MZ Sitewide (Version 2)

Digital thought

Giorgio Buccellati – February 2008

1. The notion of digital thought

Adjusting instantly to even the slightest technological modification has become second nature for all of us, so as to give a whole new meaning to the concept of cultural adaptation. But does this transcend the level of the techne, the hands-on art or craft? Does the change affect substantially the way in which we conceptualize the world around us, or do we essentially retain, except for enhancing external controls, the same mental templates?

It seems to me that the answer, as it concerns scholarship, is not as clearly in the affirmative as it should be. The very ease of the technical adaptation, whereby we quickly learn to use the tool, seems to blind us to the deeper intellectual potential of the tool itself. Technique blinds us to method.

It is such an effort at exploiting the fuller power of the medium that I consider to be “digital thought” in the proper sense of the term – one that constructs different ways of developing an argument not so much on account of the fuller and more rapid access to data, but because of the very nature of the mental interaction with the data. This approach is at the same time concrete (because it develops specific and very tangible constructs) and abstract (because it ultimately raises the physical tool to the level of a concept).

Gaining some distance from the delight of state-of-the-art innovations leads us, unexpectedly perhaps, to a fuller appreciation and exploitation of the deeper potential, to – digital thought.

The notion of digital argument

The centrality of arguments is a fundamental presupposition for understanding what is meant by “digital thought.” Without entering into the details and formalizations developed within the discipline of logic, I would stress here a simple point that is particularly relevant in our context: an argument flows directionally, i.e., through a specifically sequential concatenation of statements.

The reason this is important is because directionality speaks to linearity, whereas digital processes are often equated with non-linearity. So, if an argument is directional, hence intrinsically linear, how can we have a digital argument? I deal elsewhere in greater detail with this question, and suggest that “non-linearity” is but a mode of linearity. In other words, an argument can only be linear, even though the modality with which it is expressed, particularly in the digital realm, may shortcircuit intermediate steps and thus appear to be non-linear.

What is then the distinction between a traditional linear argument and a digital argument that builds on non-linearity?

The answer is suggested by an identification of the the two main underlying and distinctive traits of a digital argument – the discontinuity of levels, and the self-aggregative organization of the fragments. Taken together, these two aspects help to explain the inner dynamics and the immense new power of this mode of thought. They are seemingly in contradiction with each other. Discontinuity speaks against linearity (a presupposition of aggregation), and aggregation against fragmentation (which is at the root of discontinuity). The polarity derives its meaning from a wider issue, namely the nature of the argument when taken as a whole and when viewed in its component parts.

The digital argument as a coherent whole: scalarity and multi-layering

Taken as a whole, the singularity of the digital argument is that it makes linearity possible at a higher level, or across multiple levels. Thus it is that, in a digital argument, linearity can bracket an almost unlimited array of layers, without mixing the levels of analysis, yet allowing each to be in contact with the other. While every argument is potentially multi-layered, it is only digitally that the effective scope of the bracketing extends well beyond the powers of the human mind – in ways not unlike those that intervened when writing was first introduced.

The relationship among the layers may be referred to as scalarity. By this I mean that the pieces are organized in a step-like sequence, as if in a musical scale, where the values of the notes are determined by their places relative to each other. Thus in a digital argument the many layers are not scattered shreds, that are invoked at whim. They are profoundly structured in themselves and in their concatenation. The combinatory power is not just between individual pieces, but between larger wholes. In the analogy of a musical scale, each layer is harmonically tied to certain others, as a note is to a chord.

The digital argument as a dynamic aggregate: linearity as directionality

To appreciate the full relevance of scalarity one should consider the true nature of linearity (which I discuss it more fully elsewhere). The common acceptation of “linear” implies a static sequentiality as proposed by the author and fixed onto a rigid medium (such as a clay tablet, a paper page or a computer screen conceived as a page). Non-linearity, I suggest, refers in fact to dynamic linearity, one that darts among layers but retains the coherence of a sense of direction.

The directionality of an argument is intimately connected with its scalariy.

The dynamics of aggregation, not ricocheting.

2. The value of discontinuity

A unique dimension of a properly digital text is the discontinuity between the data as they are structured and organized (a sort of deep structure) on the one hand, and the way in which they are displayed (the surface structure) on the other. The display meets the needs of perception, the underlying data are structured in function of substantive needs of categorization and organization. Such a multi-layered quality is the first characteristic of a properly digital text.

