How are Borges and Bush’s depictions of new media different from one another? (Think about the perspective they are taking it from, creating new from old, etc)
I feel like the first thing that should be pointed out is that neither author is thinking of a specific medium that we call "new media", like the computer. Rather, I feel like they are thinking about how we deal and expand our knowledge, which ties in to new media.
After reading the passages, I am under the impression that Borges wanted the reader to feel smothered by the realization of how complex human consciousness is. Boreg' tone when speaking about the "growing, dizzying net of divergent, convergent and parallel times" (Pg. 34). I think this shows how bewildering and convoluted mankind becomes as we expand our knowledge of the world. Honestly, just thinking of all of the different pollibilities of how my own life could have turned out, all of the different lives I could be, and, in a different demension, possibly am living because of my different choices is mind boggling! (By the way, did this passage make anyone else think of The Butterfly Effect?!?) Borges realizes that our knowledge and therefore power is much more complex, but seems lost as how to store and use that power.
Bush, however, seems so much more optimistic about the expansion of human knowledge. He states "...in the application of science to the needs and desires of man, it would seem to be a singularly unfortunate stage at which to terminate the process, or to lose hope as to the outcome" (Pg. 47). This statement I think sums up his outlook on new media: rather than simply feeling trapped by human knowledge, Bush wants to find new ways to harness knowledge and utilize it, as we can tell by his idea of the "memorex".
After reading the passage that Borges wrote, I have to admit that I was very confused. I couldn't really figure out what it had to do with new media. Then I read Rebecca's comment and it made much more sense (thanks Rebecca!). I agree with her in that Borges does seem a little put out by the complexity of the human mind. His very last line was my favorite "he does not know (no one can know) my innumerable contrition and weariness)". This shows that the man in the story was changed by the new ideas that were expressed to him, and personally, I think that new media plays a big part in changing our lives. It makes things easier and faster, and it can even make us forget what life was like before it.
This leads into Bush's writings in that he is so optimistic about the future of new technology. Instead of being astounded or confused by human intelligence, he suggests putting it to use and sharing it with others in something called the "memex". In some ways, his description of the memex reminded me of sort of a cross between the internet and a holographic desk. I like his proposition of harnessing our experiences, accepting the changes, and creating new media with what we have learned.
One of the main differences I sensed between the two essays was the differing tones each writer used when describing the advancement of life and technology in the future. As both Rebecca and Vanessa pointed out, Bush is clearly optimistic for the many new changes technology may experience as the years unfold. Borges, however, is rather skeptical. By having Dr. Yu Tsun commit murder in order to communicate to Berlin a bombing target via newspaper headlines, Borges suggests that the advancement of media may lead to a darker time where technology assists in the destruction of man. For, what Tsun's use of the newspaper ultimately achieves is the death of Albert and further violence in the war.
Although the two authors may differ in their hope for the future, I think it is interesting to note that a few of their ideas are pretty similar. For example, Borges' idea of a labyrinth of forking paths where each outcome "is the point of departure for other forkings" is the basic premise of Bush's Memex machine; the essential feature of the Memex is the process of tying two items together, or using "associative indexing" where "any item may be caused at will to select immediately and automatically another."
Both authors had different themes and different ways of presenting these themes. Borges had an interesting story that ended with a theme about the different possibilities of life, starting with new media and the many opportunities it presents to us. I, like Rebecca, instantly saw the sentence, "infinite series of times, in a growing, dizzying net of divergent, convergent, and parallel times." This shows that as knowledge and information expands, the possibilities become infinite. Life could progress in so many various ways, possibly benevolent or malevolent. Although Borges seemed to think that the possibilities were infinite, I, like David, did not think he was not quite as optimistic as Bush was.
Throughout Bush’s' article he described the many futuristic objects that were possible if humans would expand knowledge and had the memory capabilities to do so. Bush said that "technology could lead toward understanding and away from destruction." He seems to think that new media is always productive and will continue to develop as man does so. He did not discuss any consequences of technology, but only of the endless adventures it provides mankind. He introduces his idea of the "memex" which he says is a mechanized private file and library that serves several functions including acting as a memory tool for humans. - Allison R
After reading the introduction to Borges’ writing, I was intrigued by “hypertext” because I had never heard of such a thing before. I think my eyes are being opened to new media as a continuum, whereas before I thought of the line between old media and new media was very definite, for example, there was no internet, and then there was. I am interested in getting to know more lesser known facets of new media such as the hypertext described in this passage.
In Borges’ writing, I felt as if I could relate to the storyline of actively surveying the scene, yet constantly being confused. Borges uses the word “labyrinth” often and on page 32 says “I thought of a labyrinth of labyrinths, of on sinuous spreading labyrinth that would encompass the past and the future.” Though referring to finding Dr. Albert’s house, I believe that this statement reflects upon the way Borges feels about growing technology, adding urgency as it refers to the war.
Bush, on the other hand, is rather excited with the way that new media develops and constantly transforms. He is optimistic and wrapped up in the positives of technology, saying that “the world has arrived at an age of cheap complex devices of great reliability, and something is bound to come of it” (38). He sees many opportunities for the machine rather than the mind and views this as logic at its best. Contrary to Borges, Bush views growing technology as a way for man to gain intelligence as he states that even if the machine fails, man can learn from it (44).
I agree with Rebecca--the central idea in both pieces was not the concept of new media, but instead the transfer of ideas, and their pending effects upon people and societies. Despite the less optimistic tone that Borges's piece employed, I still feel that it had some optimistic undertones. Of course, Albert is murdered and taken for enemy and the notion of an endless, sinuous labyrinth is overwhelming--but Ts'ui Pên's infinite realities offer realities that can bend and shape how the individual perceives the world in unexpected--and beneficial--ways. In some manner, this is what new media seems to be attempting to achieve--those unfathomable reaches of the maze become more tangible to "various futures (not to all)." Although not all "futures" will ever cross every path of the forking garden, those paths are made more readily available through the use of new media. I think this is what Bush was attempting to argue in his article--through the use of an apparatus such as the memex which utilizes associative cataloguing, the transfer of ideas from person to person or from society to society more feasible, more memorable, and more human.
After reading the two excerpts, it is clear that both authors are passionate about new media, but express their feelings in very different ways. Like Vanessa, I was also very confused by Borges' interpretation, but after reading Rebecca's comment, I now appreciate the concept of multiple possibilities-sympbolized by the labyrinth. It was interesting to think about the effect that time has on the issue. "This network of times which approached one another, forked, broke off, or were unaware of one another for centuries, embraces all possibilities of time" (34). Although there are numerous way that we could advance in new media, the outcomes might be different depending on when the possibilities come into existence. I felt like this piece was more cautionary than Bush's, who was more driven to find ways to improve our way of life as we know it. I liked the example of the abacus, becuase even though it was advanced and practical for its' time, (like our keyboard), "...even this new machine will not take the scientist where he needs to go". Bush just wants to take advantage of our knowledge and creativity to create a more effiencient and productive world.
Halfway through the reading, after I finished The Garden of Forking Paths, I was left wondering how Borges’ story tied into our topic of “new media”, however, after continuing through and reading Bush, I found that there were quite a few connections that could be made between the two. Borges’ quote, an “infinite series of times, in a growing, dizzying net of divergent, convergent, and parallel times,” shows the complexity of human knowledge, which is almost the entire point of Bush’s writing. Bush talks about the various forms of recording and transferring data in our intricate society. The complexity of knowledge explained by Borges is now being stored by “establishing useful trails through the enormous mass of common record” which allows us to “grow in the wisdom or race experience.” (Bush)
In my opinion, Borges’ writing seemed to encompass the idea that our knowledge can take us down many different paths. In the intro of the story, it mentions how the internet was initially rejected. What if that had happened? What type of “new media” would we have today? Bush, on the other hand, seemed to look (and I’ll use the word that has been thrown around in previous posts) optimistically into the future about what the store of knowledge can become. It can evolve from the current state where everything needs physical interaction with electronics, to a day where there will be no need to have a mechanical middle-man. (3rd to last paragraph on pg 47) That thought is definitely the most intriguing one presented.
