Specifically, Weinberger deals with the difference between the implicit and explicit. He notes that as hard as we try to make meaning and provide information, there is also a great deal of meaning in what we choose not to include. We create a web of implicit relationships and the links between these relationships thus creates meaning. Furthermore, there is an interesting point that Weinberger brings up that should be discussed. He asserts that there is a paradox of the digital order by pointing out that "As we pull the leaves from the trees and make a pile of the miscellaneous, we free the leaves from their implicit context". He means that our nature to tag, and comment, and, be explicit through the technological order, in turn diminishes its implicit context. We are constantly making decisions about what should be said and what should be unsaid, and in turn we are making decisions on how much we trust can be inferred. And to be frank, I feel as though our powers of inference have already suffered because of this. Remember the lady who sued McDonalds because her coffee was too hot? Honestly, the day we need signs on our coffee saying "HOT", which I think is already starting to happen, is the day our society can no longer comprehend 'what nothing says'.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
What Nothing Says
Looking at the buddies on my Instant Messenger list, the one user name that always stands out is "SilenceIsMurder". It makes me stop, if only for a millisecond, and think about the power of silence. We're all familiar with the notion that words are the carriers of meaning, and that in order to establish an argument you must first craft a well organized assortment of words. Ironically, as the power of words grew, so did the power of silence. To prove this, I thought about when I used to get in trouble by my parents. When I did something wrong and I got yelled at, I'd be a little upset, but eventually we moved on. However if I did something wrong, and all my mother did was look at me with a livid expression, I would be terrified. I feel that is true with most people. At least if you get yelled at there is a dialogue and an effort to resolve the conflict. However, the dreadful silence and trepidation of whats to come is simply murder. Therefore, the decision to use or omit words in an argument can be a very effective tool. The same is true in our technological world of advertisements and metadata, as Weinberger explains in this latest chapter.
Specifically, Weinberger deals with the difference between the implicit and explicit. He notes that as hard as we try to make meaning and provide information, there is also a great deal of meaning in what we choose not to include. We create a web of implicit relationships and the links between these relationships thus creates meaning. Furthermore, there is an interesting point that Weinberger brings up that should be discussed. He asserts that there is a paradox of the digital order by pointing out that "As we pull the leaves from the trees and make a pile of the miscellaneous, we free the leaves from their implicit context". He means that our nature to tag, and comment, and, be explicit through the technological order, in turn diminishes its implicit context. We are constantly making decisions about what should be said and what should be unsaid, and in turn we are making decisions on how much we trust can be inferred. And to be frank, I feel as though our powers of inference have already suffered because of this. Remember the lady who sued McDonalds because her coffee was too hot? Honestly, the day we need signs on our coffee saying "HOT", which I think is already starting to happen, is the day our society can no longer comprehend 'what nothing says'.
Specifically, Weinberger deals with the difference between the implicit and explicit. He notes that as hard as we try to make meaning and provide information, there is also a great deal of meaning in what we choose not to include. We create a web of implicit relationships and the links between these relationships thus creates meaning. Furthermore, there is an interesting point that Weinberger brings up that should be discussed. He asserts that there is a paradox of the digital order by pointing out that "As we pull the leaves from the trees and make a pile of the miscellaneous, we free the leaves from their implicit context". He means that our nature to tag, and comment, and, be explicit through the technological order, in turn diminishes its implicit context. We are constantly making decisions about what should be said and what should be unsaid, and in turn we are making decisions on how much we trust can be inferred. And to be frank, I feel as though our powers of inference have already suffered because of this. Remember the lady who sued McDonalds because her coffee was too hot? Honestly, the day we need signs on our coffee saying "HOT", which I think is already starting to happen, is the day our society can no longer comprehend 'what nothing says'.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment