What is the essence of a face? Perhaps this is wishful thinking, but what if the increasing digitalization of the representation of identity (in all its many forms, be it: face, fingerprints, DNA, etc.) enables people to bind that representation more tightly to what makes them THEM.
For example, computerized textual analysis now allows for the identification of anonymous authors simply by the statistical preponderance of word usage and grammatical structure. Is this merely another way to identify someone? Or does it express something a little more wonderful? Doesn’t it rather suggest that writing is a unique way to experience the (temporary?) linguistic patterns in someone else’s brain?
Okay, so that was a tangent.
People, in general, don’t walk down the street wearing masks. Socially, there is value in recognizing and being recognized. Why would this not be true also in the “online’ universe? What would be the impact of individuals being able to take ownership of their own genetic code, for example?
First comment: I’ve gotta admit, you do a remarkable job of keeping your two halves separate. Everytime I come over here and read I feel like I’m reading someone else.
Second comment: You threw ME on a tangent just now. I wanted to write something about how our writings can identify us. And a-ha, I just noticed that actually does sort of tie in with my first comment there. What a surprise… what a… thing, of some sort. BUT, I couldn’t figure out what it was exactly I wanted to say about that, so maybe I’ll come back to it, but the tangent you threw me on is the idea of reading sources online. I didn’t read your link there about the faces; I went there for a second and immediately saw that that post was in response or relating to something else, which was linked right at the top. So I started thinking about just how deep this sort of thing could go.
Not that this sort of thing hasn’t always gone deep like that, but here it’s become easy to go ahead and link to a source and then leave some stuff unsaid. In fact you commented on that in another entry I just read. How much is left out? I’ve always been fascinated in the way information not only degrades when it’s transmitted and interpretted by people, but also shifts and changes point. What I’m talking about isn’t what you were talking about which probably wasn’t what that linked post was talking about which probably wasn’t about…
I think noise introduces new meaning to a signal, too. which is my favorite part. Which if I get into right now I won’t finish for a while. So I won’t.
And thanks for the link to The Raven. Seems like a good thing to check periodically.
Thanks for the comment/compliment. Took me awhile to find it. I don’t always notice these comment things as soon as they pop up. Maybe I’ll get better about it or maybe not.
I agree with what you’re saying about signal and noice and random baroque fastenings onto textual (webalized?) signifiers.
Basically, I’ve been coming to the conclusion these days that identity, such as it is, in any setting, involves a great deal of misinterpretation, junk-garbled messages, and frustrating non-connectivity. How often am I misunderstanding someone’s body language and words? And physically-present verbal communication conveys a HUGE amount of information (just think about the amount of processing power the brain just writes off to interpret a cocked eyebrow, say, or quirked lips!) which is still remarkable prone to mistake.
Are we surprised that a little 2kb text messages results ghettoizing flamewars? I’m not.
What am I trying to say? I’ve lost track, maybe.
I think a good word for what internet (as a connecting tool between individuals–“bloggers” (ick), not the passive “web” of nytimes say) does is “palimpsest”–
“A manuscript, typically of papyrus or parchment, that has been written on more than once, with the earlier writing incompletely erased and often legible.”
Replace papyrus or parchment with textfile and you get the idea.