I thought that Borges' infinite labyrinth was a metaphor to the human brain. Each of our thoughts are interconnected and linked to one another in ways that to this very day, science has not yet figured out. The infinite ways that these "forking paths" communicate with each other and the way that an infinite number of possibilities can occur is what Bush says the memex should imitate. Bush describes the positive effects of how linking by association, something that humans but not machines can do, is useful and desirable. I think that the way that the internet today is organized very much resembles the labyrinth in its complexities and many possible outcomes. With links on different webpages to other webpages, people can explore a number of different possibilities and end with different information learned.
Borges and Bush both recognize that human knowledge has increased beyond our ability to know how much we know, and that it has increased nearly beyond our ability to contain it. Borges presents the story of the "Garden of Forking Paths." Each fork in the path represents the complexity of our knowledge and the idea that it has gone far beyond something linear. Everything we learn -- every path we take -- opens up a handful of new paths in the garden.
Because of the vastness of this knowledge, books and libraries are no longer adequate tools to keep and organize this information. Bush recognizes our need for new methods of information storage as he imagines that "The Encyclopoedia Britannica could be reduced to the volume of a matchbox" (40). He also recognizes the need for ease-of-access when it comes to information storage when he recounts that Gregor Mendel's work on genetics were lost for an entire generation because his publications did not reach the right people (37). Considering that Mendel published in 1866 and his papers went unnoticed, I can only imagine how difficult information access would be without modern information storage.
While Borges is focused more on the vastness of human knowledge and experience, Bush's ideas relate to how we can continue to store and access this information so that it remains useful.
Borges creates new media through complex thinking. We read last week about the computer being a complex web with directions going in, out, up and down. In the same essence, Borges explains the garden of forking paths as "an infinite series of times, in a growing, dizzying net of divergent, convergent and parallel times. New media is displaying a message without actually saying it. The garden of forking paths has a theme of time without ever saying the word time, just as Berlin knew to beware of the City Albert, without anyone ever relaying a direct message.
Bush on the other hand handles new media by discussing science more than the actually complex thinking of the mind. He focuses on taking an idea and developing it over time to make it better, more practical and readily available. He states, “the world has arrived at an age of cheap complex devices of great reliability; and something is bound to come of it.” He also states that one idea can go in many different directions, such as the idea of a photo that has expanded to dry photography and microphotography. Bush has an optimistic view for the future, predicting the development of a device called a “memex.” Bush views the memex as possible, knowing how science develops over time and how new devices are always being invented.
In the two essays, Borges and Bush seem to be on the same page with their hopes for the future collaboration of knowledge and media. They are both interested in furthering the effort to make the world’s overwhelming wealth of knowledge more accessible and more easily organized for everyone. They seem to agree that it is the duty of future scientists, inventors, and other creative thinkers to take on the challenge of suggesting new ways to store and distribute ideas. They also agree that a great deal of experimentation and effort is needed to create any lasting change in the way people around the world store and interact with information. Borges makes his point in an abstract way through a story, and it is clear that he sees the world’s knowledge as a complex web in which everyone and everything is intertwined. His idea that the world is like a labyrinth with infinite possibilities and outcomes inspired others to write hypertext novels and materials, which are works with infinite endings and storylines. He also stressed how interconnected the world really is. While Borges seems to describe his ideas in a metaphysical way, Bush takes a more tangible approach and writes about physical tools that already exist and ways to improve them. All of his concepts seek to turn an “information explosion into a knowledge explosion”, which the book says is one of the “defining dreams” of new media. He is also concerned that new findings of scientists not be used only for warfare, but that they continue to be developed for the good and education of society. Bush seems to have diagrams and blueprints for better, more compact storage devices, while Borges does not provide actual concrete suggestions but rather delves into the psychology of the need for a better distribution of wisdom. Overall, Borges and Bush are striving for the same goal, and while Bush’s approach is more mapped out than Borges’, each man is extremely creative and inspirational.
Boges's piece was rather confusing but interesting at the same time. To me it seemed like he was describing the vast opportunity of this "Garden of Forking Paths." In life we are "confronted with several alternatives" choosing only one and leaving behind all the rest (p 33). We have this story in front of us that only we can decide how it ends. We have the power to dictate our life. However, this also seemed to relate to the computer and all it can do for us. We tell it what do do, even though it has plenty of options to choose from. We dictate the outcome of the computer processes.
I really enjoyed Bush's writing. I found it so interesting to explore the though process of a man and scientist living almost 65 years ago. Some of his futuristic devises have been created. He describes modern photography, television, and most importantly the computer. The processes that we can do now on our modern computer are well beyond what Bush described.
In both pieces I feel as if they are both glorifying the immense capacity and ability of the human brain. New media is just an extension of the human body and mind. The impulses of our body to our mind are amazingly complex, and scientists are really only beginning to understand how to recreate those impulses in machines.
Borges seemed to view anything unconventional as "new media." He focused on the complexity of thought as new media, examining the labyrinth as the infinite possibilities one form of something can posses. He stated, “Time forks perpetually toward innumerable futures.” (34) It appeared to me that Borges was less concerned about creating a new form of media than on realizing the potential of media already in existence. Borges continuous reference to labyrinths suggested a theme: things are not always as they appear. One form of media, while remaining fundamentally unchanged, could become something entirely different merely by adopting a new use. If you are not careful in your decision making you could easily overlook simple things that could potentially be of great value.
Bush on the other hand was incredibly enthusiastic about improving existing technologies in order to create faster and more efficient media. His focus was on improving the conventional methods of record keeping and data transfer as well as making life, in general, more convenient. According to Bush, “the summation of human experience is being expanded at a prodigious rate, and the means we use for threading through the consequent maze to the momentarily important item is the same as in the days of square-rigged ships.”(38) He obviously felt that current media was not up to par and that the way to improve this was by advancing technologies.
Both Bush and Borges seemed to realize the potential hidden within the 'walls of the labyrinth.' Bush wanted to extract it by developing new technologies, while Borges merely wanted it to be recognized and reached for. Essentially their goals were the same; it was mostly their attitude toward reaching them that seemed to differ.
Borges and Bush differ mainly in their overall attitude towards the development of new media.
Borges feels as though we're stuck in a maze with no understanding of how to get out. His comparison to "The Garden of Forking Paths" is very fitting. Borges relates the frustrations and complexities of a maze to new media and his negative view towards its development.
Bush, however, has a more optimistic and enthusiastic outlook on new media. As knowledge continues to expand, Bush has hope for technological developments. Especially in ways that help the human race rather than destroy it through war.
As exciting as it was to finally understand Borges', “The Garden of Forking Paths”, I enjoyed reading the opinions of Bush much more. I found it particularly ironic that Bush played such a huge role in the Manhattan Project as well as the development of new media to positively impact the human race. I also loved the line, “ for at that time and long after, complexity and unreliability were synonymous” (38). Although Bush was not referring to today’s time period, I personally want to scream at how unreliable my printer is!
Borges is approaching new media as a new way of interpreting and using already established media while Bush is focusing on the creation of new technology as the platform for new media. Also, Borges is giving his vantage point through a narrative while Borges is giving a theoretical outline of new media in a straight forward, almost scholastic writing.
Most interesting to me was Bush's concept a memex, but specifically the trails. While reading this, I felt it was a familiar idea and realized it's what many people do on Wikipedia. Creating a trail in the memex is fairly analogous to following link after link in Wikipedia pages to gain as much information on the topic and its supporting ideas.
After I read The Garden of Forking Paths, written by Borges, I was confused how this article is related to new media at first. He points out that different decision in life may lead to different path. The passage started to make sense to me when I read this sentence: “The Garden of Forking Paths is an enormous riddle, or parable, whose theme is time.” Personally I think he is trying to say that new media has changed our lives, and in different time periods, it has brought various possibilities and changes to our lives. However, people may get lost in the labyrinth built by new technology.
Bush’s article “As We May Think” makes more sense to me. He has a different attitude towards the changes and new technology in the future. He is more optimistic about letting new technology serving human, which is different from Borges’s tone.
