"Typographical fixity is a basic prerequisite for the rapid advancement of learning" (pg. 17 Eisenstein). This call to "fixity" as a requirement for the advancement of learning reminded me a lot of Turing creating the fixed system of binary through with information could be most effectively and quickly transmitted through computer systems. Without a fixed language for computers to communicate with, there would obviously be greater difficulty for quick transfer of information within a device's specific parts, as well as between other devices. The word "learning" Eisenstein uses served as a buzz word for me after having gone through how information and messages are perceived in the realm of mechanical electrical computers. If there wasn't a standardized Binary code that all information and messages could be boiled down to, processing would be more complicated and less streamlined which I image would slow down the computers functions (or ability to learn/ gain information).

When she later writes that "printing 'preserved and codified, sometimes even created' certain vernaculars", this too reminded me of the way we've seen computer language develop through our readings up to this point (especially the notion of creating "certain vernaculars") (Eisenstein 19). It draws attention to how greatly the medium can affect the message and even how we communicate/thing as a whole. When Eisenstein writes that the "editorial decisions made by early printers with regard to layout and presentation probably helped to reorganize the thinking of  readers" it makes me wonder how computer language and the layout of computers themselves have reorganized the way I think as a reader/user.
-james

Photos from Bancroft Visit

Class field trip!

Nicole points out an early modern phallic symbol

Very old, very expensive books

Robert Hook's Micrographia

Vesalius

Typesetting for an exquisite corpse poem

Lee Anne demonstrates the Albion Press

Einstein discusses the various implications and complexities inherent in birth of the printing press on Western society. While reading this article, I began notice not simply how pervasive the printing press’s affect was on Western Society, but how much we take the over abundance of printing machines for granted. I can’t imagine a world where printing and copying takes more than a couple of minutes or where books are a luxury. What was striking was when Einstein talked the way in which the structure of texts changed. Moreover the “format, arrangement of contents, page layouts and illustrations” have shifted. The format of books has remained the same today. The title page, the table of contents and notes at the end are a universal format most people don’t even think of. Like everything else however, the printing press brought about many changes that may be overlooked but have profoundly shaped the way in which we engage with language.

How has the excess of books, fliers, and just paper in general affected language? This is the question that continues to be unanswered. I thought about the way slang has evolved. Now more than ever, words are being abbreviated. From “lol” to “awk,” we have become lazy with language. It doesn’t matter that words are spelled wrong when I text using my Iphone because the machine will automatically correct it for me. During exams, I’ve struggled with spelling certain words correctly. Usually, I wouldn’t bother. I would simply let the machine do the work for me and feel no guilt about it. Similarly, the printing press laid the foundation for the near instant access to information, the hundreds of thousands of books and magazines that are printed everyday. It has mobilized a certain fluidity that made information very transparent. It made ideas more acceptable and created a line of communication that continues on today.

It’s so easy to buy books these days. Going the student bookstore each semester to get my required texts is a drag because of how long the line usually is at the start of the semester. I never stop to think about how fortunate I am to live in a world where everything is so accessible. In this regard, I’ve become complacent. I hope we can talk about the specific ways the printing press has desensitized us to the ideas held in books. 

Better, Faster, Cheaper

It’s interesting to note the parallels between the printing revolution and the modern technological revolution brought about by the computer and the Internet. In both cases the distribution of information created an increase in levels of consistency and entrenchment of standards. Although there is clearly a difference between manual calculations and handwritten books, the common denominator of manual labor and all its perils were inherent in both. Just as the need for 10 copyists to serve one clerk in the 1450s created a bottleneck in information distribution, extensive manual calculations done by hand created a bottleneck in mathematical formulations. Errors in literary duplication must’ve been the norm in much the way that errors in handmade calculations were commonplace until the invention of the computer.

After the advent of printing, pneumonic devices and memorable rhyme schemes also lost prevalence. After the widespread adoption of the Internet, the necessity of books has greatly diminished in much the same fashion. The trend, not surprisingly, is towards offloading information from individual memory into a collective source that is easily retrievable in a timely fashion. As the world becomes more complex in terms of its various minutia and sub specialization, the strength of the individual seems to drift towards effective referencing technique, and less on memorization.

Although there is a great deal of standardization that has taken place due to our communication infrastructure, much of it is hardware-based. In some ways the printing revolution was actually more substantial to the fixation of the process by which information is transferred. The substantial diminishment of individual interpretation occurred when typeface and authorship authenticity concerns become commonplace. The printing revolution in many ways standardized and ensconced the evolving variation within the transmission of stories, language and other forms of communication, and the effect must have been substantial.