In contradistinction, a mirror image of a printed text such as a Portable Data File (PDF) is an altogether different construct. Aiming to be identical to the printed page, it does in fact safeguard much of the perceptual impact that the printed page has. Data are etched into an immutable format, which has been designed with the perceptual response of the reader in mind – an aspect about which I say more under the heading digital reading. Rather than digital, these are electronic texts.

The three levels of interaction

While the author of a printed text has exclusively the finished (paper) product in mind, authoring a digital text entails a multi-level approach, on account of the discontinuity just noted between the data and the display. If one considers the impact of automation, one may in fact distinguish not two, but three levels: input, output and display.

The distinction of the three levels is clear in the case of a database.

Input. A very specific format and coding system has to be devised and adhered to strictly: much thought must go into this, because it obvoiusly conditions the value of the outcome. An important aspect of the input is that it need not be entered directly into a fixed matrix, but, given proper formats, may also be entered in the form of sequential ASCII strings, which are then imported into the matrix. The significance of this feature cannot be underestimated, as I will emphasize below.
Output. Once the data are entered according to the input protocol, they may be manipulated at will in a number of different formats, typically utilizing different sort keys within the purview of a given program (such as Access or Excel). These outputs serve a heuristic purpose in that they suggest alternative sort possibilities, and are also very useful for proofreading purposes.
Display. This same program, or others of the same type into which the structured data are imported, produce a variety of displays, both alphanumeric and graphic, such as bar histograms or pie charts – all of which are designed in function of a “reader.”

Another apposite example of this three-level dimension of a “digital text” pertains to graphic files of the type processed in a program like AutoCAD. An ASCII input file is processed through a script procedure in such a way as to generate an output suitable for elaboration into a graphic display, typically a plot with lines connecting points.

The flattening of the three levels

The discontinuity among the three levels of a digital text is what gives it its real distinctiveness – and intellectual power.

Typically, however, the trend has been to steer away from this discontinuity, aiming instead for a WYS/WYG approach (What You See is What You Get). In so doing, the input is as close as possible to the final display, a procedure which in effect freezes the potential dynamics inherent in the three-level approach.

In the case of website editing, programs like Microsoft FrontPage (now discontinued) allow to easily create a text to be read through a browser without recourse to underlying codes, in a way similar to what word processors do for normal text editing. This obviously makes the task incomparably easier as to short term results. But it also severely limits two great potentials of a properly digital approach. The first, pertaining to the intellectual sphere, has to do with the flexibility that automation provides, as I will illustrate in the comments below about the Urkesh Global Record. The second, of a practical nature, pertains to portability: data entered through formatting programs (rather than as ASCII) are much more impervious to being exported to other programs

3. The new continuity

For an author to be mindful of the three levels requires a new type of mind set. To the extent that the levels are made available at the receiving end, readers have to develop new mind sets as well – if they are to make the most of the “text” as presented.

The role of perception

It is interesting to reflect on the perception we have of the larger “work” being produced. While we think of books, monographs or articles as “publications,” we are less likely to do so for websites. In fact, we do not think of a website as a self-contained whole which we expect someone to ever “read from cover to cover.”

And yet, if we are to fully integrate web publishing into scholarly discourse – not just as a reference tool, nor just as an electronic repository of disiecta membra, but as a full-fledged digital publication –, then we should give thought to just such compositional matters. Questions of intent, structure, readers’ access are just some of the issues involved. The broader task is to develop new mental attitudes, both as authors and as readers.

I am not blind to the fact that a new perception has indeed taken roots vis-à-vis the electronic medium. Navigating websites, clicking on hyperlinks, responding to game stimuli, are only some of the ways in which our motor habits have already adapted. More importantly, there are aspects that go beyond motor habits and do impact on our mental templates: we relate to statistics more readily than ever before because we know intuitively how to extract and sort data from databases; we expect explanations and documentation to be instantly at our fingertips because we have mastered search functions that tap on unsuspectedly broad universes; we leapfrog over seemingly unconnected data with the ease with which flat pebbles skip over water surfaces. All of this has undoubtedly affected our attitude towards communication, and our perception of the electronic medium.

It has not, however, – and this is my argument – affected as deeply as it should the structure of scholarly discourse.

“One long argument”

“As this whole volume is one long argument, it may be convenient to the reader to have the leading facts and inferences briefly recapitulated” – thus reads the first sentence of the last (15^th) chapter of The Origin of Species, p. 404.

The same words are repeated at the end of Darwin’s Autobiography, p. 140: “The Origin of Species is one long argument from the beginning to the end.”

