As described by the five articles, people have a fascinating tendency to build communities wherever possible. The internet’s linking capabilities allow people to connect 1) ideas and 2) with other people. While reading about Are.na, I was intrigued by Broskoski’s team’s desire to curate a platform that promotes thought but doesn’t have a strong social component. It almost seems contradictory to link people based on their ideas but to limit communication. This choice recalls Fukoka’s farming method because it succeeds despite being unconventional. In both cases, creation is largely a passive act, and occurs “in the background” while we are busy perceiving. I think this is especially revelatory as to why people often search for a “muse” outside of themselves but can’t always find one. We might overlook helpful ideas because we judge them to be useless rather than trying to understand them and to connect them with other ideas. We don’t realize that the research and synthesis phases occur simultaneously, not sequentially. With the invention of links, it has become easier to follow a rabbit-hole and enter the research-synthesis phase. However, I wonder whether these rabbit-holes might also provide us with too many ideas all at once. If the options seem endless, and we are left with too few constraints, it may become difficult to synthesize.

I am curious to know how people creating their own websites can turn the tide against large digital corporations. I think convenience and immediacy drive many to rely on the same digital networks for communication and information. A return to a more decentralized, equitable internet depends on people’s willingness to step out of their “comfort zone.” Learning trails and knowledge networks thrive on this decentralized distribution. It’s not only safer for their preservation, but also more authentic. It allows a variety of viewpoints and data to reach people without external influence or censorship. Art plays a significant role in establishing the appeal of websites. It makes information more digestible and is inherently attractive. I think I will better understand the advantages and limitations of websites as opposed to printed material once I learn how to make them. For instance, I could imagine Min Guhong’s Fruitful Presentation as a booklet, not just a website. However, the embedded links in Fruitful Presentation can only be achieved through its virtual format. This ability makes websites the ideal space for creating learning trails. The responsibility to diversify these trails remains—websites themselves should reflect the shape of a decentralized knowledge network.

I am amazed at how often Octavia Butler’s quote about hypertext reappears in the articles we’ve read so far. It is a veritable example of a link. In Brander’s article, he observes that every kind of digital connection can be reduced to links. While I agree, I think this act of reduction takes away some of the charm and uniqueness of these connections. When you follow a link, you leave one page to visit another, and may voluntarily (or involuntarily) never return to the previous page. Instead, digital connections that allow side-by-side viewing of linked pages might better encourage conversation between the two materials. This recalls the “card catalogue” that Delany describes in the MIT article. An inherent hierarchy is built when many infrequently-visited pages link to a frequently-visited one. This hierarchy makes it likelier that people will view the often-visited page, but never learn about the existence of the other infrequently-visited pages. The one-way nature of links impedes the recognition of valuable information just as much as it protects against irrelevant information. In Rasheed’s article, she describes her efforts towards communicability and accessibility in both archiving and learning. How can links be made more communicable and accessible? Are double-ended links and intermediate descriptions helpful or hindrances?

72 Microseasons: I was curious to see which natural markers were most prevalent across the 72 Microseasons. I found it surprising that so many of the Microseasons were marked by animal behavior. Since the 72 Microseasons were intended to help farmers have better crop yields, I wonder how these farmers recognized animal markers that were difficult to observe. Some examples of this are “young hawk learns to fly” and “the bear retreats to its den,” events which take place in the open wilderness, away from crops. Other natural markers involve the weather and plant life, which are more easily observable. Japan’s 72 Microseasons are inspired by Chinese solar terms, but are associated with climatic conditions that are more accurate to Japan. These solar terms are based on exact 15-degree intervals of the Sun’s declination throughout the year, where the declination of the Sun measures its position in relation to the Earth’s celestial equator. Therefore, the 72 Microseasons are a system based both on quantitative measurement and qualitative observation.

Sources:
1 2 3