💾 Archived View for gemini.spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › magazines › EJOURNAL › ej1-3-1.txt captured on 2022-06-12 at 11:34:21.
View Raw
More Information
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
From LISTSERV@uacsc2.albany.edu Tue Jan 5 16:04:47 1993
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 16:03:17 -0500
From: Revised List Processor (1.7e) <LISTSERV@uacsc2.albany.edu>
Subject: File: "EJRNL V1N3-1"
To: pirmann@trident.usacs.rutgers.edu
_______ _______ __
/ _____/ /__ __/ / /
/ /__ / / ____ __ __ __ ___ __ __ ____ / /
/ ___/ __ / / / __ \ / / / / / //__/ / //_ \ / __ \ / /
/ /____ / /_/ / / /_/ / / /_/ / / / / / / / / /_/ / / /
\_____/ \____/ \____/ \____/ /_/ /_/ /_/ \__/_/ /_/
July, 1992 _EJournal_ Volume 1 Number 3-1 ISSN# 1054-1055
There are 549 lines in this issue.
An Electronic Journal concerned with the
implications of electronic networks and texts.
2605 Subscribers in 38 Countries
University at Albany, State University of New York
ejournal@albany.bitnet
CONTENTS (Supplement to V1N3 of November, 1991):
Editorial: Electronic Time Travel [ Begins at line 51 ]
The Brent-Hering Exchange about Owning Knowledge [ Begins at line 102 ]
by Bob Hering and Doug Brent
Drexel University Faculty of General Studies
University of Calgary
Information - [ Begins at line 441 ]
About Subscriptions and Back Issues
About Supplements to Previous Texts
About Letters to the Editor
About Reviews
About _EJournal_
People - [ Begins at line 513 ]
Board of Advisors
Consulting Editors
[line 42]
- *******************************************************************************
- This electronic publication and its contents are (c) copyright 1992 by *
- _EJournal_. Permission is hereby granted to give away the journal and its *
- contents, but no one may "own" it. Any and all financial interest is hereby *
- assigned to the acknowledged authors of individual texts. This notification *
- must accompany all distribution of _EJournal_. *
- *******************************************************************************
Editorial: Electronic Time Travel
This issue of _EJournal_ is an exercise in time travel. Doug
Brent's essay appeared in November '91. He heard from Bob Hering
soon thereafter. Their exchange got lost in electronic limbo and
didn't reach us until June '92. We're sending it out in July '92,
with a note about how you can re-live last November by sending for
issue V1N3. Even though it is being sent in 1992, the V1N3-1
designation aligns this issue with the "publishing year" 1991.
Whew.
We will now add a note to the abstract of the November 1991
essay, in the Contents file of our Fileserv, saying that there is
a discussion of its argument to be found in the July '92 issue.
Our electronic existence, that is, lets us telescope and overlay
and interpolate texts in ways that can't be managed by book-style,
codex publications. It would be possible, for instance, for us to
re-distribute V1N3 with both November's "Ownership" essay and this
July issue's follow-up exchange. That's easy to imagine, and it
might offer worthwhile convenience to many readers, especially to
recent subscribers who have perilously little context into which
they can fit this issue.
But from there it's only a small step, electronically, to an
editor's revision of the November essay in a way that reflects
both Bob Hering's reservations and Doug Brent's efforts in
rebuttal -- without acknowledging Bob Hering's role in the "new
original" essay. We could then file the altered issue in the
Fileserv and pretend that it had always existed that
way. [line 81]
That won't happen. One of _EJournal_'s obligations has always been
to provide authenticated copies --duplicate originals-- to academic
authorities who still need to use paperclips. So we will not tamper
with the "original originals," easy as it would be to do so. We
have already turned down one reasonable request to change a spelling
error. We have set up our archives (which are way back there, well
"behind" the versions in the Fileserv) as "read only," of course,
and we pledge that we will do our best to maintain the integrity of
those files. We may make a mistake, someday, but we operate on the
principle that what we send out will not be tampered with by
embarrassed time travellers. That's one reason for publishing
these supplemental discussions as separate issues, accepting the
risk of some confusion caused by the distribution of a Volume 1
("1991") issue in the middle of the Volume 2 ("1992") calendar year.