Does any auhor feel this way in constructing a website? Do readers expect it? We do not, as a rule. We do not expect a website to have a central thesis, nor do we typically plan on developing an argument while “writing” a website. There is of course a coherence of subject matter and a sense of aesthetic harmony in the display, but there does not seem to be a particular concern to achieve a logical concatenation among the parts so that, through the progression of the conceptual flow, the underlying secret kinship might emerge from beginning to end. There seems to be no room for Darwin’s pride in constructing “one long argument.”

But so it should. And it is in this respect that I feel we should aim for a new perception of the scholarly digital construct.

The frame and the fragments

The new perception, the new continuity, the new “long argument” should emerge with properties that are specifically suited for the digital dimension. The question, then, is: having claimed a special role for discontinuity, how can we see such new continuity emerge from the disaggregated constituents?

The answer draws its strength precisely from the premise. The fragments derive value from their specificity, both because they are so constituted at the origin (by the author) and can so be retrieved (by the reader) in their full individuality, even when embedded in a wider frame. The answer, in other words, must be applicable to both terms of the equation, author and reader. We must aim for a perception of the whole, of “one long argument,” that is not presented in linear fashion, but is neverheless homogeneous. The new perception is one whereby we relate do discontinuity and continuity at the same time – the discontinuity maintaining the autonomy of the fragments, the continuity making clear at all times what the overall frame is and all the subframes embedded in it.

The concrete embodiments of this proposal are developed in separate pages – about the digital text as a construct that brings together in a single configuration the dynamic and the static dimensions of digital thouhgt; about digital narrative as the specific procedure that binds the fragments into a discursive whole; about digital reading as the perception that must be developed at the receiving end, so as to be in tune with the full potential of the system.

4. The mechanics of digital thought

Electronic vs. digital

The distinction may be phrased in terms of the juxtaposition between the electronic and the digital. True, the computer is such because it “computes,” i.e., because it breaks down the universe of data into digits that it can reorder at will (hence the French “ordinateur”). In this sense, everything the computer performs is digital. The distinction is neverthelss useful in that the term “electronic” refers more directly to the hardware aspect, while “digital” implies more specifically the software, or properly computational, power of the machine.

The term “electronic,” then, may be used to refer to the technical, and “digital” to the methodological, use of the computer. In this and the related pages I will endeavor to highlight the distinction, and to identify what can properly be considered as digital thought within the realm of scholarly discourse.

“Ontologies” and embodiments

Concreteness of the enterprise.
Critique of “ontologies.”

Articulation of digital thought

The text as embodiment.
The narrative: fluid linearity in expression.
Reading: flexibility in reception of the message.

This side of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

I do not intend, by any means, to equate the notion of digital thought with artificial intelligence. I only mean to say that (a) a new type of narrative is produced where the development of an argument has a genesis all its own (automation playing a large role), and (b) the organization of the data is arranged in ways that are especially suited to the electronic medium and differ from those otherwise used in normal scholarly discourse. It is, however, the human mind that remains in control through the same procedures that inform a traditional argument.

Methods and techniques

TEXT TO BE WRITTEN

5. The risks of digital authorship

What should emerge is a whole new posture towards authorship, seen in a digital dimension. Besides acquiring a mental disposition that is specifically suited to digital thought as outlined above, there are some more practical aspects thta must be considered.

The difficulty of a new commitment

To publish digitally in the sense outlined here entails, it would seem, an act of courage with regard to at least two difficulties. First, one must assume receptivity on the part of the scholarly community for the conceptual goals inherent in the new modalities. A general attitude sems to have developed whereby a website is seen primarily as a quick source of information to be skipped through hurriedly, not as a reasoned argument one should reflect on and properly study. If something of that nature is to be conveyed through a website, a format is chosen that mirrors the image of a printed text (currently a .PDF format): once the text is extracted from its website environment, then it seems to emerge to the status of a scholarly text, the one for which our intelelctual habit have trained us. The difficulty of the new commitment, then, is to develop new habits that would allow us to follow a digital argument as presented in a website along the lines I have described here.

The gamble with continuity

The second difficulty is that one must assume a continuity in the medium that may not be forthcoming. Take a website as complex as the one that is being presented here. It is intrinsically built as a vast network of filaments that make it into the dynamic organism it is, but how can it exist apart from the technical infrastructure here adopted? Previous experiences of migration or conversion, even from earlier to later versions of the same program, are far from promising. The industry presupposes and thrives on ephemeral products, which are either so simple in structure as to be easily exported to new formats, or else so unsubstantial in content as to warrant a whole new production from scratch.