Doctorow's eBooks

Firstly, let me say that I thoroughly enjoyed the Doctorow article. His writing style is great, which makes getting through and understanding his ideas much easier. I appreciate his acceptance of the reality of eBooks and technologies of the like (as opposed to the “hide your head in the sand” approach many authors/artists take), and I am curious to know how his re-licensing experiment went with his novel.

Anyways, I found myself agreeing with most of what he had to say. I do find myself more and more reading things off a screen, as opposed to a hard copy. I was only required to purchase a single textbook for my classes this semester, all other materials were to be made available online. Furthermore, I find it less and less important that I have a physical text that I can hold, smell, and spill curry on.

His most intriguing piece of analysis was his analogy to Napster. He says that Napster wasn’t appealing because we could track down and possess a Top 40 song we heard earlier that day on the radio, it was for the exact opposite reason: so we could find songs that we couldn’t hear on the radio. And I think this point is a potent one. The mission of eBooks, along with other forms of media translated into online formats is not to deliver everyone an electronic copy of Harry Potter, it is to unearth possibilities that would never be possible otherwise. As Doctorow says, no library can hold all literature that has ever been created, nor would it want to. It could not supply the minority of the content to the majority of the population. The ability to find the minority is what makes the digital valuable, and makes this eBook “problem” very real.

Print was the old Internet

            After reading Eisenstein I was left with tons a question more than I was answers.  Though that may be there were a few interesting parts that stuck out.  First, when Eisenstein explains the invention of printing caused an abrupt change rather than a gradual one.  This is the first time I have come across anyone claiming this, after so many years learning about the printing press, history class after history class.  Every one made it seem as if it were a gradual change.  I believe here is where the Internet differs as an invention.  The Internet to me was a gradual change, solely because it took time to get to web 2.0.

The most important of all changes are spread of literacy, which also includes the change of mental habits from learning to read to learning by reading, and preservation of content.  It must have been so difficult before the printing press to be a scholar not saying it isn’t difficult still.  Printing allowed for old content to reproduced on a large scale and be kept longer in circulation.  This introduced cross-referencing.  It was fascinating to hear that it was because of printing all the old theories could be used to create new theories, continue where one left off.  The Internet comes in handy in the same way.  There is a database that holds all prior information we're able to reference and base future theories on.

What I thought was the coolest part of the reading was how printing created childhood/youth culture.  That blew me away.  All because “The more adult activities were governed by conscious deliberation and going by the book, the more striking the contrast offered by the spontaneous and impulsive behavior of young offspring.”  It was a gap between once culture and another.  This is definitely how the Internet is.  There was a gap between print culture and online culture.  Print culture wanted online to be by the book.  It created a whole new youth culture and childhood.  What I wonder is what’s the next invention to change our culture? What’s the next gap going to be? 

Information flow and the printing press (also networks)

The invention of the printing press, like all of the other technologies we've discussed, had the effect of changing the flow of information throughout society. Previously, books were hand written, usually by monks, and reserved for the wealthy and for the church. In this way, the printing press brought books and discourse to the people. But I think this disguises the true effect it's invention had on how people shared information. The bible, most notably, and other academic writings became available to everyone, but so did published versions of what used to be gathered from friends and neighbors. On page 40, Einstein writes, "Insteadof a cross-fire of gossip conveying random impressions about what was expected or haphazard interpretations of what a sermon meant, books came that set forth (with all the i's dotted and all the t's crossed) precise codes for behavior that godly householders should observe. These codes were known to others-to relatives and neighbors-as well as to oneself." For this type of information, distribution became more centralized after Gutenberg, not less. Cue the Internet. In a similar fashion, even as scholarly information becomes more centralized a la Wikipedia, social information has once more been decentralized. We now receive ideas and interpretations from peers, but peers from around the world, not just our immediate vicinity. The shift from person to person information flow to book to person was accompanied by more walls and privacy between neighbors, and the shift back has been accompanied by the reverse. Look no further than the Facebook privacy scandals. Tv and radio certainly had intermediate roles, but I think it's safe to say that the internet has refocused out attentions on the norms and social codes of our peers, without the intermediaries of publishing houses. I couldn't help but notice while I was taking notes that I'm basically talking about network theory. Roughly speaking, for casual communication before the printing press, we can used a decentralized but only somewhat interconnected graph, followed by a far more centralized one after the printing press, with publishing houses as the hub nodes. With the Internet, we move back to a decentralized model, but with far more inter connectivity, approaching a complete graph.

