Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 16:03:17 -0500 From: Revised List Processor (1.7e) Subject: File: "EJRNL V1N3-1" To: pirmann@trident.usacs.rutgers.edu _______ _______ __ / _____/ /__ __/ / / / /__ / / ____ __ __ __ ___ __ __ ____ / / / ___/ __ / / / __ \ / / / / / //__/ / //_ \ / __ \ / / / /____ / /_/ / / /_/ / / /_/ / / / / / / / / /_/ / / / \_____/ \____/ \____/ \____/ /_/ /_/ /_/ \__/_/ /_/ July, 1992 _EJournal_ Volume 1 Number 3-1 ISSN# 1054-1055 There are 549 lines in this issue. An Electronic Journal concerned with the implications of electronic networks and texts. 2605 Subscribers in 38 Countries University at Albany, State University of New York ejournal@albany.bitnet CONTENTS (Supplement to V1N3 of November, 1991): Editorial: Electronic Time Travel [ Begins at line 51 ] The Brent-Hering Exchange about Owning Knowledge [ Begins at line 102 ] by Bob Hering and Doug Brent Drexel University Faculty of General Studies University of Calgary Information - [ Begins at line 441 ] About Subscriptions and Back Issues About Supplements to Previous Texts About Letters to the Editor About Reviews About _EJournal_ People - [ Begins at line 513 ] Board of Advisors Consulting Editors [line 42] ******************************************************************************** * This electronic publication and its contents are (c) copyright 1992 by * * _EJournal_. Permission is hereby granted to give away the journal and its * * contents, but no one may "own" it. Any and all financial interest is hereby * * assigned to the acknowledged authors of individual texts. This notification * * must accompany all distribution of _EJournal_. * ******************************************************************************** Editorial: Electronic Time Travel This issue of _EJournal_ is an exercise in time travel. Doug Brent's essay appeared in November '91. He heard from Bob Hering soon thereafter. Their exchange got lost in electronic limbo and didn't reach us until June '92. We're sending it out in July '92, with a note about how you can re-live last November by sending for issue V1N3. Even though it is being sent in 1992, the V1N3-1 designation aligns this issue with the "publishing year" 1991. Whew. We will now add a note to the abstract of the November 1991 essay, in the Contents file of our Fileserv, saying that there is a discussion of its argument to be found in the July '92 issue. Our electronic existence, that is, lets us telescope and overlay and interpolate texts in ways that can't be managed by book-style, codex publications. It would be possible, for instance, for us to re-distribute V1N3 with both November's "Ownership" essay and this July issue's follow-up exchange. That's easy to imagine, and it might offer worthwhile convenience to many readers, especially to recent subscribers who have perilously little context into which they can fit this issue. But from there it's only a small step, electronically, to an editor's revision of the November essay in a way that reflects both Bob Hering's reservations and Doug Brent's efforts in rebuttal -- without acknowledging Bob Hering's role in the "new original" essay. We could then file the altered issue in the Fileserv and pretend that it had always existed that way. [line 81] That won't happen. One of _EJournal_'s obligations has always been to provide authenticated copies --duplicate originals-- to academic authorities who still need to use paperclips. So we will not tamper with the "original originals," easy as it would be to do so. We have already turned down one reasonable request to change a spelling error. We have set up our archives (which are way back there, well "behind" the versions in the Fileserv) as "read only," of course, and we pledge that we will do our best to maintain the integrity of those files. We may make a mistake, someday, but we operate on the principle that what we send out will not be tampered with by embarrassed time travellers. That's one reason for publishing these supplemental discussions as separate issues, accepting the risk of some confusion caused by the distribution of a Volume 1 ("1991") issue in the middle of the Volume 2 ("1992") calendar year. Ted Jennings -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Supplement to the Volume 1 Number 3 (November, 1991) essay by Doug Brent, "Oral Knowledge, Typographic Knowledge, Electronic Knowledge: Speculations on the History of Ownership" Here, with their permission, is a discussion between Doug Brent and Bob Hering on the subject of Doug Brent's "Ownership" article in our November, 1991 issue (V1N3). Bob originally sent his comments to Doug personally, but it seemed to him (and to the editor) that the difference of outlooks represents a philosophical crux --not just between slightly left and right political views, but (as the exchange will suggest) between two views of the relative power of economics and technology. Readers may want to turn their dialogue into a polylog; we'd be happy to keep this thread spinning. You can send for the complete text of the "Ownership" article with the following message addressed to the Listserver at Albany: Address: LISTSERV@ALBANY.BITNET Message: GET EJRNL V1N3 The Brent-Hering Exchange about Owning Knowledge: To: Doug Brent Faculty of General Studies University of Calgary DABRENT@ACS.UCALGARY.CA Subject: "Oral Knowledge, Typographic Knowledge, Electronic Knowledge: Speculations on the History of Ownership" [line 131] -----Your Article in _EJournal_, Volume 1 Number 3, November, 1991 Please accept this message as a means of introduction. I am presently an adjunct professor at Drexel University. I teach graduate and undergraduate management courses as part of the Management Division at Drexel. I have a 35-year career background in the Information Management industry and a long association with the Sperry Corp., subsequently merged with the Burroughs Corp., into the Unisys Corp. I have a strong interest in computing, telecommunications and information management. My skills are specifically in the MS-DOS arena, with proficiency in several business, financial, communications and graphics applications. Your recent article in _EJournal_ is very interesting and thoughtful; I would like to offer my comments and observations to you. General comments: The perspective you offer about knowledge ownership across the oral, literate and cyberspace constructs contain important, clearly delineated comparisons. In addition to the fluidity provided to "text" through cybernetics, and the difficulties associated with ownership, there are other issues to be considered: legal, right to privacy, and corporate and public networking matters come to mind, to name a few. Perhaps the key point you raise, as part of your conclusions, has to do with economics. That area, linked with communal vs. individual ownership, could be considered central to many societies and to the systems or constructs devised to differentiate one developmental phase from another. [line 166] A general observation is that, in my opinion, western societies have evolved to the point of demanding individuality, which calls for intellectual property, and that individuality can be associated with value-added, economic independence. Your observation that the "...merging of texts into new wholes which are inseparable from their makers" (lines 614 & 615), could ensure the downfall of the emerging cyberspace construct. I will attempt to explain, in the specific comments below, why I offer that consideration. Specific comments: In Section 2, on ownership of knowledge in oral societies, you address the inseparability of creativity and performance in transmitting knowledge. The "performance" aspect can be directly equated to the "transmission or reproducibility" of the knowledge. In that sense, the analogy to either the printing press or cyberspace is common. Even in oral societies, although knowledge was shared, each member of the society had his or her specific role just as the teller of tales did. The individuality surfaces in the sense of these differing roles within the society, what you (or Ong) describe as procedural knowledge. I agree with your portrayal of knowledge ownership in literate societies, (Section 3) with two exceptions, namely, a) the "manuscript age analogy" -- the copying of these manuscripts can be equated to that done by a Xerox machine, albeit a very slow one. It was a mechanical form of reproduction, performed by humans (both of which are now "fossilized"); [line 200] b) the "romantic myth" (line 215) - while it is true that people draw on the collectiv[Ae past (text or otherwise), certainly there are instances that point directly to individuality, independent of past knowledge. Names that charaterize independence such as Einstein, Da Vinci, and Newton all demonstrated a creative originality that was not dependent on past knowledge and substantiate the "myth." But, in general, your point is well taken. In Section 4, your reference to the "Boshwash Times," from Hiltz and Turoff, stirs some comments. While the notion of a group Nobel Prize is entirely conceivable, the suggestion that no member of the group contributed more than any other implies communalism, socialism, utopianism or just plain contrived modesty. The scenario begs reality. In Section 6, relative to copyright in cybernetic space, the principal of copyrights can and should be maintained even though it may be cumbersome. Stealing of intellectual property, text, software, or concepts is not unique to cybernetics - it is simply easier in this environment. A key factor is one of human choice, to act professionally and responsibly. You seem to agree with that in the context of "..acknowledging an original creator of an idea." Contrary to your conclusion, that is the same as the claim to ownership. It simply is not as easy as it was in "fossilized text." I have great difficulty understanding your observation that when knowledge enters electronic space, "..it seems equally natural to surrender it." It is here that the use of cybernetic space for advancing knowledge is at great risk. If safeguards are not put in place to protect intellectual property ownership, economic factors will dilute the use of this space significantly. Charging for bytes and blocks of data (information) is completely independent