Borges talks of media by illustrating a story of a "labyrinth of time." The novel the characters speak of I believe is Borges' depiction of new media. The character Albert describes the book as "infinite." "Time forks perpetually toward innumerable futures." This shows how infinite the future of new media is according to Borges. With the use of death and a dark tone to Borges' writing it causes me to wonder how extreme his negative feelings towards new media is. Is death of new media the answer? Bush's writing was definitely more scientific, but also full of optimism as stated before. It's astonishing how future minded Bush is and how he recognizes the "growing mountain of research" taking place and the power that research holds. Bush seems to embrace the use of new media and states "whenever logical processes of thought are employed... there is an opportunity for the machine" (page 42). He is open to new media's growth and new media's ability to aid man. I am ASTOUNDED at how much Bush anticipated was to be part of new media and how accurate he was.
Well Bush defined the path he believed new media would take and what all it would include. It was amazing that many of his predictions came true in the end. An example being the camera that you are able to see the picture you take automatically was so accurate. His description was detailed and his predictions were based on things he believed could happen. On the other hand, Borge's description talked little about the actual media and focused on the story of hyperlink. I am not sure if that was supposed to be a prediction of sorts but it was nothing compared to the straight forward predictions of Bush. Bush's ideas were much more concrete and easy to understand
I thought Borges' perspective was really cool. I wonder if there will someday be a way in which you might experience various realities (possibily with the aid of time travel?. I don't think Borges is skeptical about new media--I might use the word "apprehensive" instead.
One thing I noted that Bush said, "Compression is important, however, when it comes to costs. The material for the microfilm Britannica would cost a nickel, and it could be mailed anywhere for a cent. What would it cost to print a million copies? To print a sheet of newspaper, ina large edition, costs a small fraction of a cent. The entire material of the Britannica in reduced microfilm form would go on a sheet eight and one-half by eleven inches. Once it is available, with the photographic reproduction methods of the future, duplicates in large quantities could probably be turned out for a cent apiece beyond the cost of materials."
What a novel idea--a very small, very cheap encyclopedia! However, to me, this brings to mind the problem newspapers are currently facing. When technology makes information available for a small cost, or even free (like newspapers on the internet), how will the information-providers be paid? Or, more importantly, what will be the incentive to journalists, researchers, and the like to discover and record information?
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for new media. Bush did mention several ways in which researchers could more easily record information, whcih would certainly help. However, I think there needs to be further thought as to how the economical and ethical implications of cheap information might affect society as we know it. (It's already beginning to happen!)
Also, did the memex make anyone else think of various music, photography, and other sorts of websites that match you up with things you seem to like? For example, Pandora radio, imgfave, Stumble, etc.
I've noticed people are saying Borges intends to show that the human mind is complex, and that every decision we make leads to another, resulting in a twisting branch of paths. That was what I was thinking as I read it. It kind of reminded me of those "Choose Your Own Adventure" books I used to read.
Its relationship to new media isn't so much literal as figurative. Even just new ways of thinking are considered and sometimes create new media, and the consideration that everything leads to something else, with infinite outcomes, is new media. Furthermore, it's reasonable to come to the conclusion that we should try new ways of thinking (technologically), and that after we pursue that path we've created an "opportunity cost." The cost of that new development is the other developments we could have taken. Where does it go and what other options have we forgone? But perhaps various paths will intersect in the future. Is one way shorter than the other? One simply doesn’t know. Maybe the path will take us somewhere we as humans won’t want to be. Borges’ character is stuck in a wartime effort, recruited to help the Germans. At the end, when he sees where things have gone, he feels “contrition and weariness” (34).
Bush's approach was more technical and less abstract, without the use of metaphor to extend a suggestion. Instead, he relates what there is to what could be. The piece does seem to contain optimism (now no one can stop saying it), a contrast to Borges’ apprehension. He seems certain things such as the walnut sized camera are completely plausible. To him, it's hardly "fantastic." Better yet, he thinks it’s great. Generally, he seemed concerned with things becoming smaller, more portable, more convenient, which is exactly what we lazy Americans are doing! :D Oh, and accessibility. He stressed that we have to be able to consult the data or it's a step backward. His discussion of the memex and following trails of associations made me think of tags, labeling things with key words. He really did predict many technological advances accurately.
I hope all of that made sense. It was hard to put my thoughts into coherent form.
I think the essential thing to realize about these two pieces being clumped together is the fact that they are from the same time period, but they both take a different approach as to describing their concept of new media. One takes on the perspective of an artistic author/poet who finds answers througha story, whereas the other is from the point of view of a scientist who cites specific examples in a fashion that is easy to follow. To me, this is a direct correlation to the way in which they were written.
Borges takes an artistic approach by incorporating a story in which not everything is easily comprehendible, but in the end, the primary idea is that there is an "infinite series of times, in a growing, dizzying net of divergent, convergent and parallel times" (34). This idea demonstrates the greater capacity of the human mind, which can be supplemented, and almost challenged by the advent of new media. There are constantly many paths that can be taken and each path leads to a completely new set of paths that differ greatly from those that may have appeared had another option been selected. This idea of a labyrinth is very thought-provoking and is an explanation as to why new media continues to emerge: in order to satiate this need for more discovery.
On the other hand, Bush writes from the perspective of a scientist who used science/technology directly to show how research could "lead toward understanding and away from destruction" in regards to "the development of new media" (35). His concept of the development of new media is much more matter-of-fact and primarily incorporates the idea that the advent of new media is something that can only help us grow. He argues that "in the application of science to the needs and desires of man, it would seem to be a singularly unfortunate stage at which to terminate the process, or to lose hope as the outcome" (47). This ties together the positive outlooks of both Borges and Bush, because even though they come from entirely different perspectives under very different circumstances, they both show the necessity and importance of the development of new media.
After I wrote my comment, I looked on the blog and saw that what I was about to say was already stated by Gretchen. Well, here's my original comment anyways:
Borges' and Bush's perspectives on new media are so different from eachother that I found it helpful to look at their personal backgrounds, to see what angle they are coming at it from. Borges is a librarian and important figure in Spanish literature. This leads me to believe that he is more artistically focused. Because of this, Borges plays with reality, and the idea of the forked path, the labyrinth composing our world. He imagines it to be "infinite", and "composed ... of rivers and provinces and kingdoms....", one that encompasses "the past and the future and in some way involve the stars." This mind boggling description, as my colleagues have pointed out, is a parallel to how Borges views new media - a massive, baffling maze created by ourselves that changes our lives in return. Later he describes this labyrinth as a riddle of time - showing how new media spans lifetimes, how the changes made to new media affect us today, and those effects will cause us to change new media as well, thus making it a giant labyrinth of change and time. Confusing? Yes. Worth thinking about anyway? Definitely. Bush, on the other hand, is the Director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development, so it follows that his article would be on, drum roll please, developing new media. As a scientist, Bush thrives in the realm of modern technology. It is his home and his way of life. It clearly follows that he would want to push us onward in developing new technologies. He was part of the Manhattan Project, and so he knows the destructive side of technology. He was, according to the article preceeding his, troubled by later developments, so he developed a "vision of how technology could lead toward understanding and away from destruction"(35). Thus, his writing a passage that acts as "an incentive for scientists when the fighting has ceased,"(37) makes perfect sense. So, Borges parallels new media to a labyrinth, and Bush prods us to further develop new media, away from the destructive side, towards the informationa, life-enhancing side. Overall, however, their views were not entirely different. Both agree that new media is infinitely connected with our lives, and that it changes us as we change it. (Bush says so on pg. 37, when he writes that "man's use of science" has "improved his food, his clothing, his shelter" and "increased his security", among other things, and then goes on to talk about changes we should make to new media in return.)
Two different backgrounds, two different views, one central idea. Thank you, Borges and Bush!