The Printing Press and The Church

Eistenstein argues that the advent of the printing press distanced people from the church in Western society. Before current events and foreign affairs were printed, sermons used to be the place that this information was given. She states "a communion with the Sunday paper replaced churchgoing" which is an attitude I had never heard presented when talking about the printing press' influence on society. Soon the church tried to use printing to attract people by creating their own newspapers, complete with a gossip column. This shows an effort being put forth in order to adapt with the changing media in the hopes of maintaining followers.

This was very interesting to me because I always heard that the printing press was a positive thing for the church because it accelerated the spreading of "the word of god." There are many questions that arise when thinking about the future of attending church. Since it can be said we are at another turning point (like the printing press but this time with digital technology,) what will this mean for the institution of the church?  Will people be reading the bible off of their i-pads?

Books and Language

The conclusion of the Eisenstein excerpt states her goal to untie the period of history that had previously been "dealt with" and reveal the unexplained complexities within the "Gutenberg period". She probably accomplished this.

The importance of language to human cognition has always seemed important, but recent (since 1960) work has shown that cognition is highly dependent on language. Pre-lingual children don't significantly outperform dogs or primates on cognition tests - but as soon as language starts developing, they leave their competition in the dust. Children kept from developing language seem to have drastically limited reasoning ability. Given this importance, it seems obvious that the spread of literacy, and the spread of available reading material, had a significant effect on human thought; to the degree to which thought depends on language, the form of thought depends on the form of language. Beyond the direct importance of this relationship, the significance of editing (as eluded to by Eisenstein) takes on new importance.

In comparison to the digital revolution, however, the importance of the printing revolution would seem to be greater. The conversion of the masses to literacy probably changed their thinking in many important ways; but the digital revolution, as important as it is, doesn't involve a change in form of thought; it's not another form of language, just another form of dissemination and interrelation.

New and Old "books"

Technology always changes and with it comes new forms of culture and attitudes. However, some technologies can’t replace what has been held in world for a “very long time” in which I mean printed-paper. EBooks and other forms of online media may provide better mobility to the average reader, but paper has its true profound meaning in history. Without paper religion, story telling, or a causal message wouldn’t have spread through different regions of the world. Our history would only be ideas instead of hard evidence written on paper.

            The feel of ownership of a book has a special connection with a physical touch with our hands. We can appreciate the writing even more as we hold it and turn each page knowing something new it written on the next page. Technologies such as the EBook and tablets can take away our “primitive” way of writing/reading and start a new era of life.  However, holding something, other than eBook, has a special meaning to it because it’s right there with no tricks and no fancy distraction. EBooks and other things of that nature are useful and do spread, but for some people the simple things are better. If one wants to read it book, they should “read” the book in a manner that suits them best.

The Pleasure of a Physical Book

Cory Doctorow’s essay, Ebook: Neither E, Nor Books, provides clarification to the new market of digitalizing books for the consumer public. The new trend of reading the latest best selling novel on an IPad or any other E-reader has made heavy 1,000 page novels suddenly light and manageable, especially for those who often have a tough time reading small font anyways. Doctorow argues that the controversy surrounding E-Books from the author’s perspective is not nearly as bad as this form of mass production seems. The medium of the book, he argues, is really actually arbitrary considering modern authors often write their own books on computers anyways, while constantly shifting the formats from pdf and html until they are eventually suited for print from the editor. E-Books as a form of marketing also allows for the consumer to be able to check out parts of a book more quickly and efficiently when browsing through Amazon.com. Doctorow believes that this E-Books trend is beneficial and more efficient which is why books will become more of an artifact as E-Books become the next ITunes download.

            Although both of my parents seem to agree that reading an E-book is actually more convenient to them as they can adjust the font and have access to multiple books all at the same time, I cringe at the thought of arriving at an age where producing a physical book is obsolete. In the life of a student, the computer has become such an integral part of taking notes and subsequently reading homework assignments that reading a book for pleasure is relaxing simply because its not on a screen. The medium of an illuminated screen with text has become such a routine part of any school day whether it’s the Powerpoint Presentation from the professor, taking notes, doing homework, writing papers, or checking the news that I find myself staring at a screen for more hours I’m awake than when I’m not. If all books had to be enjoyed by reading them off my computer, I would not have any interest or receive nearly the same satisfaction as opening an actual worn out book. However, I also understand that most of those other chores of my day could be done without a computer, I consider those activities of my day to be “work” and so if a computer allows for work to be more efficient, then it is worth it. When it comes to reading for my own pleasure, I no longer wish to be working by staring into a screen. 