of the knowledge itself. In Section 7, with respect to the Bolter paragraph, and the chaotic state of electronic writing space, I can only suggest - so is the entire physical universe as we know it. [line 239] With regard to your reference to communal knowing as optimistic, I would humbly suggest that others would view that as a pessimistic or negative outlook. You are correct that ".. the relationship between economics and knowledge will be rearranged into new formations,...." Again, in my opinion, if cybernetics, as a means of creation and transmission, is to contribute significantly to human knowledge, the value of the creation and the economic compensation to humans will be as or more important than it was/is today. I thoroughly enjoyed and appreciated what your article portrayed and the effort your article required. Many more educators, government agencies and businesses need to do the same if this very exciting new era is to come of age. I wish you the best in your current and future endeavors. Regards, Bob Hering Drexel University HERINGCR@DUVM.BITNET * * * * * To: Mr. Bob Hering Drexel University Bob: Thanks for your interesting, thoughtful (and flattering) response to my article. I think that you put your finger on some extremely important issues. The differences between our points of view suggest two quite different responses to the possible future of cyberspace, and reflect, I think, two different philosophies of our relationship to technology. This makes the discussion really interesting. Before getting on to what I see as the really important discussion, let me clarify the two minor points you address regarding my portrayal of knowledge in literate societies. [line 278] First, you disagree with my comment that "During the manuscript age, the painstaking copying and illustrating of a manuscript was in some respects a personal performance of knowledge analogous to the performance of an epic poem or folk tale." You suggest instead that manuscript copying can be likened to photocopying. I don't really think so, simply because manuscript copying required the copyist to handle each character individually with a loving care that--at least until the twelfth century scriptoria made a business of it--was often performed as an act of religious devotion. And although the goal was to make the copy identical in *wording* to the original, there was no thought of making it *look* like the original. Each was typically illuminated in a highly original fashion that was not necessarily copied from the source manuscript. It is this that gives manuscript copying a different psychological texture from photocopying, and led Ong to declare the manuscript age "residually oral." Second, you are not quite happy with my assertion that the idea of the individual genius is a romantic myth. I would certainly agree that the idea of the genius is not a myth. While some toil away making minor improvements in the work that has preceeded them, others such as the ones you mention make awesome leaps of understanding, authoring Kuhnian "paradigm shifts" rather than incremental advances. What I *do* see as a myth is the idea that such genius stands alone. It is always a social genius, a rare gift for taking the pieces of a puzzle that others have been forging and turning them a totally new way so that they suddenly lock together into a new configuration. It was Newton, I think, who said "If I have seen further than others it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants." (If anyone out there can confirm the exact source of this quotation, please pass it on--I've been trying to pin it down for years.) But enough of the minor details. On to the meat of the discussion. You seems to agree to a large extent with my prediction that ownership of knowledge will be more difficult in cyberspace and may well disappear. But you disagree with my assertion that this could well be a good thing. "It is here," you say, "that the use of cybernetic space for advancing knowledge is at great risk. If safeguards are not put in place to protect intellectual property ownership, economic factors will dilute the use of this space significantly." [line 321] What you are saying, in effect, is that given the present economic systems that have evolved, people will not continue to produce and disseminate knowledge if their right to profit by it (that is, their "ownership" of it, not just the polite acknowledgement that they thought of it first) is not protected. If it comes to a choice between cyberspace or profit, then, you argue that we will choose profit. Only by protecting the right to profit from intellectual labour can we protect cyberspace. (I hope I am not mis-paraphrasing you here. I am not trying to set up a straw man, for I think that this is a genuinely tenable and respectable position; I am just trying to restate for clarity.) You may well be right. The recent collapse of Communism seems to make this view even more persuasive. A system in which direct economic incentives for production were not in place resulted in a stagnant economy, a bloated bureaucracy, and ultimately a lack not just of consumer goods but of basic necessities. Human beings do not seem well disposed to work (whether planting potatoes or developing scientific breakthroughs) for the good of their souls. The only way you could be wrong is if the theory of transformative technologies states correctly the immense and unstoppable power of a communications revolution. McLuhan asserts, and Ong develops more thoroughly, the claim that when communications media shift to the extent they did when the alphabet was introduced, everything else--social systems, economics, consciousness itself--is dragged along with the shift. This may create short-term economic crises, but ultimately the economic system, like everything else, must adapt. This does not mean that the entire capitalist system will collapse in ruins; I think that in general capitalism is too strong and in the long run too useful (yes, I said useful) to be washed away. [line 356] This only means that the concept of private property will not be applicable to knowledge in the rather crude form that either copyright of hard-copy or pay-per-byte electronic systems has thus far allowed. Ownership of knowledge is gradually becoming untenable. This is a very strong form of technological determinism, but it works only on a massive scale. It does not assert that this or that little wrinkle in the technological ether is inevitable -- we can, if we like, reject certain forms of technology -- but it does assert that some types of global shifts in communications style are inevitable in the longer term. (Try to find a society that has successfully resisted literacy once introduced to it.) According to this theory, then, if it comes to a choice between cyberspace and profit, we will not have the option of choosing profit -- at least, not forever. Eventually the cyberspace environment will force an entirely new way of thinking about knowledge production. You hit the nail on the head when you call this concept, illustrated by Hiltz and Turoff's collective Nobel prize, "communalism, socialism, utopianism." It is indeed communalism; that is exactly what I am arguing for. And it may well be utopian, if you mean by that "a good state of being that cannot be achieved in today's world." If you mean "a soft-headed view of a future that could never occur," well, I must respectfully disagree. In short, then, we have three possible scenarios: 1. We manage to maintain ownership of knowledge in cyberspace, and cyberspace continues to exist within the present economic system. (I argue that this is unlikely because the nature of cyberspace makes it too difficult. You argue that it is unlikely because the nature of economics makes it too difficult. But whereas you think that this would be a positive outcome, I don't. Here you and I assign opposite values to the same possible outcome.) [line 393] 2. We do not manage to maintain ownership of knowledge in cyberspace, and cyberspace never develops its potential. (You argue that this is possible because the nature of economics prohibits communal knowledge on anything but a relatively local scale. Neither of us likes this possible outcome much, as both of us like the possibilities afforded by the cybernetic revolution. If we didn't, we wouldn't be sharing this piece of cyberspace right now.) 3. We do not manage to maintain ownership of knowledge in cyberspace, and the capitalist system, *at least as it applies to information exchange,* must adapt or die. (I argue that this is a likely, or at least a possible, outcome, and also that it could be a good one. Here again we assign opposite values to the same possible outcome.) I suppose it would be possible to assign this difference of opinion to a left - right "ideological" dichotomy, because I seem to support capitalism more reluctantly than you. But I don't think our differences are ideological, let alone "political." What we have put our finger on in this exchange is the difference in how much we believe in the transforming power of communication technology versus the staying power of the present economic system. My Utopian vision depends utterly on McLuhan, Ong and Heim being more right than wrong. The entire scenario painted in my "Ownership" article is nothing more than the detailed working-out of their theories as applied to a particular aspect of knowledge. Actually, if the truth be known, I am not absolutely sure that they really are more right than wrong. But I sure hope so. I find the idea of communal knowledge in cyberspace to be truly exciting.` All the best, Doug Brent Faculty of General Studies University of Calgary DABRENT@ACS.UCALGARY.CA [ This exchange in Volume 1 Number 3-1 of _EJournal_ (July 1992 supplement to November 1991) is (c) copyright _EJournal_. Permission is hereby granted to give it away. _EJournal_ hereby assigns any and all financial interest to Doug Brent and Bob Hering. This note must accompany all copies of this text. ] [line 439] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------- I N F O R M A T I O N ------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- About Subscribing and Sending for Back Issues: In order to: Send to: This message: Subscribe to _EJournal_: LISTSERV@ALBANY.BITNET SUB EJRNL Your Name Get Contents/Abstracts of previous issues: LISTSERV@ALBANY.BITNET GET EJRNL CONTENTS Get Volume 1 Number 1: LISTSERV@ALBANY.BITNET GET EJRNL V1N1 Send mail to our "office": EJOURNAL@ALBANY.BITNET Your message... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- About "Supplements": _EJournal_ is experimenting with ways of revising, responding to, reworking, or even retracting the texts we publish. Authors who want to address a subject already broached --by others or by themselves-- may send texts for us to consider publishing as a Supplement issue. Proposed supplements will not go through as thorough an editorial review process as the essays they annotate.- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- About Letters: _EJournal_ is willing publish letters to the editor. But we make no predictions about how many, which ones, or what format. The "Letters" column of a periodical is a habit of the paper environment, and _EJournal_ readers can send outraged objections to our essays directly to the authors. Also, we can publish substantial counterstatements as articles in their own right, or as "Supplements." Even so, when we get brief, thoughtful statements that appear to be of interest to many subscribers they will appear as "Letters." [line 474] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- About Reviews: _EJournal_ is willing to publish reviews of almost anything that seems to fit under our broad umbrella: the implications of electronic networks and texts. We do not, however, solicit and thus cannot provide review copies of fiction, prophecy, critiques, other texts, programs, hardware, lists or bulletin boards. But if you would like to bring any publicly available information to our readers' attention, send your review (any length) to us, or ask if writing one sounds to us like a good idea. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- About _EJournal_: _EJournal_ is an all-electronic, Matrix distributed, peer-reviewed, academic periodical. We are particularly interested in theory and practice surrounding the creation, transmission, storage, interpretation, alteration and replication of electronic text. We are also interested in the broader social, psychological, literary, economic and pedagogical implications of computer- mediated networks. The journal's essays are delivered free to Bitnet/ Internet/ Usenet addressees. Recipients may make paper copies; _EJournal_ will provide authenticated paper copy from our read-only archive for use by academic deans or others. Individual essays, reviews, stories-- texts --sent to us will be disseminated to subscribers as soon as they have been through the editorial process, which will also be "paperless." We expect to offer access through libraries to our electronic Contents and Abstracts, and to be indexed and abstracted in appropriate places. Writers who think their texts might be appreciated by _EJournal_'s audience are invited to forward files to EJOURNAL@ALBANY.BITNET . If you are wondering about starting to write a piece for to us, feel free to ask if it sounds appropriate. There are no "styling" guidelines; we try to be a little more direct and lively than many paper publications, and considerably less hasty and ephemeral than most postings to unreviewed electronic spaces. We read ASCII; we look forward to experimenting with other transmission and display formats and protocols. [line 511] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Board of Advisors: Stevan Harnad Princeton University Dick Lanham University of California at L.A. Ann Okerson Association of Research Libraries Joe Raben City University of New York Bob Scholes Brown University Harry Whitaker University of Quebec at Montreal -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Consulting Editors - July 1992 ahrens@hartford John Ahrens Hartford ap01@liverpool.ac.uk Stephen Clark Liverpool crone@cua Tom Crone Catholic University dabrent@acs.ucalgary.ca Doug Brent University of Calgary djb85@albnyvms Don Byrd University at Albany donaldson@loyvax Randall Donaldson Loyola College ds001451@ndsuvm1 Ray Wheeler North Dakota eng006@unoma1 Marvin Peterson University of Nebraska, Omaha erdt@pucal Terry Erdt Purdue Calumet fac_aska@jmuvax1 Arnie Kahn James Madison University folger@yktvmv Davis Foulger IBM - Watson Center george@gacvax1 G. N. Georgacarakos Gustavus Adolphus gms@psuvm Gerry Santoro Pennsylvania State University nrcgsh@ritvax Norm Coombs Rochester Institute of Technology pmsgsl@ritvax Patrick M. Scanlon Rochester Institute of Technology r0731@csuohio Nelson Pole Cleveland State University ryle@urvax Martin Ryle University of Richmond twbatson@gallua Trent Batson Gallaudet usercoop@ualtamts Wes Cooper Alberta -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- University at Albany Computing Services Center: Isabel Nirenberg, Bob Pfeiffer; Ben Chi, Director -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Editor: Ted Jennings, English, University at Albany Managing Editor: Ron Bangel, University at Albany -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- University at Albany State University of New York Albany, NY 12222 USA