tmaddox@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Maddox) (05/31/91)
[MODERATOR'S NOTE: Tom Maddox replies to some strong feelings expressed on alt.cyberpunk regarding discussion of virtual reality. Please excuse the base language employed here. It is necessary to understand the virulence of the emotions felt by some. I hope that the discussion on sci.virtual- worlds can be conducted on the plane suggested by Tom. -- Bob Jacobson] In article <10232@idunno.Princeton.EDU> eliot@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Eliot Handelman) writes: >[Referring to Cybercon2] ... given that we can't seem to get >any information about these talks, in part because these f***ers >refuse to disseminate their ideas in a form congenial to the topic at >hand, ie, on the f***ing net, in part because those who report on >these conferences can't understand what the f*** these people are talking >about -- given this, all we can conclude is: very poor information >transfer. Granted--a series of mystified references to literary types does not constitute a summary of a conference, and it is absolutely necessary to hear what (whoever it was) had to say. Did the proceedings volume that was supposed to come out of last year's conference ever surface? I haven't seen it. And of course not a single one of that crowd ever replied to your asking why they couldn't post it all on the net. >Hmmm? Original definition of "cyberschmuck": "a pontiff of information >who hasn't heard of USENET." New definition of cyberschmuck: "a pontiff >of information who wants to curtail possible venues of information, or >who hasn't heard of USENET." Wait, are you saying that anyone posting on Usenet *can't be a cyberschmuck*? That notion had never occurred to me; in fact, I thought of Usenet as "Home of Cyberschmucks"--not that it's the only home of same, or that everyone here (easy, folks) is a cyberschmuck, but . . . >The world, though boring, is a big place, and information encompasses >its bigness. If the techs and crits can't "exchange" information, >can't, at the very fucking least, get a buzz out of each other, and >even seem to be bored by each other -- if the information is too >big, or too abstruse, or too unrelated, then the need to narrow >this bigness, the need to bring this narrowing under the technological >wing, OUGHT to be at least as expressive as the technology they hope >for. Granted, again. I was just responding through my fear & loathing regarding many of my brethren in Christ the academic f***ing literary theorists, many of whom have had their thought and speech centers entirely taken over by one virus or another--language is a virus from outer space, indeed, but it's found a home on Earth. >Of course, it's inevitable that the crits will go their way and the >techs theirs. They won't be able to resolve their differences, and >VR will ultimately be about perspectives of virtual cubes. But >it's nice to think, all the same, that the subject of "reality" >tried, for a while at least, to accomodate perspectives for which >a descriptive or encapsulating language lacked. Well, you're making me feel as if this in the words of Strother Martin "failure to communicate" has downright tragic implications, because you're right--this is a brief window of *possible* information transfer, and even it is clouded badly by mutual incomprehension, insularity, self- regard, and two cultures xenophobia. I just realized that my experience of all this is badly skewed by a one-day experience: a tour of MCC,Inc. (American's cockamamie answer to Japan's even more cockamamie Fifth Generation project) a year and a half ago. Gibson, Sterling, Shiner, Cadigan, W. J. Williams, Ellen Datlow, and I got a series of demos, a tour of the joint, a lunch, some free drinks; and in return we did a panel of sorts (at which, for some reason, John McCarthy was in the audience). The whole experience was vaguely depressing, not least because try as we all might on both sides, there was very little real information exchanged. And regarding the panel, they seemed to expect a bit of trad sf cheerleading for High! Technology! but got instead several kinds of cautions about it all ranging from glum to antagonistic. Some folks went back last year, but I haven't really talked to anyone about it; maybe things went a bit better, especially as there were some folks who might have the proper tecno-politics, such as Vernor Vinge (no knock on him; he seems a genuinely smart and nice guy). Anyway . . . so there was all this mutual lack of real connection, and I got the sense that most people there would liked to have been of help to one another, but no one could really find a way. And the reports I've had from this front (the various vr dog and pony shows, for instance) also indicate little success here. I feel that trying harder isn't the answer. We, that is, the non- technoids who have some sort of compelling interest in this stuff, and they, the folks who build the hardware and write the software, have got to find some semantic space in which to talk to one another. Otherwise, as you say, it's back to cyberspace as purely technical enterprise, which will be to all our detriment. -- Tom Maddox tmaddox@milton.u.washington.edu "It is imperative to write invulnerable sentences." -- Hugo Ball
tmaddox@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Maddox) (06/02/91)
>[MODERATOR'S NOTE: Tom Maddox replies to some strong feelings expressed on >alt.cyberpunk regarding discussion of virtual reality. Please excuse the >base language employed here. Bob, I seem to recall your taking exception (in one of the EFF groups) to a moderator's heavy-handed editorializing. Let *me* take exception to yours. In particular, I find myself mortified that I inadvertently exposed Eliot Handelman to your moralistic "base language" comment. I was the one who cross-posted this message, and I was the one who agreed to letting it be expurgated, but in fact the original insight was Eliot's, and I was merely building on it. I sometimes wonder just how great the divide is that separates not disciplines but the habits of those who work in them. Is the simple use of an extremely common expletive really so heinous? I find Eliot's original message both funny and insightful, as I did his original insistence that the powers that are with regard to Cyberspace 1 should make their proceedings available electronically. So let me publicly apologize to Eliot for making him the target of your scorn. I think his original language, as posted in alt.cyberpunk, was *entirely appropriate* for its venue, and I'm sorry that I exported it to one where the standards of decorum are so inflexible. -- Tom Maddox tmaddox@milton.u.washington.edu "It is imperative to write invulnerable sentences." -- Hugo Ball [MODERATOR'S NOTE: I absolutely disagree. There are several reasons why alt.cyberpunk is considered trivial; in the opinion of many, choice of language is one of them. I choose not to import alt.cyberpunk habits to this newsgroup. And yes, I considered Eliot's language quite base, even more so in the context of his vindictive attack. I missed the humor. In fact, I missed most of what Eliot was screaming about until I got past the yelping. Filtering is a moderator's responsibility. I never cut content. -- Bob Jacobson]
eliot@phoenix.princeton.edu (Eliot Handelman) (06/04/91)
>[MODERATOR'S NOTE: Tom Maddox replies to some strong feelings expressed on >alt.cyberpunk regarding discussion of virtual reality. Please excuse the >base language employed here. It is necessary to understand the virulence >of the emotions felt by some. I hope that the discussion on sci.virtual- >worlds can be conducted on the plane suggested by Tom. -- Bob Jacobson] >> >[MODERATOR'S NOTE: I absolutely disagree. There are several reasons why >alt.cyberpunk is considered trivial; in the opinion of many, choice of >language is one of them. I choose not to import alt.cyberpunk habits to >this newsgroup. And yes, I considered Eliot's language quite base, even >more so in the context of his vindictive attack. I missed the humor. In >fact, I missed most of what Eliot was screaming about until I got past the >yelping. Filtering is a moderator's responsibility. I never cut content. >-- Bob Jacobson] Bob, You write that my article is "vindictive attack," an "expression" of "virulent emotions"; that it's necessary to understand such "strong feelings": and that I "yelp" and "scream". Bob, you can't possibly know what I feel. You are, quite simply, projecting. The "fucks" that appeared in my article had to do with the particular language-game Tom and I were playing, liberally ironized, partly to catch out the other language player, who might, erroneously, take things at face value---an egregious faux pas in literary circles. We were in our own semantic space, our own virtual reality. There are a number of fairly indirect constructions in my article, Bob, that allude to some common interests: Tom understood those references, and consequently my language. That you don't Bob, is forgiveable: but please don't be so adamant in insisting on the universality of your own reading strategies, which happen to be inappropriate here. Flexible reading strategies -- flexible strategies of knowledge and communication -- are, after all, the topic here. E. Handelman Cognitive Science Lab., Princeton University, 221 Nassau St., Princeton, NJ 08544-2093. [MODERATOR'S NOTE: Out of context, the "language-game" did not appear to be a game and the meaning of the exchange, at least for me, was lost in the banality of the language itself. I don't think I'm so unique; the effect might have been the same for many, perhaps most readers. If you guys will practice your context setting, our communications will be much better all around. Most of us aren't privy to your private dialogical parries, Eliot. We do the best with what you supply us. Thanks for set- ting the context after, but next time, care before. -- Bob Jacobson]