Social Connection and the Graph Theory

The concept of a network, outside of the computer realm, acts as an organic link between individuals. Even considering the construction of atoms as a network allows makes constant connection seem more natural. The computer allows for ideas to be exchanged and viewed at such a rapid rate that information that wants to be discovered can always be seen. In the Galloway and Thacker essay, Nodes, the idea that networks are not always constantly human, but instead they can exist as “material and immaterial” means that the creation of a network by humans is a natural tendency. The connectivity of the World Wide Web contributes towards globalization in the economic and the political realm and pretty much any realm that humans interact. When viewed as a medium of electrical signals, the Internet seems even more massive and natural than just a creation of humans or an advancement of technology.

            In the context of the graph theory, the Internet exists as naturally occurring creation than a technical innovation. If every human is recognized as a “node” that is connected by the “edges” of wires or even waves carrying signals, then that means the Internet allows for humans to be constantly in touch. I find that social networking has actually pushed people away from interaction through this relying on this theory that the Internet allows us to be more connected to friends and family. The ability to allows contact any acquaintance provides a convenience that compels people not to act rather than actually act. The reasons behind randomly “saying hi” are no longer appropriate when it is socially understood that all people are already connected through a system of nodes and edges. The constant connectivity of the network makes people socially static, as there seems to be less of a reason to interact within this already settled structure.

Military talk

A lot of the readings we've done up to this point have made the connection between the development of computer technology and the military but Baran's is the first document that really drove this point home for me. Upon my first read I was a little bewildered by his word choice - the words attack, kill, destruction and survival were not words I expected to associate with creating distributed networks and I felt that perhaps the language was a little overdramatic. However, after Prof. Bates put Baran's work into the context of communication between nuclear bases during the Cold War (something I should have realized in the first place from the date of Baran's document), I understood why these violent and militaristic terms were finding their ways into this description of distributed communications networks. I know this is just a visceral response, but I have to say it was a little shocking reading Baran's work knowing the context and the gravity of the situation in which Baran's distributed networks were primarily being put to use. Compared to the readings on Turing which often mentioned his work deciphering codes for the military from the perspective of third person omniscient historical narrative (essentially very removed from Turing's personal investment and the real dangers during those war-time periods), reading Baran puts one directly in the position of a military leader/engineer during the Cold War - understanding the urgency for his distributed communications network in fighting and surviving a nuclear war.

Permanence and Trust in a Networked Society

In 1986, Peter Benning argued that the invention of networking had a greater effect on human practices than that of the Apollo space missions. I think the magnitude of this claim is self-explanatory. I personally cannot even begin to grasp the significance of humanity's propulsion into outer space. The claim that the invention of networking is of greater significance for human practices than our intervention into the universe deserves much more reflection and research than anyone can possibly provide in a blog post.

On an intuitive level, I can't help but agree with him. In 2013, I am consumed by a society which has been networked on multiple levels and although this society is also constantly engaged in space research the effects of the former far outweigh the effects of the latter on my day to day life. Right now, I am communicating through a computer network. Whereas space research is a sufficient condition for this communication the network is a necessary condition. Internet communication is possible without satellites whereas the network is necessary for the internet's possibility.

This bit of networked communication - this blog post - guarantees the permanence, the possible dissemination and analysis of my thoughts by unknown agents. However, on the other hand I guarantee that these thoughts are transient, discrete and superficial. I will change my mind after I click publish. The dissemination of these thoughts could only reflect a moment in my life however as the post disseminates at the speed of light it will take on a dynamic meaning - as if my thoughts continue to persist through time and space. All I had intended was to communicate with my present audience yet I have no choice but to publish my thoughts for all future generations and all future audiences. A blog post for this class is not a 'published' work yet it possesses more permanence than non-electronic books by legendary authors. Especially books which aren't past copyright restrictions or on libgen.info* or a torrent website.

The permanence and the possible dissemination guaranteed by the computer network (I don't know if this is due to its nature or if this is an additional characteristic) make possible government surveillance which in turn deteriorates my trust in the government since it reveals the lack of trust in our relationship.

