As I continue to drown in my thesis work (spatiality/architecture/human behavoir), like any other grad student, my mind wanders around. Taking some theory with it to throw at other weird and unrelated life concepts. This week I played around with the concept of non-physical/abstract phenomena becoming Objects depending on their context.

An example of this is Peace or Contentment. We often say that we're looking for it, finding it or approaching it. We emphasize the journey we experience in order to reach Peace or Contentment in a way that physicalizes the properties of which we seek. Peace or Contentment are a location we must reach, and if we fail to reach it, we may be left feeling shame or guilt. Adversely, when we do "find it", the gratification is likely highlighted because you, now have or own the thing. The phrase "happy place", although useful in so many facets of therapy and self affirmation, can be inherently dangerous to the healing process occurring if that place is never quite reached - or is quickly “left" like a vacation spot.

However, rather than ascribing to the notion that Peace can be lost, or happiness is in a person - how can we leverage language to build a framework that encourages graciously accepting the spectrum of experience?

Love is another non-physical / abstract phenomena that typically becomes an object through our perceptions of it. We are always seeking or trying to find it, as if the *it* (Love) is an object one could simply pick up at the store, or stumble upon at the park. We sometimes say "it (Love) hit me like a rock!" or "I didn't expect to find love there".

It's a super strange reality we've inadvertently created for ourselves through our language. It both seems more like a trap than a framework that frees us. If we were to consider framing this emotional phenomena differently - I wonder how language adjustments could make these concepts less objectifiable? 

If we were to consider Love, Peace, or Happiness as resources that we “generate” rather than “find” - would that instill a sense of agency instead of desperate searching?

I further wonder how this phenomena affects our perceptions of all human emotions and relations. They are all abstract, yet we configure them to be more manageable? Emotions are unwieldy as hell, and this is far from a complete thought. But certainly a thoughtful ledger to consider.

Oxford dictionary's word of the year for 2016 was "Post-truth". This year, "Fake News" became a culturally viral phrase. In class, my students fretted about the legitimacy of their sources. It seems the trust in scholarship has declined, but I don't like comparing history to present because the context can be misleading. Misleading juxtapositions, phrasings and presentations can lead to convoluted opinions that can have very real consequences in life. 

Through my work I've come to recognize that through dialogue, we can craft or at least manipulate our reality. Through attempting improved perception, we tend to act differently, perhaps better in many situations. Misleading material can impede this process and make it so easy for our audiences to maintain paranoia, extreme distrust and conspiracy rhetoric on their own corners of the internet. 

Prior to 2004 and the launch of Facebook, I would argue that we were mainly consumers of content. Only few of us created and even fewer created material to be consumed by the masses. Today, where there are endless platform options for creation, we have all become media makers. But very few makers create with their audience and after effects in mind. It feels irresponsible to know we can endlessly push content, but take little pride in its audience impact. It has gotten so bad, the culture surrounding content creation is distrustful. There is an entire website dedicated to locating and archiving shitty headlines from all over daily. It's scary to me how misleading we allow our content lure's to become all in hopes of a news rating that's profitable. It makes sense, but it breeds all these other fringe issues that largely affect the whole. 

This is clearly a super large can of worms, one I'll likely visit in a more professional manner. What I'm attempting to guide you towards (my dear few readers), is the idea that as we move forward in our own careers, whether directly involved in profitable or for-fun content creation, we must maintain a responsibility for the things we create. 

I don't mean giving up on being recklessly artistic (go for it, go crazy, get all the bio-degradable glitter out) I just mean, if you're out there as an English or communications major, any journalists or young writers or musicians or artists, whatever it may be: Be Responsible. Think of the impact you have on your audiences. Remind yourself, if you're vegan, vegetarian, a millennial, LGBTQ+ identified, there is something in your heart that burns for something better in this life. You all have an idea of what this ideal society is. Language, our content, all of it, matters to that outcome. Although you may feel small, responsibly creating things that better our lives is a commendable, honorable choice. Make articles that challenge misleading headline culture! Make art that forces people to address themselves! Make music that screams about these issues! Throw shade! And throw it well! 

It's an ongoing joke in several of my core rhetoric classes that everything is a circle. Each time someone asks me a question about this or that, I struggle not answering with, "Well, it's an information system...a circle...again, which means it's both" Every time I bring up the circle we all laugh because it's truthful in part. 

Rhetoric has taught me to see nothing as dichotomous - it's impossible. It is never just one reason or another, its a compilation of problems. A timeline's worth of events that accumulate into tension. A good example are the dichotomous arguments we see regularly in American politics. You either take away the guns, or you amp them up. It's either the democrat's fault, or the republican's. It's either "handouts" or no support for the poor, etc. We know these, we've heard them for decades. 

Dichotomous logic leads audiences into very easy conclusions - it's them, not me. This encouraged Blame Game leads to a lack of critical thinking and a laziness that extends to the masses in which they do not see the value in small actions within their community and lives to affect the whole. By introducing rhetorical thinking, or even just the basic appeals and awareness of context at an earlier age than college, I really think we can move away from that kind of thinking. 

Kids already ask "why? Why? Why?" all the time! We are apt to shut it down most of the time, but don't always indulge their games. I believe - of course I am not the entire authority here being young, still in school and what not - that introducing rhetorical concepts at an early age would bring about an age of root reasoning and expansive perspective exploration. In teaching those concepts, it can be hard to logically move towards a one answer conclusion because one would have all the tools to think about the other factors in play. 

Dialogue can create reality - it can introduce perspective, widen one, and open the eyes to expansive possibilities in situations where it can be so easy to boil everything down. I hope in the future that my colleagues and I will work to create a curriculum that supports that kind of thinking and wonderlust into elementary schools and beyond. Even if it doesn't work in the way I suppose, students would still be learning advanced critical thinking that could lead them to more aware lives. 

Earlier last week I mulled through a fair amount of Heidegger. I'm not fond of his work but the concepts fuel so much of my current research it's necessary to familiarize myself with the material. But in that lies a question, how important is reading the primary source when it's been synthesized better elsewhere?  Most colleagues that I work with will vehemently defend the need to read primary sources, but those same colleagues balk at reading sources from writers that conflict with their own views. 

Martin Heidegger was a Nazi. Worst of all, he was silent about the ungodly things happening aound him and a few bits of his writing even contained explicit anti-semetic language.  Further, he never apologized or rescinded his implied views. Since he joined the Nazi party in 1933 he was subsequently banned from teaching later in life. Although he lightly implied that he regretted his decisions, a man with all that authority and privilege never took a moment to discuss his mistakes. As someone who is toted so worldly and well-knowing, I would expect better. 

Times were different then. But it is 2018 and I don't necessarily agree with having to be forced to read primary material because it's synthesized so many other ways. There are many scholars that have done that work for us, taking something dense and turning it into something applicable. I believe they have more the right to be read than Heidegger. 

The values that the Digital Humanities and the general academic Rhetoric community don't seem to support requiring Heidegger source text. Just in case, my dear, few readers, you are reading this and would like to join the conversation, I've turned the comments on.

I feel so unjust when I read and use Heidegger as a source because I feel I have no excuse to use him when others have done better with his ideas. I also feel so slighted when I am forced to read works of problematic white men simply because other, better hearted people have crafted more sound works. This issue isn't necessarily a huge one for the Digital Humanities but discourse about problems such as these can open some great dialogue about what we can do better. 

This is a sort of response to Bruce Sterling's "Stop Saying Smart Cities" article released earlier this year. 

It was an insightful article - it gave voice to many of the fears we all harbor as humans navigating these always new integrated spaces. It also identified the bullshit that surrounds much of our incentive for integration. Data, our data, in all its complexities, is a highly desired resource. It can be used for so many innovative ventures - but it's usually used for advertising and other capitalistic plans. Ideally, if we can collect all the right data and a LOT of it, we can always give our users exactly what they want. This doesn't sound all that bad, as a user, I am glad when I receive ads and coupons for the things I really use. But Sterling highlights that it's not a future we should encourage. 

I agree, wholeheartedly. If we continue with the "smart" city vision we've got going right now, all we'll be left with is half-baked, chaotic, systematically oppressive algorithmic technologies in our cities and neighborhoods. Sketchy at best. He postulates that in bad parts of the city, the algorithms would shuffle all deviant behavior right into prison.

He's right in so many ways - but I choose to disagree with his bitterness. There's nothing bright in this future he's imagined and although it may be shallow to discount his fears on account of my sanity - I choose to imagine something more fantastic. Do not confuse me with an idealist. Or worse, an optimist. I would rather you see me as a slightly hopeful student - still clinging to the potential of decency as to not hang myself during finals. I hope, that through the digital humanities, STEAM (not STEM), other humanistic integrations and discussions, we can come to a safer, less shitty outcome. I hope that the smart cities that Bruce Sterling say don't and won't ever exist, are something I (and my classmates, my cohorts, and other bad ass tech friends) can bring into fruition.

Why can't I have a city that supports and interests me by using my data? Why can't we use SPIMES as a wholehearted way to reduce excess and solve our materials problems? Why can't we use surveillance as a way to stop the most horrible things from happening? What I wouldn't give to have cameras in the parking lot where I was assaulted. Or technology in the building I was harassed in. Or something that could alert the police when my cousin was stolen, never to be seen again. Why am I not entitled to a smart city with smart schools and smart technology? 

I studied architecture in high school for 3 years and readily applied the concepts during my time as an art student. Although I ended up getting my degree in professional writing/rhetoric instead, I still carry over many of those theories in my work. As of late, I've decided that I'll continue my exploration of spatiality, the effect of space, what it implicates for purpose and how it binds the body to behavior. 

To create a more palpable relation to the academic space I'm working in, I'll be relating the ideas to classroom spaces and maybe even labs for collaboration and experimentation. We discussed making and makerspaces along with the "internet of things" and Between Bits and Atoms, a piece written by Jentery Sayers and others. 

Bits and Atoms addressed a number of ideas regarding physical computing and desktop fabrication - they discuss what all of these developments in making mean to the digital humanities. They touch on responsibly using materials, convival computing, and they point out the many uses that fabrication can bring to a number of disciplines. They put quite a bit of focus on what those technologies have done to their makerspaces. 

Makerspaces are exactly what they sound like. A space in which one makes. Since it's an action based title - the room must facilitate the variety of actions implied. Creating a space in which everyone can make and be actionable is really challenging. Most classrooms and lab spaces confine the students to structures that sort of inhibit the desired actions. I.e - the classroom where I hosts workshops, none of the tables can be moved and the chairs are wickedly diverse. Which leads to students getting frustrated when they can't form groups easily or turn and discuss things with a classmate. 

I find that very rarely do Universities, businesses or institutions take the time to design the spaces to encourage their desired outcomes. Technology has made these rooms even more complicated in many ways. Often time, people see different types of technology as black boxed wonder to solve all their problems in the classroom - but without addressing the technology from a spatial and adoption/adaption lens, the integration may be horribly unsuccessful. 

I suggest - after this sort of disorganized rambling - to think before we make spaces. I have no authority to change these patterns of design - but I think it's important to say on the record anyway. If we were to create spaces with their end goals in mind, or at least what they expect to be accomplished in that room, the making would improve.  

I presented this week about why I believe kids should code. Ideally, I wish I had the money to back some sort of scholarship fund, or nationwide initiative. Maybe one day I can make it work.

Ted Underwood's The Stone and the Shell post, "Where to Start with Text Mining" emphasized that textual analysis isn't new. Our, "wrinkled spongy protein" brain is already much better at analyzing literature than most computers.  It's the large scale text crunching that's new, and it's hard for us to imagine all the possibilities because we're not used to thinking like that. But in combo with computers, we can accomplish a lot.

My Old Sweethearts: On Digitization and the Future of the Print Record by Andrew Stafford concluded with the argument that DH exists because of the value we place on both the digital memory as well as the physical text. It is the existence and the situational exploration of both that provides validity.

After those readings and ideas stewed in my mind, seasoned by a whole week spent on basic coding introductions, I started to think about all the opportunities kids had to dive into the practice. Learning late has been such a curve, but they do this stuff early right? I learned that this was not the case.

After a bit of research I realized that the only kids who get to really dive into coding and digital manipulation/creativity are those who parent's pockets run deep. Cubetto is an educational robot and coding interface for children 3 and up. It's lowest offer is about $250, the most expensive is far over $300. Other toys like Fisher Price's Code-a-Pillar is about $40 which is cheaper, but still likely not the first choice for many parents.

When I looked at coding camps toted as havens for creative kids, these prices were even more jaw dropping. An ID camp offered at USF is no less than $900 a week not including food, overnight fees or any bonuses kids may be interested. Only incredibly well off families can afford these expenses and schools certainly do not support coding initiatives in elementary school.

I believe that the whim like brilliance in children would be even more beneficial when supplemented with coding and digital manipulation lessons. As scholars working in DH now, we have to think backwards almost. We're used to looking at text analysis and manipulation in a different way because we've had to integrate those tools and processes pretty damn late. But if we were to teach kids that value of dualism, the awesome human brain and the power of the computer mind would be an incredible thought revolution.

I believe teaching coding early, like we do and encourage with any other language, would enable applicable innovation and creativity within each child. Hybridized thinking processes may be the answer to so many of the problems we struggle to see.

Here is my PechaKucha and script on the topic.

I'm Behind on these reading responses which is regrettable because I have so much to rant about. So strap in, it's going to be a busy post.  

If you're reading this, I can nearly guarantee that you're at least interested in this stuff or another nerd searching for brain nuggets.  On the menu for this ledger? Data collection and girls.  

Since my first Isaac Asimov novel, I've been consistently obsessed with the power that technology grants to people. It's a god-like gift being able to transcend the physical into manipulatable space.  

I quickly learned that technology isn't like a superpower at all unless you've been diving into a technique for decades. Even then, your power might not be accepted or valued due to the social/rhetorical situation.  

Bethany Nowviskie had a quick article about this issue in regards to women being generally forgotten in data mining conferences and panels. The offenders? Fairly amicable. They took Bethany's advice into account and I hope to see a follow-up Tweet thread about these improvements.  

But the turnaround isn't always that quick, nor does offense result in response as often. In my own time in IT-related jobs I've noticed this. In the academic world, It's rampant. There are so many areas that cause surprise to people when they notice a woman among its ranks. I keep hoping that the older I get, the fewer these instances would occur but it's quite the opposite. Many of my friends and I have been passed over when promotions arise simply because we are seen as lesser.  

My previous post had a lot to do with transparency and I believe gender complaints/issues/tensions might benefit from increased transparency in the discussion. I should be able to say to my employer that I believe they passed me over due to gender, and I should not have to expect relentless backlash for saying so.  I joke around with my coworkers that I'm just a tech princess and I'll never be the hero, they'll laugh and then some sober up and look at me with such sorry faces. They know it's true and I hope they'll change that. Many of my coworkers have moved onto high paying jobs at Microsoft, Google and Reliaquest. One day, when they hold the authority to hire, I hope they'll think of me. 

But, as disappointing as clichés are, this, is so, so normal. I wonder how this will change as access to technology and technological education increases.