Stepping back to earlier this week, the symposium led me to question a few things. Firstly, what does it truly mean for things to be connected? Does this connection effect the relationships they resonate? What is the relevance between yourself and writing? When there’s no middle, end or beginning, what matters most? What matters less?

While Carli found a clear comfort in the discussion of links, the questions provoked were similar to my own. Pre-determined calculations and fractions of Adrian’s examples further illustrate these musings. Yes, trust, relevance, enjoyment may influence the connection between links, but is there truly a singular method of measuring this in relevancy? Hubs, I suppose.

On the other hand, Amy focuses on the tangible example of Cowbird and the essence of collections, tags and general folksonomy. Diving into technology networks, the presentation of memories and stored information confirms the concepts of cultural memory, her post explaining it simply and effectively.

Last but not least, understanding links as chains was another concept heavily pushed; Maddison focusing on the ecology of systems and the connections seen in The Oracle Of Bacon. Explaining the database and it’s purpose, the distance between connections was viewed as a rarity, each actor link drawing surprising close. The meaning? Connection, of course, with each singular component being linked back to a larger, collaborative collection of components.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *