h1

Discussing hybrid ecology

October 3, 2007

Trying to come on common ground with Anatole about what we have in common in the framework of affordances, and hybrid ecology.
It is still not clear to me, but i think keeping these recordings will enable to develop further my thinking of the activity system in which affordances play the certain role. And part of this activity system i see Anatole’s interest in art and literature and hybrid ecology.
Main idea from this talk what i filtered is Anatole’s comment: everything is basically revolving around the concept of space as an emergent feature

Anatole pierre Fuksas: 15:55:58
do you think that art and literature may be part of an hybrid ecology?
Kai Pata: 15:56:39
in my understanding there are 3 layers, people, tools/environmental objects and artifacts, so the creative artifacts definitely can be

pedagogical affordances

Anatole pierre Fuksas: 15:57:48
yes I know this 3layered things of yours
basically you set art crafts and novels into the third isn’t it?
Kai Pata: 15:58:06
i can see the artifacts and the meanings on the artifacts as something that is transported/or actually it is not transported but changed in spots by users
i mean not changed but interpreted and reused
in action, or in making new tools, or making new artifacts

Kai Pata: 15:59:55
in summer i developed some very nice thoughts after we discussed
affordancescheme

Anatole pierre Fuksas: 16:01:40
I am more into flee flowing of concepts into plastic and fluid systems, still, since you agree stories may be part of hybrid ecologies, there is definitely room for merging.
I really do think that what you say about meaning emerging from shared affordances
my point is description processing shape the space as direct sensory processing does
Kai Pata: 16:04:19
that is pure semiotics how lotman has, isnt it?..he does not use affordances, he says something what we perceive from another system we can interpret in our system, and then new meaning may emerge, if the untranslatable things are translated from one system to another

intersubjectivity image

Anatole pierre Fuksas: 16:06:43
yes semiotics is basically about translation but ecological approaches, to my understanding bypass the translation thingy, since the symbolic encoding is an emerging feature as well, and any new encoding is based on plastic, fluid data, not just on the received code. Still, of course semiotics deal with symbolic features, hence is not ‘deeply’ concerned by reference

Kai Pata: 16:05:18
elaborate this: my point is description processing shape the space as direct sensory processing does
i think i get, but the phrase is complicated!

my thought is we can shift internal descriptions/imaginations into external and then we shape the space, and environment, and tools there so that something becomes into a tool

its like shifting from imagination the affordances into external in action, but then the things we use in this process become tools

Anatole pierre Fuksas: 16:09:07
yes i got it, but why do you need internal and external into an ecological perspective based on interaction between perceiver and perceived environmental features? since perception triggers potential actions, externalization is just the result of activation of a given motor scheme 😀

besides i do totally agree about the way things become tools
(basically actual affordances toolize things in a very pragmatical way)
everything is basically revolving around the concept of space as an emergent feature, that may sound tricky, since we are so used to give it for granted
that is to separate the perceiver and the target
whereas the space is just the result of their interaction
Kai Pata: 16:11:57
i like this: everything is basically revolving around the concept of space as an emergent feature, ..and i agree
is there only one space or 2?
Anatole pierre Fuksas: 16:13:20
well maybe since you start seeing things like that probably the very concept of external and internal doesn’t make sense anymore, but I am still not that sure, i mean, it’s something I completely understood
Anatole pierre Fuksas: 16:14:03
well space being an emergent feature, it emerges as singular just in terms you can synchronize it into a given, unitary view or understanding
Kai Pata: 16:14:32
the space where we act (more ‘objective’ although it is still perceived differently by different people) and then the space that is totally plastic and subjective (in mind, or when you dream and create), and then space that is a bit constrained representation of your dreams/creations…in this system you need to define some things
Anatole pierre Fuksas: 16:15:23
still, picture a beach where you went lately
of course you are not walking on the sand now
but the feeling suddenly arises
smell iodium, waves roaring
your senses are reacting
to my decription as to your imagination
moreover, I am picturing a different beach
Kai Pata: 16:17:28
on my scheme it is embodiment of certain action affordances from the environment and when i do it, i can make it my own and feel emotions
Anatole pierre Fuksas: 16:18:06
but you may attach emotions to descriptions too, that’s why you can feel concerned by the destiny of a character when you read a novel 😀
Kai Pata: 16:19:24
You can also create totally new affordances that are not embodied from previous action, imagine them and write them down so that it will create feelings and action possibilities of the character
Anatole pierre Fuksas: 16:21:18
so, let’s agree on the basis, narrative descriptions can be part of hybrid ecologies in terms that they shape environmental features and their potential affordances as direct sensory appraisal does
Kai Pata: 16:22:36
yes i agree with this
Anatole pierre Fuksas: 16:22:44
I mean, picture this: you are walking on that very same beach and somebody starts telling you that just 100 mts ahead he once built a sand castle. The sand castle is not there, but the story he told you ‘shapes’ space
you are somewhat forced to set the castle about where your friend is now pointing at
Kai Pata: 16:24:12
i mean i get action potential to build it, or emotional drive
Anatole pierre Fuksas: 16:24:21
both in my opinion
depends if you are emotionally concerned by the sand casle lol
Kai Pata: 16:25:17
imagine there is an inventor, he imagines something like electricity bulb or mobile phone that nobody has thought of, then he first he develops proposal to develop such a thing..and then it is the matter of other people do they start believing into this invention..if he develops it, its the same, it may or may not become a tool depending of other people’s interpretation of it as a tool
Anatole pierre Fuksas: 16:25:44
definitely
cultural difference can be an interesting test in this case
what’s a semaphor in the understanding of a native esquimese?
Kai Pata: 16:27:13
or goal-directed thinking and emotions?..in case if it is a sand castle, i may not be so romantic, have similar kind of memory, i may not even know what the sand castle is..and i build a totally different thing, lets say a sand hole
Anatole pierre Fuksas: 16:27:59
yes, you may have been one of those terrible kids tearing down sand castles or jumping on them and feeling guilty lol
Kai Pata: 16:28:04
and then one thing becomes into another, (that lotman example)
Anatole pierre Fuksas: 16:28:32
yes I see the translation thing
Anatole pierre Fuksas: 16:28:54
but there I say what is the esquimese translating?
I mean, he has no clue about the intended meaning
his own meaning just emerges as the intended one in the understanding of the creator

I mean, both are symbolizing independently
Kai Pata: 16:30:05
this is also at lotman scheme
translating from untranslatable..and you actually just get a trigger and do something totally wrong
Anatole pierre Fuksas: 16:30:18
encoding an emergent meaning into their own framework
Kai Pata: 16:30:27
yes
Anatole pierre Fuksas: 16:30:52
more than translating, since translating is basically moving from code to code
encoding is moving from perception to code
in my understanding I mean

Kai Pata: 16:31:34
but if you don’t know the code? and still translate
is it encoding?

Anatole pierre Fuksas: 16:32:07
lol yes but why do feel the need to call it translating
Kai Pata: 16:32:29
then you take a wrong pierce of puzzle into your own system and start using it as your own, but in another system this pierce has different meaning
Kai Pata: 16:33:14
i don’t feel certain urge to tell it is translating, but when i think of this scheme in my mind i still use the word 🙂
Anatole pierre Fuksas: 16:33:48
let’s see if I can summarize effectively…
Kai Pata: 16:33:51
i think it is translating, as if omitting the meaning to the object we don’t know but what feels to fit somehow into our system
Anatole pierre Fuksas: 16:34:24
(yes I see your point, that happens all the time and his a very interesting concern into globalization framework)
Kai Pata: 16:35:58
think at lotman scheme this is the whole point of creation to become possible – that there are known and unknown areas, and the borders between these areas we create by our perception, action, culture, and also with the people who are involved etc.

Anatole pierre Fuksas: 16:36:45
I would basically make difference between encoding and translating in terms that encoding is sort of labeling environmental features in symbolic terms whereas translating is like re-coding and encoded feature in a new language
Kai Pata: 16:36:36
do you know something about social networks?
Anatole pierre Fuksas: 16:37:05
yes I know something about social networks, i am investigating one calling anobii (is a social network of enthusiastic readers uploading book titles and comments into a given hong kong based platform
Anatole pierre Fuksas: 16:37:27
I will write a paper about “The Long Tail of Digital Shelves” that is about it
Kai Pata: 16:37:37
there are people who share ideas, and then some people may be like transferring points from one social network to another, and the ideas they carry become in another network like new seeds, because they seem different there
you write: I would basically make difference between encoding and translating in terms that encoding is sort of labeling environmental features in symbolic terms whereas translating is like re-coding and encoded feature in a new language,
but my question is why you do not consider environment as one language?

Anatole pierre Fuksas: 16:38:56
yes I see what you say, but that’s completely in the field of plastic re-coding of symbolized issues
Anatole pierre Fuksas: 16:39:23
ok I see your point clearly now
Kai Pata: 16:39:28
or why cannot we say language is one environment?
Anatole pierre Fuksas: 16:39:40
yes i see I see, lemme think about it lol
in my understanding language can be defined as an environment as in a metaphor, since language is just the code… instead, environmental landscapes may certainly emerge from narratives or simple descriptions

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: