October 22, 2012
Reality vs natural
I found Bolter and Grusins article very interesting. It opens up new ideas into what exactly "reality" is , as our world changes and evolves. If we can create something using the tools the natural world provided us, does that make it natural? In a world with ever evolving technology, does our concept of reality have to change and evolve from "things that actually exist in the physical world"? Augmented reality can "place things into being" for a viewer from a computer that does not actually exist.... But if the viewer can see it and react to it, does it exist? I think Locke would have a lot to say about this article and how it could change the way language operates... After all, he said basic language is language that describes naturally occurring phenomenon that can be found in nature. If scientists can create imaginary things and make it appear to viewers hat they are found naturally, is his characterized as simple language or something else? What is reality? As our world evolves, so do the complications of our concepts. We have seen that throughout the course as rhetoric has changed so much.
1 comment:
I really like the way you applied this idea, asking the question whether something is natural because it is "natural" for us to think of it that way complicates our understanding of language. The way we approach discourse when using technology is different for each generation, the newer finding it easier to make discourse online as common as speaking one person to the other. Yet the acknowledgment that it is a different type of discourse and that we actually change the way we approach it makes it not less real but begs the question of how "natural" it is. Can something be real and not natural? It seems to be that way considering the way we consider most technology, but what of the use of language with these technologies? There are many questions to consider when approaching ubiquitous computing this way.
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.