|
|
 |
|
|
|
register |
bbs |
search |
rss |
faq |
about
|
|
|
meet up |
add to del.icio.us |
digg it
|
|
|
|
SoftServ online chat: The New Literacies! Topic
SoftServ RTC: "The New Literacies!"
Topic Leader: Neil Schulman
Date: 07/02/90 Time: 23:08EDT
Attendees:
[[Jim] J.AUDLIN]
[[Neil] SOFTSERV]
[KEITH.KIRTS]
[[Kate] SOFTSERV-KO]
[[Charlotte] POETRY]
[[Gary] G.GILBERD]
Minutes:
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> Kissy kissy, Jennifer!
<[Charlotte] POETRY> Pooh...not HER again!
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> Jealous?
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> Listen, for weeks after I came onto GEnie, I thought
she was REAL!
<[Charlotte] POETRY> of course. :)
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> RTC begins.
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> I decided to bring up the subject of "new literacies"
tonight ...
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> because it became apparent that we are entering an
age where being able to read and write -- what used to be called the
Three R's -- ...
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> has a completely different emphasis than it used
to. ...
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> and these differences impact mightily on what we are
doing here tonight. ...
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> For example, once a book is in electronic text ...
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> you don't have to be able to read in order to have
access to the written material, since the computer can read it to
you. ...
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> And, in fact, the ability to use a mouse on the
computer might be more important in gaining access to information
than being able to read the words in a book ...
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> since if the computer has access to a large data
base, you might actually have access to more info by using the
computer than using the books themselves. ...
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> Further, there are additional literacies which are
becoming important, which aren't generally acknowledged as
"literacy" yet ...
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> The ability to use a computer is, of course,
one ...
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> But the ability to understand and use a modem and
communications software, and to navigate an online service such as
GEnie, might turn out in a few years to be the definition of
"literacy." ...
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> Each new technology added to our repertoire ...
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> Adds a new set of skills which may be decisive
in gaining access to the information and entertainment which shape
our lives ...
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> And I don't think we can overestimate the
importance being able to use these new "access nodes" is when it comes
to being able to be an educated person.
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> I submit that the old definition of literacy is
outmoded.
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> Floor is open to discussion.
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> Go, Jim.
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> I see the general thrust of your remarks, but...
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> as long as we need to read instruction manuals and...
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> need to type on keyboards, we will need to be able
to read.
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> Until there is direct brain-to-computer...
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> accessing (as in my novels, BTW), we will need to be
able to read. Hence...
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> what this medium provides is greater plasticity of
the art of reading and writing.
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> It does not outmode it.
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> How does Nick Dotson "read" instruction manuals, Jim?
Today, not 20 years from now?
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> If he COULD read them, he WOULD.
<[Charlotte] POETRY> He scans them.
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> What he has now is cumbersome.
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> He DOES read them!
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> I mean with eyes.
<[Charlotte] POETRY> I heard him "reading" them on the phone.
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> He "reads" at 600 words per minute.
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> So did I.
<[Charlotte] POETRY> It's truly amazing.
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> So what's so special about reading with eyes?
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> It is hard to compare texts.
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> One cannot see the "shape" of a poem.
<[Charlotte] POETRY> It's equally hard to use windows and menus.
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> Computers can compare text in seconds.
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> Typography as an aspect of the medium is useless.
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> We are not discussing ease of use -- we are discussing
capabilities, aren't we?
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> How would you "read" say, Charles Olsen?
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> My point is...
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> that computers increase plasticity, not replace
reading.
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> Until there is brain-to-computer accessing.
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> Maybe programming emphasis into the voice
synthesis might be more accurate and more expressive than typography.
<[Charlotte] POETRY> I'm ready for THAT!
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> True, Neil.
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> And...
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> You see, written language is a mnemonic for spoken
language. ...
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> there is so much stuff that will NEVER be converted
to disc...
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> that there will always be a need for reading.
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> Jim, let me take that point by point.
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> First, reading with the ears IS reading. ...
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> Second ...
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> nods.
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> The important stuff is getting converted now; the less
important stuff will take longer ...
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> Third ...
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> Let's take a look at Israeli newspapers to
underscore my point about written language being a mnemonic for spoken
language ...
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> In Hebrew, the written language often leaves of all
vowels entirely.
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> (only in classical Hebrew)
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> You have to KNOW what the vowels of a word are without
seeing them on the printed page ...
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> I'm taking about modern Israeli newspapers, Jim. ...
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> (and we DON'T know what the vowels were for a lot of
Biblical words -- e.g. Yod-hah-vay-hah)
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> The words in the Israeli newspapers serve merely to
REMIND the reader what the words are ... they have to reach into their
memory banks to remember what the words sound like, and reconstruct the
language in their heads. ...
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> Therefore, I submit that written language is merely a
mnemonic for spoken language ...
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> Don't agree.
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> And that the capacity for having an electronic system
which can reproduce the recorded word and feed it to the ears ...
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> Is every bit as much "literacy" as being able to
scan words on a page visually.
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> We all know there is a very palpable difference between
oral and written English.
<[Charlotte] POETRY> You've been thinking about this a lot, haven't
you, Neil?
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> One can see a text come alive in the hands of an orator.
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> =mouth
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> Yes, oral language is more direct. Written language has
evolved a set of rules to compensate for the more limited ability to
reproduce the sounds.
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> To a degree, written language is a mnemonic for oral
language, but...
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> it carries its own capabilities and limitations, like
oral language...
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> and they are different in each case.
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> The Hebrew example points up my own concerns:
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> you need to have information to elucidate" the data, and
that cannot be derived from computers.
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> Further...
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> there is the problem of "baggage" --
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> words carry different baggage, and...
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> different languages carry different "baggage" as a
result of being cultural artifacts.
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> These cannot be reproduced in computer. You assume...
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> that communication is largely digital. It is not. It is
largely analogical.
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> It doesn't matter, Jim. ...
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> (Don't mean to monopolize -- others, PLEASE JOIN IN!)
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> The disadvantages of one are compensated by its
advantages.
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> The point I'm making is that reading & writing are
no longer the key to information access that it was in the pre-
computer age.
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> Agreed thus far, Neil.
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> But the reason for that, Neil, is the PLASTICITY --
the...
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> ability computering gives us to manipulate far easier
than with pen and paper.
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> Whether or not you call it "plasticity" or
"literacy," Jim ...
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> it comes down to the same thing ...
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> Schools are using pre-technological standards to
determine fitness ...
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> while the kids who are playing computer games
hidden behind their textbooks ...
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> are learning more useful skills for their future
than the teachers are shoving down their throats.
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> Yes, one will need to be computer literate in the
future -- no argument there.
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> You are not really responding to what I am saying:
I still think that...
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> This is an open discussion. Please, throw in your
two cents' worth.
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> the ability to read and write must survive, and will
have to survive.
<[Charlotte] POETRY> I'm listening, Neil. So far, it's way over my
head.
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> Why? Defend your point.
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> I have already.
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> Again:
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> Not to my ears. :-)
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> The ability to learn HOW to use computers, the
ability to see the structure of a text, the ability to compare
processes, cannot be reduced to computer. And...
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> the "baggage" problem: language is NOT DIGITAL!
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> (not totally digital, I should say)
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> Jim, we are not "reading" digitally now. ...
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> The computer converts the numbers to letters for
us, using software ...
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> and it can easily convert one more stage, to voices ...
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> pictures ....
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> interactive video ...
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> scanned images ...
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> We ARE communicating digitally -- you know how often
on GEnie there are misunderstandings because...
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> people miss the "signals" that denote humor or sarcasm,
orwhatever.
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> and shortly, "virtual realities" in which multiple
senses are affected at the same time.
<[Kate] SOFTSERV-KO> This may have already been mentioned, but I'm not
convinced that game-playing leads kids to be able to do anything
ELSE on computers.