Initially I was terribly confused by “The Garden of Forking Paths” and was bogged down far too much by trying to understand the World War II context rather than the imaginative ideas of the labyrinths. One part of the reading, though, that I did find important was, “In all fictional works, each time a man is confronted with several alternatives, he choose one and eliminates the others; in the fiction of Ts’ui Pen, he chooses-simultaneously-all of them.” In Borges’s writing there is a certain sense of hope and exhilaration about the future, a future where we can simultaneously have everything. Yet, at the same time Borges is rather unclear about what this future, while glorious, will entail. Bush’s essay sounded much more appealing to me than the first one in that the introduction stated that it was one of the first in the reader to “look not toward but beyond the Web.” Bush’s writing remains a lot clearer than Borges’s as it cites specific examples of scientific breakthroughs and in my opinion better explains ideas than the previous author. In this essay, summary of previous scientific accomplishments rather than storytelling is used to create a confident and vivid picture of science in the future. Bush has the same amount of excitement about what is to come, yet a shaper picture of what it will appear as when it finally arrives.
The main difference that I noted between these two selections, as most everyone else has already pointed out, is the optimism of Bush contrasted with the negativity of Borges. Bush recognizes the many advancements that have already been made in regards to new media, but never doubts for a second that even more advancements will be made in the future. He is excited for these advancements, which he knows will make life easier and more convenient. Borges, on the other hand, is a little more cryptic in his writing. His common theme of a labyrinth indicates confusion, and the death at the end of the story doesn't exactly give off warm fuzzy feelings of excitement for the future.
Throughout my first reading of "The Garden of Forking Paths," I did not clearly see the connection between the story and new media. However, I went back to our earlier reading of "Inventing the Medium" by Murray, and discovered that I can build upon his interpretation of Borges's work. As new media is always changing with the ages, it can be accepted that the mystifying novel written by Ts'ui Pen parallels what in modern times we call "new media," for back then the novel was just that. So to Borges, new media is a "labyrinth of labyrinths, . . . one sinuous spreading labyrinth that [encompasses] the past and the future" (32). This labyrinth is timeless in a way similar to the "ways in which a book can be infinite" (33). Additionally, Borges "imagined . . . [a] hereditary work . . . in which each new individual adds a chapter or corrects with pious care the pages of his elders" (33). Thus, new media can be seen as a medium that is constantly being altered generation by generation, by the removal and addition of parts. Also, his use of the word "pious," making a religious connection, indicates that new media has a significant impact on our society and can be both as controversial and as comforting as religion itself.
Bush interprets new media as a form of record keeping and agrees with Borges that it "must be continuously extended" (38). He sees advancements in this field as ones that can benefit society for reasons like that they give man "increased . . . control of his material environment" (37). These advancements are discovered and invented by what Bush calls "future investigator[s] in [their] laboratories" (40). Overall, Bush seems to conclude that these investigators are looking for more advanced ways of collecting and analyzing data in a cost efficient way and in a way that makes it possible to share this breadth of knowledge with the largest amount of people. However, in Bush's mind "we seem to be worse off than before -- for we can enormously extend the record; yet even in its present bulk we can hardly consult it" (42). In such a realization he unveils the idea that no matter how much knowledge we have, it is of no use to us if we cannot apply it to our advantage. He cautions us, though, that the information that we possess can be applied in an extremely negative way. The record of information that we have may be used in a corrupt way to destroy the progress of man. Bush warns that man "may perish in conflict before he learns to wield that record for his true good" (47). Yet with such a wide range of cultures and beliefs that are present in the world, who can assert what is truly "true good"?
Both Borges and Bush discuss new media in terms of ever growing knowledge and building on the knowledge we already know. Both being intelligent writers, they have interesting perspectives on what new media is. Borges was an extremely philosophical writer. In his short story, “The Garden of Forking Paths” he goes on to describe a theory of the universe that in which if something is possible, it does exists in some sort of reality. Borges uses countless metaphors and symbols to describe the crazy, bewildering, and connecting universe. “The Garden of Forking Paths” illustrates that there isn’t just one option or one ending but that all possible outcomes of a situation occur simultaneously therefore expanding possibilities and connecting the universe. He doesn’t refer to new media as computers and television as we would but he describes it as the expansion of knowledge. Bush’s main point is that technology should be made not only to aid humans physically but mentally as well. He argues that inventions have extended man’s physical powers rather than the powers of his mind. In “As We May Think” Bush predicts many of the inventions that were created after the publication of his short story. Again, new media isn’t just computers or television but it is the expansion of knowledge through connecting information and making it more accessible to the public.
First of all, I can only speculate what a "Hypertext" actually is . . . as of this moment, I can't really define it in my mind. But anyways, with Borges I will skip saying all the things that people have already mentioned (stuff about Garden of Forking Paths, etc). I didn't really get any sense of apprehension from Borges when it came to new media. I only got the impression that he wanted to tell a story in which "new media" is not actually the story of the Garden itself, but the puzzle that the main character's ancestor (can't recall the name right now) presented. Namely, more specifically, this would be the new form of literature, a new way of conveying his ideas and knowledge through words on a page that at the time wasn't the accepted norm. Many of the ancestor's contemporaries were confused as to why his story was so contradictory.
Okay I have to admit--I still don't see how new media precisely fits into Borges's short story. That's what the class lesson is for I guess.
Bush was a lot more precise and specific when he talks about new media. He does this directly, unlike Borges's narrative tale. He presents new media through technological terms, contemporary technology (during his time at least), the human mind. He compares the pros and cons of the memory machines and the human mind. I found it especially interesting that he said "selection by association, rather than indexing, may yet be mechanized." It is an intriguing concept, and will be an exciting day when it happens. Then his description of new media is very specific in function and design. He calls his made up machine the "Memex." I think that maybe, in the future the Memex might be the next step up from the personal computer.
Also when Bush talked about how memex contents (such as books, pictures, newspapers) being inserted into the machine through microfilm, I thought about our own flash drives and memory cards. What's more--we've already reached the point where a machine stores and is distributed through the internet.
After reading the two excerpts by Borges and Bush, I felt many of the same feelings and thoughts that other students had felt. I was a bit confused by Borges ideas but I could sense, as Rebecca said, that the reader should feel smothered by how complex our human consciousness is. This is true as I think about it, because we process so many thoughts and ideas, make so many decisions, and also involuntarily do things... all at the same time! There is also a complexity to the fact that we make decisions and each of these affect our lives in so many ways. Any one decision could change our lives considerably. Borges' excerpt was more confusing to understand and I believed it to be very pessimistic in comparison to Bush's, as many other students stated, but it did have some thought in it. New media must be harnessed by us humans, we can make it what we want as it is in our control because it is based on, as both authors stated, on our ever-growing knowledge and how we utilize it. Bush's excerpt was much more optimistic and almost excited about the future and what humans could do with knowledge in terms of new media. He had faith in humankind, that even if the machine failed, humankind would learn from it.
Like many of the previous posts have stated, I too, was taken aback by Borges' piece when I first read it. It was the last thing I was expecting in terms of understanding New Media, but in retrospect I like it better than Bush's piece. I really like how Borges described his views by way of storytelling and metaphor. The metaphor of Forking Paths relates to the infinite amount of choices/paths that we as humans take each day. Some of the choices are conscious, while others are much more immediate and under the surface. Like others stated as well, I feel this is a metaphor to the computer which nowadays, we control in much of the same way. It has numerous capabilities (more than Borges or Bush imagined) and pathways throughout its system, but we the users, choose which path it takes and when. Bush's piece was much easier for me to understand and fairly straight-forward. I enjoyed how the piece spoke of technologies already in existence such as the computer, and how great they could be in the future. I felt a sense of hope that humans would develop ingenious forms of technology based on media and thrive. Bush's piece felt more positive and confident in the human race, and I felt I identified with it a bit more than Borges'. Overall, I believe the two pieces had many correlations. Both believed that the human race had a responsibility to create/harness technology that would drive the world and generations to come. Both agree that society and technology are a woven fabric that is an ever-changing project, and a work of art capable of making the world better over time.
I feel like the first thing that should be pointed out is that neither author is thinking of a specific medium that we call "new media", like the computer. Rather, I feel like they are thinking about how we deal and expand our knowledge, which ties in to new media.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the passages, I am under the impression that Borges wanted the reader to feel smothered by the realization of how complex human consciousness is. Boreg' tone when speaking about the "growing, dizzying net of divergent, convergent and parallel times" (Pg. 34). I think this shows how bewildering and convoluted mankind becomes as we expand our knowledge of the world. Honestly, just thinking of all of the different pollibilities of how my own life could have turned out, all of the different lives I could be, and, in a different demension, possibly am living because of my different choices is mind boggling! (By the way, did this passage make anyone else think of The Butterfly Effect?!?) Borges realizes that our knowledge and therefore power is much more complex, but seems lost as how to store and use that power.
Bush, however, seems so much more optimistic about the expansion of human knowledge. He states "...in the application of science to the needs and desires of man, it would seem to be a singularly unfortunate stage at which to terminate the process, or to lose hope as to the outcome" (Pg. 47). This statement I think sums up his outlook on new media: rather than simply feeling trapped by human knowledge, Bush wants to find new ways to harness knowledge and utilize it, as we can tell by his idea of the "memorex".
After reading the passage that Borges wrote, I have to admit that I was very confused. I couldn't really figure out what it had to do with new media. Then I read Rebecca's comment and it made much more sense (thanks Rebecca!). I agree with her in that Borges does seem a little put out by the complexity of the human mind. His very last line was my favorite "he does not know (no one can know) my innumerable contrition and weariness)". This shows that the man in the story was changed by the new ideas that were expressed to him, and personally, I think that new media plays a big part in changing our lives. It makes things easier and faster, and it can even make us forget what life was like before it.
ReplyDeleteThis leads into Bush's writings in that he is so optimistic about the future of new technology. Instead of being astounded or confused by human intelligence, he suggests putting it to use and sharing it with others in something called the "memex". In some ways, his description of the memex reminded me of sort of a cross between the internet and a holographic desk. I like his proposition of harnessing our experiences, accepting the changes, and creating new media with what we have learned.
One of the main differences I sensed between the two essays was the differing tones each writer used when describing the advancement of life and technology in the future. As both Rebecca and Vanessa pointed out, Bush is clearly optimistic for the many new changes technology may experience as the years unfold. Borges, however, is rather skeptical. By having Dr. Yu Tsun commit murder in order to communicate to Berlin a bombing target via newspaper headlines, Borges suggests that the advancement of media may lead to a darker time where technology assists in the destruction of man. For, what Tsun's use of the newspaper ultimately achieves is the death of Albert and further violence in the war.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the two authors may differ in their hope for the future, I think it is interesting to note that a few of their ideas are pretty similar. For example, Borges' idea of a labyrinth of forking paths where each outcome "is the point of departure for other forkings" is the basic premise of Bush's Memex machine; the essential feature of the Memex is the process of tying two items together, or using "associative indexing" where "any item may be caused at will to select immediately and automatically another."
Both authors had different themes and different ways of presenting these themes. Borges had an interesting story that ended with a theme about the different possibilities of life, starting with new media and the many opportunities it presents to us. I, like Rebecca, instantly saw the sentence, "infinite series of times, in a growing, dizzying net of divergent, convergent, and parallel times." This shows that as knowledge and information expands, the possibilities become infinite. Life could progress in so many various ways, possibly benevolent or malevolent. Although Borges seemed to think that the possibilities were infinite, I, like David, did not think he was not quite as optimistic as Bush was.
ReplyDeleteThroughout Bush’s' article he described the many futuristic objects that were possible if humans would expand knowledge and had the memory capabilities to do so. Bush said that "technology could lead toward understanding and away from destruction." He seems to think that new media is always productive and will continue to develop as man does so. He did not discuss any consequences of technology, but only of the endless adventures it provides mankind. He introduces his idea of the "memex" which he says is a mechanized private file and library that serves several functions including acting as a memory tool for humans.
- Allison R
After reading the introduction to Borges’ writing, I was intrigued by “hypertext” because I had never heard of such a thing before. I think my eyes are being opened to new media as a continuum, whereas before I thought of the line between old media and new media was very definite, for example, there was no internet, and then there was. I am interested in getting to know more lesser known facets of new media such as the hypertext described in this passage.
ReplyDeleteIn Borges’ writing, I felt as if I could relate to the storyline of actively surveying the scene, yet constantly being confused. Borges uses the word “labyrinth” often and on page 32 says “I thought of a labyrinth of labyrinths, of on sinuous spreading labyrinth that would encompass the past and the future.” Though referring to finding Dr. Albert’s house, I believe that this statement reflects upon the way Borges feels about growing technology, adding urgency as it refers to the war.
Bush, on the other hand, is rather excited with the way that new media develops and constantly transforms. He is optimistic and wrapped up in the positives of technology, saying that “the world has arrived at an age of cheap complex devices of great reliability, and something is bound to come of it” (38). He sees many opportunities for the machine rather than the mind and views this as logic at its best. Contrary to Borges, Bush views growing technology as a way for man to gain intelligence as he states that even if the machine fails, man can learn from it (44).
I agree with Rebecca--the central idea in both pieces was not the concept of new media, but instead the transfer of ideas, and their pending effects upon people and societies. Despite the less optimistic tone that Borges's piece employed, I still feel that it had some optimistic undertones. Of course, Albert is murdered and taken for enemy and the notion of an endless, sinuous labyrinth is overwhelming--but Ts'ui Pên's infinite realities offer realities that can bend and shape how the individual perceives the world in unexpected--and beneficial--ways. In some manner, this is what new media seems to be attempting to achieve--those unfathomable reaches of the maze become more tangible to "various futures (not to all)." Although not all "futures" will ever cross every path of the forking garden, those paths are made more readily available through the use of new media. I think this is what Bush was attempting to argue in his article--through the use of an apparatus such as the memex which utilizes associative cataloguing, the transfer of ideas from person to person or from society to society more feasible, more memorable, and more human.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the two excerpts, it is clear that both authors are passionate about new media, but express their feelings in very different ways. Like Vanessa, I was also very confused by Borges' interpretation, but after reading Rebecca's comment, I now appreciate the concept of multiple possibilities-sympbolized by the labyrinth. It was interesting to think about the effect that time has on the issue. "This network of times which approached one another, forked, broke off, or were unaware of one another for centuries, embraces all possibilities of time" (34). Although there are numerous way that we could advance in new media, the outcomes might be different depending on when the possibilities come into existence. I felt like this piece was more cautionary than Bush's, who was more driven to find ways to improve our way of life as we know it. I liked the example of the abacus, becuase even though it was advanced and practical for its' time, (like our keyboard), "...even this new machine will not take the scientist where he needs to go". Bush just wants to take advantage of our knowledge and creativity to create a more effiencient and productive world.
ReplyDeleteHalfway through the reading, after I finished The Garden of Forking Paths, I was left wondering how Borges’ story tied into our topic of “new media”, however, after continuing through and reading Bush, I found that there were quite a few connections that could be made between the two. Borges’ quote, an “infinite series of times, in a growing, dizzying net of divergent, convergent, and parallel times,” shows the complexity of human knowledge, which is almost the entire point of Bush’s writing. Bush talks about the various forms of recording and transferring data in our intricate society. The complexity of knowledge explained by Borges is now being stored by “establishing useful trails through the enormous mass of common record” which allows us to “grow in the wisdom or race experience.” (Bush)
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, Borges’ writing seemed to encompass the idea that our knowledge can take us down many different paths. In the intro of the story, it mentions how the internet was initially rejected. What if that had happened? What type of “new media” would we have today? Bush, on the other hand, seemed to look (and I’ll use the word that has been thrown around in previous posts) optimistically into the future about what the store of knowledge can become. It can evolve from the current state where everything needs physical interaction with electronics, to a day where there will be no need to have a mechanical middle-man. (3rd to last paragraph on pg 47) That thought is definitely the most intriguing one presented.
-Nathan C
I thought that Borges' infinite labyrinth was a metaphor to the human brain. Each of our thoughts are interconnected and linked to one another in ways that to this very day, science has not yet figured out. The infinite ways that these "forking paths" communicate with each other and the way that an infinite number of possibilities can occur is what Bush says the memex should imitate. Bush describes the positive effects of how linking by association, something that humans but not machines can do, is useful and desirable. I think that the way that the internet today is organized very much resembles the labyrinth in its complexities and many possible outcomes. With links on different webpages to other webpages, people can explore a number of different possibilities and end with different information learned.
