Re: [xmca] Copernicus 2.0 [toolforthoughts]

Oh, I forgot to add references... Bogost has a good starting page for more
on unit ops:
http://www.bogost.com/books/unit_operations.shtml

And the meme article can be found at:
http://www.geocities.com/c.lankshear/memes2.pdf

mark

On 6/30/07, Mark Chen <markchen@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> I am wondering if this could be done or if it has the same function as
> getting people to see the larger picture and how they connect to others in a
> larger system. What I wrote about specializing and knowing who knows what
> could be done on an individual level whereas getting students or people to
> learn how to learn would require a more community or network or systems or
> meta way of thinking...
>
> Also, here is my brief overview of Ian Bogost's unit operations (written
> elsewhere):
>
> A unit could be likened to a genre cliché or an object in object-oriented
> programming, though it is not exactly like either. Where genres can be
> recognized by the clichés or conventions that have come to typify them, so
> too can games be understood through the units within them. By doing so,
> games can be placed into cross-media analyses when using the same units to
> analyze other media. For example, if I were to say the phrases "high noon,"
> "sheriff," and "outlaw", anyone at least superficially familiar with the
> Western genre would know what I was describing. This is a story element, but
> it also represents a certain cause-effect relationship or "operation" that
> occurs at a specific moment within a larger narrative. Similar to objects in
> programming, then, units have attributes that define them and how they
> relate to other units. On the one hand, a game's content and the way in
> which certain story elements fall into certain clichés help to classify the
> game. On the other, games can also be understood as a collection of enacted
> metaphors where the actions taken by players, and how these actions relate
> to other elements in the game serve to define the game.
>
> Michele Knobel and Colin Lankshear (2005) have been researching Internet
> "memes" as cultural products that emerge out of specific affinity groups
> into larger popular culture. Certain memes present counter-cultural ideas
> through parodies or satires of popular culture and offer signs of rebellion
> against a dominant social order. It may be fruitful to also consider units
> as cultural products and that these can be reflections of particular
> socio-political ideas. The unit in a game unlike memes, however, takes on a
> special quality since it requires player participation and enactment. It
> might be possible, then, to think about players as enacting political
> discourse through certain units. If one considers that, in a game, units are
> an amalgamation of story metaphors and player actions, perhaps we can say
> that players themselves can be understood as units within a larger system.
>
> So, to tie it back to the discussion on here, if units can be seen as
> player-game (or user-tool), are they the same idea as toolforthoughts
> (toolsforthought?--now I'm confused). Shaffer's recent book on epistemic
> games makes the link even stronger I think, where players enact the behavior
> of the identities games have them assume. The actions and identities are
> not separable... right?
>
> mark
>
> On 6/29/07, Lois Holzman <lholzman@eastsideinstitute.org> wrote:
> >
> > This portion of Mark's interesting post has me asking, matters for what?
> > And
> > also suggesting for consideration that it might be desirable to break
> > out of
> > the knowledge paradigm more completely. How to find answers still has
> > the
> > product as a goal, to my reading. Maybe what matters for learning and
> > development is learning how to learn, learning that we learn, and
> > learning
> > to create environments in which it's possible to learn that!
> > Lois
> >
> >
> > > From: Mark Chen <markdangerchen@gmail.com>
> > > Reply-To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu >
> > > Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 14:21:48 -0700
> > > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > > Subject: Re: [xmca] Copernicus 2.0 [toolforthoughts]
> > >
> > > As far as what people should be learning... I agree with the
> > sentiment that
> > > it no longer matters what you know, only that you know how to find
> > answers.
> > > If those answers lie with a friend in your social network or perhaps
> > with
> > > some sort of computational model (that you have access to), you've
> > > successfully navigated our new virtual culture. That implies,
> > however, that
> > > *someone* (or I guess *something*) needs to know the answers. I think
> > it is
> > > enough for people to specialize, so long as other people are learning
> > how to
> > > access these deep pockets of knowledge, and so long as *all* people
> > are
> > > afforded the same access. Public education, then, would have to be
> > > reconfigured to reward and nurture different social networks while at
> > the
> > > same time letting students specialize and make available their
> > > specializations to the community.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Mark Chen | grad student | games researcher/designer | tech instructor | U
> of Washington
> http://markdangerchen.wordpress.com/
>

-- 
Mark Chen | grad student | games researcher/designer | tech instructor | U
of Washington
http://markdangerchen.wordpress.com/
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca