| I |
The bird had then flown. But, right there I saw what appeared from behind him. It was there at my feet; I reached for it. It was a sword --
unsheathed. The sunlight from the window seemed to dance upon its tip. I stared at it, turning the point side-to-side. My reflection was at times perfectly clear, yet also barely recognizable in distortion, depending on the particular angle held. I thought that it could prove to be
valuable and decided to keep it close at hand. And, I was right! I used the sharpness of its edge to carve out my path, mapping my plan in moving forward. I started up an adjacent staircase, and peering over the rail, I could, with clarity, view the path I had taken in its entirety.
|
| II |
What does it really mean to be digital? Summaries have been offered, regarding a general understanding of digital technology, with explanatory statements regarding a shifting in thinking and interpretation prompted by
the technology -- the implications of its capability. Indeed, these arguments are quite compelling. However, this is short-sighted. It only gives us an understanding of the rationale involved in our digital relationships; that is, a demonstration of the habitual cause and effect approach to Digital/Being. In a discussion of effects, we neglect a discussion of affects. We fail to acknowledge that the interpret-er and interpret-ed do not exist independently. And that is important; for what might be said of being-in-the-digital-world? Perhaps it is not ironic that our G/odless culture has generated a socio-technical construction of mediated knowledge that has no medium-specific form of being. Transparency in form allows presence in non-being. What then happens to the subject when there is no object? It is auto-annihilated by masked inter-action.
|
| III |
Digital/Being presents itself in the present as presencing. Its position desires security, stability -- a solid base -- as has the tetrad. Its presence, however, has yet to fully unfold.
|
| IV |
Developing a functional and effective online learning environment requires a thorough examination of the logistics of Digital/Being. This process is partially dependent on a dialectical predisposition for comprehension. However, this becomes increasingly complicated, from the developer's standpoint: an over-reliance on the
dialectical serves more to entrap the learner that to engage him, which of course, is undesirable. In contrast, sacrificing adequate exposure to the dialectical often results in a fragmented and disjointed hermeneutical application, which is not at all effective. The primary fallacy of modern design techniques and development strategies for mediated learning is the ideal of achieving this
balance. Here, logistics refers to the means or methods chosen for symbolic re-presentation within the mediated learning environment. 'Symbolic' does not necessarily refer to graphics or imagery alone, but is used to broadly describe individual vehicles of content, such as text, image, audio, video, etc. -- and all and/or any combination of the above. The meaning of 're-presentation' here is two-fold: it describes both the design or structure of the piece and the pedagogical implications and inferences associated with that design or structure. In developing a logistical praxis of postmodern educational technology, the key word is permissiveness. There is nothing wrong with the tradition of employing Aristotlean logic in re-presentation. What is wrong is intolerance -- academic or otherwise -- of multiplicity in modes of re-presentation. The logistics of mediated learning are inerently metaphorical, allegorical, mythical. Openly validating, or conversely, chastising such logical applications is completely unnecessary -- the point is moot: the only application is multi-plication.
|
| V |
A most noble first objective:
~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~
(T)ruth upheld, preserved.
~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~
Here the double-edged power of divination
~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~
Encourages judgement in the wisdom between.
~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~
Influenced (not) by desire,
~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~
Each tapestry is woven for funtionality.
|