#zappen

#ffniks #zappen #openhaard jij?

Man sitzt in seinem Zimmer. Das Licht, das der Tag mit sich bringt klingt langsam ab. Es wird zappen duster, während man darüber nachdenkt was man in seinem Leben erreicht oder nicht erreicht hat. Einer dieser deprimierenden Abende mit Wein, Nikotin und viel viel viel Selbstmitleid. Und plötzlich passiert es. Beim gelangweilten zappen auf einer der (für mich bis dahin) langweiligsten Sportarten hängen bleiben und diese dann für gut befinden. TENNIS.Nicht zuletzt, weil es verdammt witzig aussieht, wenn Männer sich einen Tennisball in die Sporthosentasche stopfen. Oder weil es noch viel witziger aussieht, wenn sie sich in ihren weißen Buchsen vorbeugen und wie Menschen mit leichtem Hospitalismus hin und her wibbeln. Nein. Der komplexe Vorgang zu verstehen warum diese ganzen Menschen da an den Linien sitzen, laut brüllen, der Mann auf seinem "Rettungsschwimmerstuhl" auch was zu sagen hat und beim Ballkontakt sich Pornodarsteller/synchronisatoren doch noch eine Scheibe von quasi jeder Größe des Tennis abschneiden könnten. Bis man dann nach 2h des zombihaften auf den flackernden Bildschirm starrens endlich alles begriffen hat, fällt einem dann auch auf, dass man grad ein wirklich gutes Match gesehen hat. Die Frage, wem man das nun unter diese Nase bindet und versucht auch diese Person mit dem eigenen Enthusiasmus an zustecken bleibt unbeantwortet.

"The concept of a digital rhetoric is at once exciting and troublesome. It is exciting because it holds promise of opening new vistas of opportunity for rhetorical studies and troublesome because it reveals the difficulties and the challenges of adapting a rhetorical tradition more than 2,000 years old to the conditions and constraints of the new digital media. Explorations of this concept show how traditional rhetorical strategies function in digital spaces and suggest how these strategies are being reconceived and reconfigured within these spaces (...). Studies of the new digital media explore their basic characteristics, affordances, and constraints (...), their opportunities for creating individual identities (...), and their potential for building social communities (...). Collectively, these studies suggest how traditional rhetoric might be extended and transformed into a comprehensive theory of digital rhetoric and how such a theory might contribute to the larger body of rhetorical theory and criticism and the rhetoric of science and technology in particular.

“Rhetoric and Digital Media: Collective Intelligence from Kenneth Burke to Pierre Lévy and Beyond” – James P. Zappen

Central issue: “(…) the hope (…) surrounding the development of new digital technologies of communication (…)” that focuses on “(…) their potential to support and sustain ‘collective intelligence’, to promote collaboration, participation, and the development of social communities.” (JPZ, p.1)

Relativity (in the social sphere) = “differences ‘between the situations, or experiences, of different individuals when the same events appear in different spatiotemporal cogredient sets.’” (JPZ, p.3)    > “Rhetoric has something useful to contribute to this debate, as an ideal and a social practice.” (JPZ, p.1)                 > “(…) the power of rhetoric ‘as a symbolic means of including cooperation’” (JPZ, p.2)

   >> (Burke)          Identification = means by which “(…) rhetoric seeks to build a community (…)” (ibid.)                 > “(…) it at once both overcomes and also solidifies and perpetuates divisions.” (ibid.)         (Mead)         Identification = “(…) the appearance of the other in the self, the identification of the other with the self, the reaching of self-consciousness through the other” (Mead, p.253 in JPZ, p.4)                 > “(…) communication involving participation in the other.” (JPZ, p.4)                                >> identification “as a means of negotiating multiple discourses and points of view.” (ibid.)                                                > co-operative competition = a dialectical (inter)action between different voices that is mutually corrective so it might lead to transcending the individual limitations of each view. (cf. Gee’s Worked Examples…)

(Lévy) Collective intelligence = “‘a form of universally distributed intelligence, constantly enhanced, coordinated in real time, and resulting in the effective mobilization of skills’ aimed at ‘the mutual recognition and enrichment of individuals rather than the cult of fetishized or hypostatized communities.” (Lévy, p.13 in JPZ, p.5)    > mass communication as:                 - a threat: mediatization as a way to manage the masses by interchangeability of individuals                 - an asset: digitization as way to indefinitely enhance individual qualities through constant refinement (development and redevelopment) of projects and resources.                 > (Bruns) Web 2.0                    “(…) Collaborative produsage as the driving force behind collective intelligence(...)” (JPZ, p.7)                                > Key affordances: open participation, communal evaluation, fluid heterachy, ad hoc meritocracy, unfinished (continuing) artifacts, common property (balanced through individual rewards) (ibid.)    > Critique: (Jaron Lanier) “At its best, collective intelligence depends not upon a mere aggregation of limited intelligences but the contributions of exceptional individuals.” (JPZ, p.8)