<[Gary] G.GILBERD> Kate, you are so right!
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> Let me finish with Jim's point, then I'll take up
Kate's.
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> Agreed, Kate.
<[Kate] SOFTSERV-KO> Such enthusiasm!
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> Jim, the inadequacy you note supports MY point
... the limited information value of text on the page.
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> No way!!!
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> Or the computer screen, for that matter.
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> While, if you include audible signals ...
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> On a page, one can arrange the text so that the very
arrangement bespeaks a meta-text. This cannot be done in binary mode.
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> You can HEAR the sarcasm, emphasis, etc.
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> Charles Olsen's poetry would be killed on a
computer.
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> I have no idea what you mean by binary mode.
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> ("The Maximus Poems") is what I have in mind.
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> Computers are based on binary mathematics. On-off.
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> So?
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> HUMAN COMMUNICATION is based...
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> on an infinity of possibilities, not just two.
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> There are so many levels on which we communicate,
all concurrently.
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> On GEnie, we are communicating only on one.
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> Despite the use of (g) and ROTF and LOL, etc.
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> On a printed page, you are using only one, also,
Jim. You are supporting MY argument.
<[Charlotte] POETRY> (this is getting FUN!)
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> No, on a printed page, as I said,
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> there are meta-languages available in the
arrangement of the text, the choice of fonts, etc.
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> There are not as many...
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> possibilities as in oral communication, but far more
than on computers!
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> Text allows typography, which requires only a more
sophisticated word processor than GEnie is using. It's not a
limitation of the medium. ...
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> Kate, I have no idea what percentage of kids who use
computer games graduate to using computers for other things ...
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> But I suspect a lot do.
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> What people use for fun, they tend to use for other
things.
<KEITH.KIRTS> Gary acts like he knows about this.
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> The kids who read comic books often become book
readers, too.
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> I did.
<[Kate] SOFTSERV-KO> I think resourceful kids will always be
resourceful kids, and gamers are going to stay gamers.
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> Agreed, Kate.
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> And comic book readers never read anything but
comic books? History proves otherwise.
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> I don't think they GRADUATE to computers, so much
as computers are just so much a part of life, in the work world,
they HAVE to learn.
<[Gary] G.GILBERD> What little research has been done re computer
games and computer lit. indicates that...
<KEITH.KIRTS> I think they must learn how to solve problems,
certainly on some level.
<[Gary] G.GILBERD> Kids that are first paper-literate are more likely
to become creative computer users than kids who only play computer
games.
<[Gary] G.GILBERD> However,
<[Gary] G.GILBERD> What you all at SoftServ are donig is too new to be
evaluated. It is certianly not a computer _game_.
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> Let me get even more outrageous, if I can. ...
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> Try REAL hard, Neil! (g)
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> I'd like to submit that the ability to watch TV is probably
more important today than the ability to read books.
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> (Now watch the fireworks!)
<[Charlotte] POETRY> I do NOT agree with THAT, Neil.
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> I didn't think you would, Char. :-)
<[Kate] SOFTSERV-KO> I think literacy still depends, as it always
has, upon parents' involvement and interest in their children's
reading. Sitting a kid in front of a computer (or TV) as a
surrogate babysitter is how parents REMOVE themselves from their
kids' educations.
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> I am fireworking, but I have said too much
already. Take it, Charlotte!
<[Charlotte] POETRY> Already said it, Jim. I do not agree.
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> (True, Kate! My children read because they are
frequently READ TO!)
<[Charlotte] POETRY> Same here.
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> Look, I painted that with a wide brushstroke,
but consider, for a moment, that as a matter of fact, most people
-- an outrageous majority -- ...
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> use TV as their main medium of information and
entertainment. ...
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> And if the production values are high, I think
more information is conveyed by the TV medium than the text medium.
<[Charlotte] POETRY> That's a mighty big IF, Neil.
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> It has a much higher "bandwidth," to use the current
cant.
<[Kate] SOFTSERV-KO> Except the viewer's imaginary abilities.