This is like the third conflict Benning discusses in his paper. Benning talks about the inherent distrust exhibited by the implementation of 'trusted computer networks' and the effects of such managerial decisions on the manager-employee relationship. Benning asks whether or not it is plausible to imagine that the addition of a technological layer to distrustful relationships will actually improve those relationships.

I think this question is pertinent to our daily lives as the government implements ever more sophisticated systems of surveillance and as the internet and the internet-of-thing devour more and more spaces. I know all my online communication is under surveillance just like how all your online communication is under surveillance. In addition, I know all our electronic transactions are under surveillance. *Click on the link for documentation supporting my claim.* Supposedly, this is for 'security' as if any political actor would have anything against me personally. So, I 'forfeit' - since I was asked about this during the last government questionnaire concerning citizen satisfaction -  the security of my thoughts and communication for 'security.' To me, it seems like this surveillance system reveals a fundamental aspect of the citizen-government relationship - that is, the government does not trust the citizenry which it purports to represent. We have ever greater convenience of communication across borders, governmental jurisdictions, etc. yet we are under unprecedented surveillance. Why? Is it because we can't handle our freedoms? We must be protected from ourselves?

I also think its interesting how this relationship of distrust is made possible by the permanence of transactions within a computer network.All our transactions are permanent and due to their permanence can be retraced if we are to exhibit suspicious behavior. Maybe, if actor A were to commit a crime then his life can be pulled out of a database in the future and the factors which led to his crime seeking behavior isolated - factors whose nature were unknown to him. Maybe this sort of permanence is the driving force behind the distrust, the fact that every act can be scrutinized so closely is given as a reason that every act must be ready for scrutiny.

These is a crude exploration but I would be interested in comments about it if anyone has some.


*you can download current books for free at libgen.info

Human or Mechanical?

I'll be the first to admit that my understanding of the mechanical aspect of the computer prior to this class was minimal. If someone had asked me how Microsoft Word worked, I would have probably resorted to "magic" as an explanation. Having spent the last couple of weeks dealing with computer coding, and the various mechanisms old computers and logic machines used to carry out operations, I have experienced a newfound appreciation for the complexity of my MacBook Pro. I have begun to separate the human element in computer technology to a certain extent and while whether that is a good thing, is it's own discussion, I have become more objective towards the function of computers. 

However, while reading Network Theory I realized that the mechanical components of computers aren't mutually exclusive with the human element. Computers are complex machines that mimic human action and in doing so require to many human elements. For instance, when reading about graph theory, Network theory suggests that "graph theory is not enough for an understanding of networks; rather it is only a beginning." (33).  There is nothing solely mechanical or human about a computer, it is a combination of both and I think that's a reason why computers are so fascinating. 

In a couple of my previous posts, I talked about how the technological developments, either Babbage´s Difference Engine or digital computing, seemed to remove some connection between people and their machines. Unlike older mechanical technologies, people couldn´t discover how their computers worked by simply taking them apart and looking at how their parts fit together. Something about the network readings this week struck me as having the opposite effect. While networks like the internet are even less transsparent than computers, there not being any physical component at all, networks as a theory seem to bring the complex world within reach. Euler´s bridge network or networks representing food chains have a simplifying effect, allowing us to comprehend complicated systems where we couldn´t have before. İt seems almost ironic then that people are intimidated by the topic (I suppose I´m making an assumption, but I know I was), since at least in principle networks make the world more accessible.

Network: a New Form of an Environment

The environment is a physical and malleable region in our perception, but other forms of environment seem to exist such as the network. The Internet has become more than just tool for our daily lives, it’s become part of us. Just like the environment, the connections in the network has made an ecosystem that influencing one small point can significantly effect many other points. Although the government runs the network, the protocols did remind me of the amendments such as freedom of speech. The environment and our genes shape who we are, but the environment does have significant influence in our genes as well. Seeing the network as an environment, although virtual, might make us prone to see the network more than just symbols and numbers, and might evolve us to have a new manner of thinking. Once we have it, we cant live without it. Its part of who we are as a society and perhaps mutating within our genes as an evolutionary processes.

            This influence may come at a cost of our own abilities, in other words, a trade-off of something we hold dear. We are social animals, but the network is making us further apart from each other using Facebook, twitter, and even mobile phones. The lack of human contact, face to face, can cause us to loose the ability to interact with deeper meaning such as facial expressions and touch. Just like in the article, students who did research through the Internet might get things done, but wont understand it in depth because they weren’t “taught” enough with human interaction. With this lack of human contact, this new form of environment will perhaps let us loose trust within each other and also ourselves.