and
> I think settings will have a
>similar problem. Are they in the buildings and contents or in the actions
>and memories of the users?
As the suggested ten-year life span of a setting, that Mike passed on from
Shep White, already made me think of the upcoming ten-year anniversary of
the x-lists (in their archived form) the question of setting is an
interesting one for the body of communicative practices that we are
involved in "here".
In the case of a 5thD site one would think that the "hardware" -- an
equipped building -- is where you look to see the setting. In the case of
this 5thD for adults, presently called xmca, the hardware is almost as
mythical as the Wizard: there is somewhere in a building a piece of
equipment whose IP number translates into domain name weber.ucsd.edu and
which is the connecting node for this dispersed network of writings. And
there, in the (virtual or real) vicinity of the hardware, is the x-family
of Wiz assistants tending to the functions of connectedness. Maintaining
the basics of the setting.
But I should think that only a minority of x-list participants have ever
laid eyes on the actual machine. Where we see the xmca setting is all over
the globe, on some few hundreds of screens. And we are certainly not _in_
the machine, even when our traces are. So, where's the setting? What holds
it together? I often think that the xmca messages do not function as
messages only, but also as the floor, ceiling and walls of a common space.
Virtual, naturally. By this metaphor, I think, I am trying to account for
the sense of dissolution I get when x-messages get few and far between. And
the sense of a "solidity of presence" when my mailbox fills up...
All in all, it seems an intriguing task to pry setting and practices apart
in THIS activity system!
Eva