Ted Jennings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supplement to the Volume 1 Number 3 (November, 1991) essay by Doug Brent,
"Oral Knowledge, Typographic Knowledge, Electronic Knowledge: Speculations
on the History of Ownership"
Here, with their permission, is a discussion between Doug Brent and Bob Hering
on the subject of Doug Brent's "Ownership" article in our November, 1991 issue
(V1N3). Bob originally sent his comments to Doug personally, but it seemed to
him (and to the editor) that the difference of outlooks represents a
philosophical crux --not just between slightly left and right political views,
but (as the exchange will suggest) between two views of the relative power of
economics and technology.
Readers may want to turn their dialogue into a polylog; we'd be happy to keep
this thread spinning. You can send for the complete text of the "Ownership"
article with the following message addressed to the Listserver at Albany:
Address: LISTSERV@ALBANY.BITNET
Message: GET EJRNL V1N3
The Brent-Hering Exchange about Owning Knowledge:
To: Doug Brent
Faculty of General Studies
University of Calgary
DABRENT@ACS.UCALGARY.CA
Subject: "Oral Knowledge, Typographic Knowledge, Electronic Knowledge:
Speculations on the History of Ownership"
[line 131]
-----Your Article in _EJournal_, Volume 1 Number 3, November, 1991
Please accept this message as a means of introduction. I am
presently an adjunct professor at Drexel University. I teach
graduate and undergraduate management courses as part of the
Management Division at Drexel.
I have a 35-year career background in the Information Management
industry and a long association with the Sperry Corp., subsequently
merged with the Burroughs Corp., into the Unisys Corp. I have a
strong interest in computing, telecommunications and information
management. My skills are specifically in the MS-DOS arena, with
proficiency in several business, financial, communications and
graphics applications.
Your recent article in _EJournal_ is very interesting and
thoughtful; I would like to offer my comments and observations to
you.
General comments:
The perspective you offer about knowledge ownership across the oral,
literate and cyberspace constructs contain important, clearly
delineated comparisons. In addition to the fluidity provided to
"text" through cybernetics, and the difficulties associated with
ownership, there are other issues to be considered: legal, right
to privacy, and corporate and public networking matters come to
mind, to name a few.
Perhaps the key point you raise, as part of your conclusions, has to
do with economics. That area, linked with communal vs. individual
ownership, could be considered central to many societies and to the
systems or constructs devised to differentiate one developmental
phase from another.
[line 166]
A general observation is that, in my opinion, western societies have
evolved to the point of demanding individuality, which calls for
intellectual property, and that individuality can be associated with
value-added, economic independence.
Your observation that the "...merging of texts into new wholes which
are inseparable from their makers" (lines 614 & 615), could ensure
the downfall of the emerging cyberspace construct.
I will attempt to explain, in the specific comments below, why I
offer that consideration.
Specific comments:
In Section 2, on ownership of knowledge in oral societies, you
address the inseparability of creativity and performance in
transmitting knowledge. The "performance" aspect can be directly
equated to the "transmission or reproducibility" of the knowledge.
In that sense, the analogy to either the printing press or
cyberspace is common.
Even in oral societies, although knowledge was shared, each member
of the society had his or her specific role just as the teller of
tales did. The individuality surfaces in the sense of these
differing roles within the society, what you (or Ong) describe as
procedural knowledge.
I agree with your portrayal of knowledge ownership in literate
societies, (Section 3) with two exceptions, namely,
a) the "manuscript age analogy" -- the copying of these manuscripts
can be equated to that done by a Xerox machine, albeit a very slow
one. It was a mechanical form of reproduction, performed by humans
(both of which are now "fossilized"); [line 200]
b) the "romantic myth" (line 215) - while it is true that people
draw on the collectiv[Ae past (text or otherwise), certainly there are
instances that point directly to individuality, independent of past
knowledge. Names that charaterize independence such as Einstein, Da
Vinci, and Newton all demonstrated a creative originality that was
not dependent on past knowledge and substantiate the "myth." But,
in general, your point is well taken.
In Section 4, your reference to the "Boshwash Times," from Hiltz and
Turoff, stirs some comments. While the notion of a group Nobel Prize
is entirely conceivable, the suggestion that no member of the group
contributed more than any other implies communalism, socialism,
utopianism or just plain contrived modesty. The scenario begs
reality.
In Section 6, relative to copyright in cybernetic space, the
principal of copyrights can and should be maintained even though it
may be cumbersome. Stealing of intellectual property, text,
software, or concepts is not unique to cybernetics - it is simply
easier in this environment. A key factor is one of human choice, to
act professionally and responsibly. You seem to agree with that in
the context of "..acknowledging an original creator of an idea."
Contrary to your conclusion, that is the same as the claim to
ownership. It simply is not as easy as it was in "fossilized text."
I have great difficulty understanding your observation that when
knowledge enters electronic space, "..it seems equally natural to
surrender it." It is here that the use of cybernetic space for
advancing knowledge is at great risk. If safeguards are not put in
place to protect intellectual property ownership, economic factors
will dilute the use of this space significantly. Charging for bytes
and blocks of data (information) is completely independent of the
knowledge itself.
In Section 7, with respect to the Bolter paragraph, and the chaotic
state of electronic writing space, I can only suggest - so is the
entire physical universe as we know it.
[line 239]
With regard to your reference to communal knowing as optimistic, I
would humbly suggest that others would view that as a pessimistic or
negative outlook. You are correct that ".. the relationship between
economics and knowledge will be rearranged into new formations,...."
Again, in my opinion, if cybernetics, as a means of creation and
transmission, is to contribute significantly to human knowledge, the
value of the creation and the economic compensation to humans will
be as or more important than it was/is today.
I thoroughly enjoyed and appreciated what your article portrayed and
the effort your article required. Many more educators, government
agencies and businesses need to do the same if this very exciting
new era is to come of age. I wish you the best in your current and
future endeavors.
Regards,
Bob Hering
Drexel University
HERINGCR@DUVM.BITNET
* * * * *
To: Mr. Bob Hering
Drexel University
Bob:
Thanks for your interesting, thoughtful (and flattering) response to
my article. I think that you put your finger on some extremely
important issues. The differences between our points of view suggest
two quite different responses to the possible future of cyberspace,
and reflect, I think, two different philosophies of our relationship
to technology. This makes the discussion really interesting.
Before getting on to what I see as the really important discussion,
let me clarify the two minor points you address regarding my
portrayal of knowledge in literate societies.
[line 278]
First, you disagree with my comment that "During the manuscript age,
the painstaking copying and illustrating of a manuscript was in some
respects a personal performance of knowledge analogous to the
performance of an epic poem or folk tale." You suggest instead that
manuscript copying can be likened to photocopying. I don't really
think so, simply because manuscript copying required the copyist to
handle each character individually with a loving care that--at least
until the twelfth century scriptoria made a business of it--was
often performed as an act of religious devotion. And although the
goal was to make the copy identical in *wording* to the original,
there was no thought of making it *look* like the original. Each
was typically illuminated in a highly original fashion that was not
necessarily copied from the source manuscript. It is this that
gives manuscript copying a different psychological texture from
photocopying, and led Ong to declare the manuscript age "residually
oral."
Second, you are not quite happy with my assertion that the idea of
the individual genius is a romantic myth. I would certainly agree
that the idea of the genius is not a myth. While some toil away
making minor improvements in the work that has preceeded them,
others such as the ones you mention make awesome leaps of
understanding, authoring Kuhnian "paradigm shifts" rather than
incremental advances. What I *do* see as a myth is the idea that
such genius stands alone. It is always a social genius, a rare gift
for taking the pieces of a puzzle that others have been forging and
turning them a totally new way so that they suddenly lock together
into a new configuration. It was Newton, I think, who said "If I
have seen further than others it is because I have stood on the
shoulders of giants." (If anyone out there can confirm the exact
source of this quotation, please pass it on--I've been trying to pin
it down for years.)
But enough of the minor details. On to the meat of the discussion.
You seems to agree to a large extent with my prediction that
ownership of knowledge will be more difficult in cyberspace and may
well disappear. But you disagree with my assertion that this could
well be a good thing. "It is here," you say, "that the use of
cybernetic space for advancing knowledge is at great risk. If
safeguards are not put in place to protect intellectual property
ownership, economic factors will dilute the use of this space
significantly." [line 321]
What you are saying, in effect, is that given the present economic
systems that have evolved, people will not continue to produce and
disseminate knowledge if their right to profit by it (that is, their
"ownership" of it, not just the polite acknowledgement that they
thought of it first) is not protected. If it comes to a choice
between cyberspace or profit, then, you argue that we will choose
profit. Only by protecting the right to profit from intellectual
labour can we protect cyberspace.
(I hope I am not mis-paraphrasing you here. I am not trying to set
up a straw man, for I think that this is a genuinely tenable and
respectable position; I am just trying to restate for clarity.)
You may well be right. The recent collapse of Communism seems to
make this view even more persuasive. A system in which direct
economic incentives for production were not in place resulted in a
stagnant economy, a bloated bureaucracy, and ultimately a lack not
just of consumer goods but of basic necessities. Human beings do
not seem well disposed to work (whether planting potatoes or
developing scientific breakthroughs) for the good of their souls.
The only way you could be wrong is if the theory of transformative
technologies states correctly the immense and unstoppable power of a
communications revolution. McLuhan asserts, and Ong develops more
thoroughly, the claim that when communications media shift to the
extent they did when the alphabet was introduced, everything
else--social systems, economics, consciousness itself--is dragged
along with the shift. This may create short-term economic crises,
but ultimately the economic system, like everything else, must
adapt. This does not mean that the entire capitalist system will
collapse in ruins; I think that in general capitalism is too strong
and in the long run too useful (yes, I said useful) to be
washed away.
[line 356]
This only means that the concept of private property will not be
applicable to knowledge in the rather crude form that either
copyright of hard-copy or pay-per-byte electronic systems has thus
far allowed. Ownership of knowledge is gradually becoming
untenable.
This is a very strong form of technological determinism, but it
works only on a massive scale. It does not assert that this or that
little wrinkle in the technological ether is inevitable -- we can,
if we like, reject certain forms of technology -- but it does assert
that some types of global shifts in communications style are
inevitable in the longer term. (Try to find a society that has
successfully resisted literacy once introduced to it.)
According to this theory, then, if it comes to a choice between
cyberspace and profit, we will not have the option of choosing
profit -- at least, not forever. Eventually the cyberspace
environment will force an entirely new way of thinking about
knowledge production. You hit the nail on the head when you call
this concept, illustrated by Hiltz and Turoff's collective Nobel
prize, "communalism, socialism, utopianism." It is indeed
communalism; that is exactly what I am arguing for. And it may well
be utopian, if you mean by that "a good state of being that cannot
be achieved in today's world." If you mean "a soft-headed view of a
future that could never occur," well, I must respectfully disagree.
In short, then, we have three possible scenarios:
1. We manage to maintain ownership of knowledge in cyberspace,
and cyberspace continues to exist within the present economic
system. (I argue that this is unlikely because the nature of
cyberspace makes it too difficult. You argue that it is unlikely
because the nature of economics makes it too difficult. But
whereas you think that this would be a positive outcome, I don't.
Here you and I assign opposite values to the same possible
outcome.)
[line 393]
2. We do not manage to maintain ownership of knowledge in
cyberspace, and cyberspace never develops its potential. (You
argue that this is possible because the nature of economics
prohibits communal knowledge on anything but a relatively local
scale. Neither of us likes this possible outcome much, as both of
us like the possibilities afforded by the cybernetic revolution.
If we didn't, we wouldn't be sharing this piece of cyberspace right
now.)
3. We do not manage to maintain ownership of knowledge in
cyberspace, and the capitalist system, *at least as it applies to
information exchange,* must adapt or die. (I argue that this is a
likely, or at least a possible, outcome, and also that it could be
a good one. Here again we assign opposite values to the same
possible outcome.)
I suppose it would be possible to assign this difference of opinion
to a left - right "ideological" dichotomy, because I seem to
support capitalism more reluctantly than you.
But I don't think our differences are ideological, let alone
"political." What we have put our finger on in this
exchange is the difference in how much we believe in the transforming
power of communication technology versus the staying power of the
present economic system. My Utopian vision depends utterly on
McLuhan, Ong and Heim being more right than wrong. The entire
scenario painted in my "Ownership" article is nothing more than the
detailed working-out of their theories as applied to a particular
aspect of knowledge.
Actually, if the truth be known, I am not absolutely sure that they
really are more right than wrong. But I sure hope so. I find the
idea of communal knowledge in cyberspace to be truly exciting.`
All the best,
Doug Brent
Faculty of General Studies
University of Calgary
DABRENT@ACS.UCALGARY.CA
[ This exchange in Volume 1 Number 3-1 of _EJournal_ (July 1992 supplement to
November 1991) is (c) copyright _EJournal_. Permission is hereby granted to
give it away. _EJournal_ hereby assigns any and all financial interest to Doug
Brent and Bob Hering. This note must accompany all copies of this text. ]
[line 439]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------- I N F O R M A T I O N ------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About Subscribing and Sending for Back Issues:
In order to: Send to: This message:
Subscribe to _EJournal_: LISTSERV@ALBANY.BITNET SUB EJRNL Your Name
Get Contents/Abstracts
of previous issues: LISTSERV@ALBANY.BITNET GET EJRNL CONTENTS
Get Volume 1 Number 1: LISTSERV@ALBANY.BITNET GET EJRNL V1N1
Send mail to our "office": EJOURNAL@ALBANY.BITNET Your message...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About "Supplements":
_EJournal_ is experimenting with ways of revising, responding to, reworking, or
even retracting the texts we publish. Authors who want to address a subject
already broached --by others or by themselves-- may send texts for us to
consider publishing as a Supplement issue. Proposed supplements will not go
through as thorough an editorial review process as the essays they annotate.-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About Letters:
_EJournal_ is willing publish letters to the editor. But we make no
predictions about how many, which ones, or what format. The "Letters" column
of a periodical is a habit of the paper environment, and _EJournal_ readers
can send outraged objections to our essays directly to the authors. Also, we
can publish substantial counterstatements as articles in their own right, or as
"Supplements." Even so, when we get brief, thoughtful statements that appear
to be of interest to many subscribers they will appear as "Letters."
[line 474]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About Reviews:
_EJournal_ is willing to publish reviews of almost anything that seems to fit
under our broad umbrella: the implications of electronic networks and texts.
We do not, however, solicit and thus cannot provide review copies of fiction,
prophecy, critiques, other texts, programs, hardware, lists or bulletin boards.
But if you would like to bring any publicly available information to our
readers' attention, send your review (any length) to us, or ask if writing one
sounds to us like a good idea.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About _EJournal_:
_EJournal_ is an all-electronic, Matrix distributed, peer-reviewed, academic
periodical. We are particularly interested in theory and practice surrounding
the creation, transmission, storage, interpretation, alteration and replication
of electronic text. We are also interested in the broader social,
psychological, literary, economic and pedagogical implications of computer-
mediated networks. The journal's essays are delivered free to Bitnet/ Internet/
Usenet addressees. Recipients may make paper copies; _EJournal_ will provide
authenticated paper copy from our read-only archive for use by academic deans
or others. Individual essays, reviews, stories-- texts --sent to us will be
disseminated to subscribers as soon as they have been through the editorial
process, which will also be "paperless." We expect to offer access through
libraries to our electronic Contents and Abstracts, and to be indexed and
abstracted in appropriate places.
Writers who think their texts might be appreciated by _EJournal_'s audience are
invited to forward files to EJOURNAL@ALBANY.BITNET . If you are wondering
about starting to write a piece for to us, feel free to ask if it sounds
appropriate. There are no "styling" guidelines; we try to be a little more
direct and lively than many paper publications, and considerably less hasty and
ephemeral than most postings to unreviewed electronic spaces. We read ASCII;
we look forward to experimenting with other transmission and display formats
and protocols.
[line 511]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Board of Advisors:
Stevan Harnad Princeton University
Dick Lanham University of California at L.A.
Ann Okerson Association of Research Libraries
Joe Raben City University of New York
Bob Scholes Brown University
Harry Whitaker University of Quebec at Montreal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consulting Editors - July 1992
ahrens@hartford John Ahrens Hartford
ap01@liverpool.ac.uk Stephen Clark Liverpool
crone@cua Tom Crone Catholic University
dabrent@acs.ucalgary.ca Doug Brent University of Calgary
djb85@albnyvms Don Byrd University at Albany
donaldson@loyvax Randall Donaldson Loyola College
ds001451@ndsuvm1 Ray Wheeler North Dakota
eng006@unoma1 Marvin Peterson University of Nebraska, Omaha
erdt@pucal Terry Erdt Purdue Calumet
fac_aska@jmuvax1 Arnie Kahn James Madison University
folger@yktvmv Davis Foulger IBM - Watson Center
george@gacvax1 G. N. Georgacarakos Gustavus Adolphus
gms@psuvm Gerry Santoro Pennsylvania State University
nrcgsh@ritvax Norm Coombs Rochester Institute of Technology
pmsgsl@ritvax Patrick M. Scanlon Rochester Institute of Technology
r0731@csuohio Nelson Pole Cleveland State University
ryle@urvax Martin Ryle University of Richmond
twbatson@gallua Trent Batson Gallaudet
usercoop@ualtamts Wes Cooper Alberta
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
University at Albany Computing Services Center:
Isabel Nirenberg, Bob Pfeiffer; Ben Chi, Director
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editor: Ted Jennings, English, University at Albany
Managing Editor: Ron Bangel, University at Albany
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
University at Albany State University of New York Albany, NY 12222 USA