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> Yeah, Jim, and most books suck, too.
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> It kills the imagination.
<KEITH.KIRTS> Gary, have you read a text book on screen from
CALC. Was it as readable?
<[Gary] G.GILBERD> Yes, I read several. On-screen texts are easier
to use than paper texts
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> Most books suck, but at least you have to use
your imagination.
<[Charlotte] POETRY> MOST BOOKS SUCK????
<[Charlotte] POETRY> <gasping, choking>
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> Except for mine and Keiths and Neil's and Vic's! (g)
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> What imagination do you have to use with
nonfiction? Imagination is a function of fabulation, which can
be written or dramatized.
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> Yes, most books are unmitigated trash.
<[Charlotte] POETRY> <speechless>
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> A lot of imagination with non-fiction --
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> Let's not judge the capacity of a medium by what
it's used FOR.
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> to enter into dialogue with the text.
<[Kate] SOFTSERV-KO> Neil, you read a history text and don't get
any images in your head?
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> Read Gibbon, or Livy without imagination? Impossible!
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> You ever shout at Dan Rather? I do.
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> Hannibal's elephants?
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> Suetonius' death of Vespasian?
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> Come ON!!
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> Shakespeare was written to be WATCHED, not read.
<[Charlotte] POETRY> Bull!
<[Charlotte] POETRY> Oops. :)
<[Charlotte] POETRY> <--- gets too emotional.
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> Shakespeare did not expect people to read his
plays, Char. He expected them to be watched,.
<[Jim] J.AUDLI2N> True, but his genius so surpasses the medium that
it can be apprehended in diffferent media, with different riches
thus exposed -- like...
<[Kate] SOFTSERV-KO> Shakespeare productions in his day involved a
great deal of interaction between audience and players.
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> Bach's \Kunst der Fuge\ played on different
instrumental combinations.
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> ...while the Kunst was written to be read, not played.
<[Charlotte] POETRY> Look..he wrote many more poems than he did plays.
MAANY more.
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> And there were troubadours to read them aloud.
<[Charlotte] POETRY> many people of that era could NOT read, Neil.
<KEITH.KIRTS> Am I missing the point here, or what?
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> Neil... I admire your forward-looking attitude. It
is precious. I just don't think you see the future with unclouded
perceptions.
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> You are still a child of your time, just as I am.
All we are doing is guessing.
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> Jim, this is evolving, of course ...
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> But I think we have all read enough science fiction
to anticipate the general direction we're heading. ...
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> (Don't agree.)
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> We are going to have far greater access to
information provided by various electronic media ...
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> Read some SF from generations ago -- it says more
about the 1920s or 1930s than it does about now.
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> And the ability to access these new media will
determine who is employable, educated, etc. ...
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> I think Keith might agree that there is going to be
more REVOLUTION than EVOLUTION in the future.
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> All I'm suggesting is that if we confine ourselves
to the "literacies" of older media ...
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> We are missing the thrust of what "literacy" means
at the bottom:
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> The ability to access and interact with
information.
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> Stated that way, Neil, I tend to agree.
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> It is when you say that "reading" will become completely
outmoded that I take umbrage.
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> Well, then ... , on that note of agreement, I adjourn
the RTC!
<[Kate] SOFTSERV-KO> Yay!
<[Neil] SOFTSERV> Jim, I was being extreme to wake people up!
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> I know -- I was too!!!
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> (laughing)
<[Jim] J.AUDLIN> We both tend to get outrageous to wake up the Lumpen
Proletariat.
=== End of Steno notes. ===
|
|
|
To the best of our knowledge, the text on this page may be freely reproduced and distributed.
If you have any questions about this, please check out our Copyright Policy.
totse.com certificate signatures
|
|
|
About | Advertise | Bad Ideas | Community | Contact Us | Copyright Policy | Drugs | Ego | Erotica
FAQ | Fringe | Link to totse.com | Search | Society | Submissions | Technology
|
|
|
|
|
|
