, imho..]
Phil talks a fair bit about how social media is just like the old tv.. The gist of it, as I seem to understand, is that with the activity streams you get something very akin to scheduling, in a sense.. Indeed, sales people who try to “catch” audience for certain topics, time their posts for certain periods of the day..
However, in the idea above – with the link-avatar-bot entity – as well as the one when a person just turns on/off their personal server, it is a question of contacting rather then schedualing, I think.. Because information on the server from yesterday, might still be there, pending on the authors will. Just like in posts here on this blog, I can turn some data on/off public..
The difference is that if this data was not, as it currently is, on a server somewhere in california, and subject to some laws and regulations that people might find somehow palatable there and I have no say in. Or that despite the fact it is supposed to be “my server”, the data is very much open to the company that runs it, and they can be pushed here and there by all sorts of other organisations.. Or they could just burn and all my data – if it wasnt in fact saved here with me – could be gone for ever..
Instead of that, situation, I could have a local server that will perhaps forego the Always instantly On for anyone, and just send signals when it is on so people could check it.. If one doesn’t feel like, or can not check at X time – they could later on..
Also, with the link-bot-avatar-entity idea, it can be that your online-data-link presence will gather the new info from X databases, and/or in relation to Y topic, and then simply relay to you as and when You fancy..
I think perhaps the problems with such an imagination will be different.. I think they could be of more person-to-person nature.. However, I much rather these than systematic preclusions..
Power.. Hummm.. Again.. not entirely sure I fully understand the intent in the comment, however, I think that power is not rhythmically inherent.. eg all the geographic power relations.. Therefore I think it can be said that indeed this idea does not rid us – in a sort of inherent fashion – from power plays.. I personally doubt there are some inherent elements that rid us from power games.. While it doesn’t dis-allow people using power games however, I think it can be claimed that it doesn’t require power games, hence culturally it is, at least, neutral in that regard..
Perhaps, and hopefully am wrong and there are ways to culturally support fearlessness without power.. I do not yet know that we might have a clue.. Even the use, my use, of the sense of fear, links directly to questions of power.. 🙁