ReplyDeleteBorges and Bush both recognize that human knowledge has increased beyond our ability to know how much we know, and that it has increased nearly beyond our ability to contain it. Borges presents the story of the "Garden of Forking Paths." Each fork in the path represents the complexity of our knowledge and the idea that it has gone far beyond something linear. Everything we learn -- every path we take -- opens up a handful of new paths in the garden.
ReplyDeleteBecause of the vastness of this knowledge, books and libraries are no longer adequate tools to keep and organize this information. Bush recognizes our need for new methods of information storage as he imagines that "The Encyclopoedia Britannica could be reduced to the volume of a matchbox" (40). He also recognizes the need for ease-of-access when it comes to information storage when he recounts that Gregor Mendel's work on genetics were lost for an entire generation because his publications did not reach the right people (37). Considering that Mendel published in 1866 and his papers went unnoticed, I can only imagine how difficult information access would be without modern information storage.
While Borges is focused more on the vastness of human knowledge and experience, Bush's ideas relate to how we can continue to store and access this information so that it remains useful.
Borges creates new media through complex thinking. We read last week about the computer being a complex web with directions going in, out, up and down. In the same essence, Borges explains the garden of forking paths as "an infinite series of times, in a growing, dizzying net of divergent, convergent and parallel times. New media is displaying a message without actually saying it. The garden of forking paths has a theme of time without ever saying the word time, just as Berlin knew to beware of the City Albert, without anyone ever relaying a direct message.
ReplyDeleteBush on the other hand handles new media by discussing science more than the actually complex thinking of the mind. He focuses on taking an idea and developing it over time to make it better, more practical and readily available. He states, “the world has arrived at an age of cheap complex devices of great reliability; and something is bound to come of it.” He also states that one idea can go in many different directions, such as the idea of a photo that has expanded to dry photography and microphotography. Bush has an optimistic view for the future, predicting the development of a device called a “memex.” Bush views the memex as possible, knowing how science develops over time and how new devices are always being invented.
In the two essays, Borges and Bush seem to be on the same page with their hopes for the future collaboration of knowledge and media. They are both interested in furthering the effort to make the world’s overwhelming wealth of knowledge more accessible and more easily organized for everyone. They seem to agree that it is the duty of future scientists, inventors, and other creative thinkers to take on the challenge of suggesting new ways to store and distribute ideas. They also agree that a great deal of experimentation and effort is needed to create any lasting change in the way people around the world store and interact with information.
ReplyDeleteBorges makes his point in an abstract way through a story, and it is clear that he sees the world’s knowledge as a complex web in which everyone and everything is intertwined. His idea that the world is like a labyrinth with infinite possibilities and outcomes inspired others to write hypertext novels and materials, which are works with infinite endings and storylines. He also stressed how interconnected the world really is.
While Borges seems to describe his ideas in a metaphysical way, Bush takes a more tangible approach and writes about physical tools that already exist and ways to improve them. All of his concepts seek to turn an “information explosion into a knowledge explosion”, which the book says is one of the “defining dreams” of new media. He is also concerned that new findings of scientists not be used only for warfare, but that they continue to be developed for the good and education of society. Bush seems to have diagrams and blueprints for better, more compact storage devices, while Borges does not provide actual concrete suggestions but rather delves into the psychology of the need for a better distribution of wisdom.
Overall, Borges and Bush are striving for the same goal, and while Bush’s approach is more mapped out than Borges’, each man is extremely creative and inspirational.
Boges's piece was rather confusing but interesting at the same time. To me it seemed like he was describing the vast opportunity of this "Garden of Forking Paths." In life we are "confronted with several alternatives" choosing only one and leaving behind all the rest (p 33). We have this story in front of us that only we can decide how it ends. We have the power to dictate our life. However, this also seemed to relate to the computer and all it can do for us. We tell it what do do, even though it has plenty of options to choose from. We dictate the outcome of the computer processes.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed Bush's writing. I found it so interesting to explore the though process of a man and scientist living almost 65 years ago. Some of his futuristic devises have been created. He describes modern photography, television, and most importantly the computer. The processes that we can do now on our modern computer are well beyond what Bush described.
In both pieces I feel as if they are both glorifying the immense capacity and ability of the human brain. New media is just an extension of the human body and mind. The impulses of our body to our mind are amazingly complex, and scientists are really only beginning to understand how to recreate those impulses in machines.
Borges seemed to view anything unconventional as "new media." He focused on the complexity of thought as new media, examining the labyrinth as the infinite possibilities one form of something can posses. He stated, “Time forks perpetually toward innumerable futures.” (34) It appeared to me that Borges was less concerned about creating a new form of media than on realizing the potential of media already in existence. Borges continuous reference to labyrinths suggested a theme: things are not always as they appear. One form of media, while remaining fundamentally unchanged, could become something entirely different merely by adopting a new use. If you are not careful in your decision making you could easily overlook simple things that could potentially be of great value.
ReplyDeleteBush on the other hand was incredibly enthusiastic about improving existing technologies in order to create faster and more efficient media. His focus was on improving the conventional methods of record keeping and data transfer as well as making life, in general, more convenient. According to Bush, “the summation of human experience is being expanded at a prodigious rate, and the means we use for threading through the consequent maze to the momentarily important item is the same as in the days of square-rigged ships.”(38) He obviously felt that current media was not up to par and that the way to improve this was by advancing technologies.
Both Bush and Borges seemed to realize the potential hidden within the 'walls of the labyrinth.' Bush wanted to extract it by developing new technologies, while Borges merely wanted it to be recognized and reached for. Essentially their goals were the same; it was mostly their attitude toward reaching them that seemed to differ.
Borges and Bush differ mainly in their overall attitude towards the development of new media.
ReplyDeleteBorges feels as though we're stuck in a maze with no understanding of how to get out. His comparison to "The Garden of Forking Paths" is very fitting. Borges relates the frustrations and complexities of a maze to new media and his negative view towards its development.
Bush, however, has a more optimistic and enthusiastic outlook on new media. As knowledge continues to expand, Bush has hope for technological developments. Especially in ways that help the human race rather than destroy it through war.
As exciting as it was to finally understand Borges', “The Garden of Forking Paths”, I enjoyed reading the opinions of Bush much more. I found it particularly ironic that Bush played such a huge role in the Manhattan Project as well as the development of new media to positively impact the human race. I also loved the line, “ for at that time and long after, complexity and unreliability were synonymous” (38). Although Bush was not referring to today’s time period, I personally want to scream at how unreliable my printer is!
Borges is approaching new media as a new way of interpreting and using already established media while Bush is focusing on the creation of new technology as the platform for new media. Also, Borges is giving his vantage point through a narrative while Borges is giving a theoretical outline of new media in a straight forward, almost scholastic writing.
ReplyDeleteMost interesting to me was Bush's concept a memex, but specifically the trails. While reading this, I felt it was a familiar idea and realized it's what many people do on Wikipedia. Creating a trail in the memex is fairly analogous to following link after link in Wikipedia pages to gain as much information on the topic and its supporting ideas.
After I read The Garden of Forking Paths, written by Borges, I was confused how this article is related to new media at first. He points out that different decision in life may lead to different path. The passage started to make sense to me when I read this sentence: “The Garden of Forking Paths is an enormous riddle, or parable, whose theme is time.” Personally I think he is trying to say that new media has changed our lives, and in different time periods, it has brought various possibilities and changes to our lives. However, people may get lost in the labyrinth built by new technology.
ReplyDeleteBush’s article “As We May Think” makes more sense to me. He has a different attitude towards the changes and new technology in the future. He is more optimistic about letting new technology serving human, which is different from Borges’s tone.
-Duoduo D
Borges talks of media by illustrating a story of a "labyrinth of time." The novel the characters speak of I believe is Borges' depiction of new media. The character Albert describes the book as "infinite." "Time forks perpetually toward innumerable futures." This shows how infinite the future of new media is according to Borges. With the use of death and a dark tone to Borges' writing it causes me to wonder how extreme his negative feelings towards new media is. Is death of new media the answer?
ReplyDeleteBush's writing was definitely more scientific, but also full of optimism as stated before. It's astonishing how future minded Bush is and how he recognizes the "growing mountain of research" taking place and the power that research holds. Bush seems to embrace the use of new media and states "whenever logical processes of thought are employed... there is an opportunity for the machine" (page 42). He is open to new media's growth and new media's ability to aid man. I am ASTOUNDED at how much Bush anticipated was to be part of new media and how accurate he was.
Well Bush defined the path he believed new media would take and what all it would include. It was amazing that many of his predictions came true in the end. An example being the camera that you are able to see the picture you take automatically was so accurate. His description was detailed and his predictions were based on things he believed could happen. On the other hand, Borge's description talked little about the actual media and focused on the story of hyperlink. I am not sure if that was supposed to be a prediction of sorts but it was nothing compared to the straight forward predictions of Bush. Bush's ideas were much more concrete and easy to understand
ReplyDeleteHailey R
I thought Borges' perspective was really cool. I wonder if there will someday be a way in which you might experience various realities (possibily with the aid of time travel?. I don't think Borges is skeptical about new media--I might use the word "apprehensive" instead.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I noted that Bush said, "Compression is important, however, when it comes to costs. The material for the microfilm Britannica would cost a nickel, and it could be mailed anywhere for a cent. What would it cost to print a million copies? To print a sheet of newspaper, ina large edition, costs a small fraction of a cent. The entire material of the Britannica in reduced microfilm form would go on a sheet eight and one-half by eleven inches. Once it is available, with the photographic reproduction methods of the future, duplicates in large quantities could probably be turned out for a cent apiece beyond the cost of materials."
What a novel idea--a very small, very cheap encyclopedia! However, to me, this brings to mind the problem newspapers are currently facing. When technology makes information available for a small cost, or even free (like newspapers on the internet), how will the information-providers be paid? Or, more importantly, what will be the incentive to journalists, researchers, and the like to discover and record information?
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for new media. Bush did mention several ways in which researchers could more easily record information, whcih would certainly help. However, I think there needs to be further thought as to how the economical and ethical implications of cheap information might affect society as we know it. (It's already beginning to happen!)
Also, did the memex make anyone else think of various music, photography, and other sorts of websites that match you up with things you seem to like? For example, Pandora radio, imgfave, Stumble, etc.
-Danica K
ReplyDeleteI've noticed people are saying Borges intends to show that the human mind is complex, and that every decision we make leads to another, resulting in a twisting branch of paths. That was what I was thinking as I read it. It kind of reminded me of those "Choose Your Own Adventure" books I used to read.
ReplyDeleteIts relationship to new media isn't so much literal as figurative. Even just new ways of thinking are considered and sometimes create new media, and the consideration that everything leads to something else, with infinite outcomes, is new media.
Furthermore, it's reasonable to come to the conclusion that we should try new ways of thinking (technologically), and that after we pursue that path we've created an "opportunity cost." The cost of that new development is the other developments we could have taken. Where does it go and what other options have we forgone? But perhaps various paths will intersect in the future. Is one way shorter than the other? One simply doesn’t know. Maybe the path will take us somewhere we as humans won’t want to be. Borges’ character is stuck in a wartime effort, recruited to help the Germans. At the end, when he sees where things have gone, he feels “contrition and weariness” (34).
Bush's approach was more technical and less abstract, without the use of metaphor to extend a suggestion. Instead, he relates what there is to what could be. The piece does seem to contain optimism (now no one can stop saying it), a contrast to Borges’ apprehension. He seems certain things such as the walnut sized camera are completely plausible. To him, it's hardly "fantastic." Better yet, he thinks it’s great.
Generally, he seemed concerned with things becoming smaller, more portable, more convenient, which is exactly what we lazy Americans are doing! :D
Oh, and accessibility. He stressed that we have to be able to consult the data or it's a step backward. His discussion of the memex and following trails of associations made me think of tags, labeling things with key words. He really did predict many technological advances accurately.
I hope all of that made sense. It was hard to put my thoughts into coherent form.
I think the essential thing to realize about these two pieces being clumped together is the fact that they are from the same time period, but they both take a different approach as to describing their concept of new media. One takes on the perspective of an artistic author/poet who finds answers througha story, whereas the other is from the point of view of a scientist who cites specific examples in a fashion that is easy to follow. To me, this is a direct correlation to the way in which they were written.
ReplyDeleteBorges takes an artistic approach by incorporating a story in which not everything is easily comprehendible, but in the end, the primary idea is that there is an "infinite series of times, in a growing, dizzying net of divergent, convergent and parallel times" (34). This idea demonstrates the greater capacity of the human mind, which can be supplemented, and almost challenged by the advent of new media. There are constantly many paths that can be taken and each path leads to a completely new set of paths that differ greatly from those that may have appeared had another option been selected. This idea of a labyrinth is very thought-provoking and is an explanation as to why new media continues to emerge: in order to satiate this need for more discovery.
On the other hand, Bush writes from the perspective of a scientist who used science/technology directly to show how research could "lead toward understanding and away from destruction" in regards to "the development of new media" (35). His concept of the development of new media is much more matter-of-fact and primarily incorporates the idea that the advent of new media is something that can only help us grow. He argues that "in the application of science to the needs and desires of man, it would seem to be a singularly unfortunate stage at which to terminate the process, or to lose hope as the outcome" (47). This ties together the positive outlooks of both Borges and Bush, because even though they come from entirely different perspectives under very different circumstances, they both show the necessity and importance of the development of new media.
After I wrote my comment, I looked on the blog and saw that what I was about to say was already stated by Gretchen. Well, here's my original comment anyways:
ReplyDeleteBorges' and Bush's perspectives on new media are so different from eachother that I found it helpful to look at their personal backgrounds, to see what angle they are coming at it from.
Borges is a librarian and important figure in Spanish literature. This leads me to believe that he is more artistically focused. Because of this, Borges plays with reality, and the idea of the forked path, the labyrinth composing our world. He imagines it to be "infinite", and "composed ... of rivers and provinces and kingdoms....", one that encompasses "the past and the future and in some way involve the stars." This mind boggling description, as my colleagues have pointed out, is a parallel to how Borges views new media - a massive, baffling maze created by ourselves that changes our lives in return. Later he describes this labyrinth as a riddle of time - showing how new media spans lifetimes, how the changes made to new media affect us today, and those effects will cause us to change new media as well, thus making it a giant labyrinth of change and time. Confusing? Yes.
Worth thinking about anyway?
Definitely.
Bush, on the other hand, is the Director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development, so it follows that his article would be on, drum roll please, developing new media. As a scientist, Bush thrives in the realm of modern technology. It is his home and his way of life. It clearly follows that he would want to push us onward in developing new technologies. He was part of the Manhattan Project, and so he knows the destructive side of technology. He was, according to the article preceeding his, troubled by later developments, so he developed a "vision of how technology could lead toward understanding and away from destruction"(35). Thus, his writing a passage that acts as "an incentive for scientists when the fighting has ceased,"(37) makes perfect sense.
So, Borges parallels new media to a labyrinth, and Bush prods us to further develop new media, away from the destructive side, towards the informationa, life-enhancing side. Overall, however, their views were not entirely different. Both agree that new media is infinitely connected with our lives, and that it changes us as we change it. (Bush says so on pg. 37, when he writes that "man's use of science" has "improved his food, his clothing, his shelter" and "increased his security", among other things, and then goes on to talk about changes we should make to new media in return.)
Two different backgrounds, two different views, one central idea. Thank you, Borges and Bush!
Initially I was terribly confused by “The Garden of Forking Paths” and was bogged down far too much by trying to understand the World War II context rather than the imaginative ideas of the labyrinths. One part of the reading, though, that I did find important was, “In all fictional works, each time a man is confronted with several alternatives, he choose one and eliminates the others; in the fiction of Ts’ui Pen, he chooses-simultaneously-all of them.” In Borges’s writing there is a certain sense of hope and exhilaration about the future, a future where we can simultaneously have everything. Yet, at the same time Borges is rather unclear about what this future, while glorious, will entail.
ReplyDeleteBush’s essay sounded much more appealing to me than the first one in that the introduction stated that it was one of the first in the reader to “look not toward but beyond the Web.” Bush’s writing remains a lot clearer than Borges’s as it cites specific examples of scientific breakthroughs and in my opinion better explains ideas than the previous author. In this essay, summary of previous scientific accomplishments rather than storytelling is used to create a confident and vivid picture of science in the future. Bush has the same amount of excitement about what is to come, yet a shaper picture of what it will appear as when it finally arrives.
The main difference that I noted between these two selections, as most everyone else has already pointed out, is the optimism of Bush contrasted with the negativity of Borges. Bush recognizes the many advancements that have already been made in regards to new media, but never doubts for a second that even more advancements will be made in the future. He is excited for these advancements, which he knows will make life easier and more convenient. Borges, on the other hand, is a little more cryptic in his writing. His common theme of a labyrinth indicates confusion, and the death at the end of the story doesn't exactly give off warm fuzzy feelings of excitement for the future.
ReplyDeleteThroughout my first reading of "The Garden of Forking Paths," I did not clearly see the connection between the story and new media. However, I went back to our earlier reading of "Inventing the Medium" by Murray, and discovered that I can build upon his interpretation of Borges's work. As new media is always changing with the ages, it can be accepted that the mystifying novel written by Ts'ui Pen parallels what in modern times we call "new media," for back then the novel was just that. So to Borges, new media is a "labyrinth of labyrinths, . . . one sinuous spreading labyrinth that [encompasses] the past and the future" (32). This labyrinth is timeless in a way similar to the "ways in which a book can be infinite" (33). Additionally, Borges "imagined . . . [a] hereditary work . . . in which each new individual adds a chapter or corrects with pious care the pages of his elders" (33). Thus, new media can be seen as a medium that is constantly being altered generation by generation, by the removal and addition of parts. Also, his use of the word "pious," making a religious connection, indicates that new media has a significant impact on our society and can be both as controversial and as comforting as religion itself.
ReplyDeleteBush interprets new media as a form of record keeping and agrees with Borges that it "must be continuously extended" (38). He sees advancements in this field as ones that can benefit society for reasons like that they give man "increased . . . control of his material environment" (37). These advancements are discovered and invented by what Bush calls "future investigator[s] in [their] laboratories" (40). Overall, Bush seems to conclude that these investigators are looking for more advanced ways of collecting and analyzing data in a cost efficient way and in a way that makes it possible to share this breadth of knowledge with the largest amount of people. However, in Bush's mind "we seem to be worse off than before -- for we can enormously extend the record; yet even in its present bulk we can hardly consult it" (42). In such a realization he unveils the idea that no matter how much knowledge we have, it is of no use to us if we cannot apply it to our advantage. He cautions us, though, that the information that we possess can be applied in an extremely negative way. The record of information that we have may be used in a corrupt way to destroy the progress of man. Bush warns that man "may perish in conflict before he learns to wield that record for his true good" (47). Yet with such a wide range of cultures and beliefs that are present in the world, who can assert what is truly "true good"?
Both Borges and Bush discuss new media in terms of ever growing knowledge and building on the knowledge we already know. Both being intelligent writers, they have interesting perspectives on what new media is.
ReplyDeleteBorges was an extremely philosophical writer. In his short story, “The Garden of Forking Paths” he goes on to describe a theory of the universe that in which if something is possible, it does exists in some sort of reality. Borges uses countless metaphors and symbols to describe the crazy, bewildering, and connecting universe. “The Garden of Forking Paths” illustrates that there isn’t just one option or one ending but that all possible outcomes of a situation occur simultaneously therefore expanding possibilities and connecting the universe. He doesn’t refer to new media as computers and television as we would but he describes it as the expansion of knowledge.
Bush’s main point is that technology should be made not only to aid humans physically but mentally as well. He argues that inventions have extended man’s physical powers rather than the powers of his mind. In “As We May Think” Bush predicts many of the inventions that were created after the publication of his short story. Again, new media isn’t just computers or television but it is the expansion of knowledge through connecting information and making it more accessible to the public.
First of all, I can only speculate what a "Hypertext" actually is . . . as of this moment, I can't really define it in my mind. But anyways, with Borges I will skip saying all the things that people have already mentioned (stuff about Garden of Forking Paths, etc). I didn't really get any sense of apprehension from Borges when it came to new media. I only got the impression that he wanted to tell a story in which "new media" is not actually the story of the Garden itself, but the puzzle that the main character's ancestor (can't recall the name right now) presented. Namely, more specifically, this would be the new form of literature, a new way of conveying his ideas and knowledge through words on a page that at the time wasn't the accepted norm. Many of the ancestor's contemporaries were confused as to why his story was so contradictory.
ReplyDeleteOkay I have to admit--I still don't see how new media precisely fits into Borges's short story. That's what the class lesson is for I guess.
Bush was a lot more precise and specific when he talks about new media. He does this directly, unlike Borges's narrative tale. He presents new media through technological terms, contemporary technology (during his time at least), the human mind. He compares the pros and cons of the memory machines and the human mind. I found it especially interesting that he said "selection by association, rather than indexing, may yet be mechanized." It is an intriguing concept, and will be an exciting day when it happens. Then his description of new media is very specific in function and design. He calls his made up machine the "Memex." I think that maybe, in the future the Memex might be the next step up from the personal computer.
Also when Bush talked about how memex contents (such as books, pictures, newspapers) being inserted into the machine through microfilm, I thought about our own flash drives and memory cards. What's more--we've already reached the point where a machine stores and is distributed through the internet.
Oh lol. And "asiangoddesses" (I know it's funny--created it in middle school k?) is actually Jennifer Ly Pham haha . . .
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the two excerpts by Borges and Bush, I felt many of the same feelings and thoughts that other students had felt. I was a bit confused by Borges ideas but I could sense, as Rebecca said, that the reader should feel smothered by how complex our human consciousness is. This is true as I think about it, because we process so many thoughts and ideas, make so many decisions, and also involuntarily do things... all at the same time! There is also a complexity to the fact that we make decisions and each of these affect our lives in so many ways. Any one decision could change our lives considerably. Borges' excerpt was more confusing to understand and I believed it to be very pessimistic in comparison to Bush's, as many other students stated, but it did have some thought in it. New media must be harnessed by us humans, we can make it what we want as it is in our control because it is based on, as both authors stated, on our ever-growing knowledge and how we utilize it. Bush's excerpt was much more optimistic and almost excited about the future and what humans could do with knowledge in terms of new media. He had faith in humankind, that even if the machine failed, humankind would learn from it.
ReplyDeleteLike many of the previous posts have stated, I too, was taken aback by Borges' piece when I first read it. It was the last thing I was expecting in terms of understanding New Media, but in retrospect I like it better than Bush's piece. I really like how Borges described his views by way of storytelling and metaphor. The metaphor of Forking Paths relates to the infinite amount of choices/paths that we as humans take each day. Some of the choices are conscious, while others are much more immediate and under the surface. Like others stated as well, I feel this is a metaphor to the computer which nowadays, we control in much of the same way. It has numerous capabilities (more than Borges or Bush imagined) and pathways throughout its system, but we the users, choose which path it takes and when.
ReplyDeleteBush's piece was much easier for me to understand and fairly straight-forward. I enjoyed how the piece spoke of technologies already in existence such as the computer, and how great they could be in the future. I felt a sense of hope that humans would develop ingenious forms of technology based on media and thrive. Bush's piece felt more positive and confident in the human race, and I felt I identified with it a bit more than Borges'.
Overall, I believe the two pieces had many correlations. Both believed that the human race had a responsibility to create/harness technology that would drive the world and generations to come. Both agree that society and technology are a woven fabric that is an ever-changing project, and a work of art capable of making the world better over time.