Comment on Archeodatalogy - Entwined, Enmeshed, Entangled

Spaceweaver Mon, Feb 18, 2013
Thanks Wildcat for this interesting post. After a first read here are a few comments. I hope you will find them sensible and constructive.

1. From the first premise, if an individual is/has multiplicity of identities, what possibly hold it together as a distinct entity? Such premise assumes an implicit biological (or otherwise) embodiment that connects and coheres these identities and leaves out the possibility of distributed individuals i.e. multi-minds and multiply embodies individuals. I would suggest to develop instead the concept of identity as a multiplicity. A multiplicity here stands for a mesh of distinct yet inseparable elements. Such definition of a 'neo-individuality' grounded in a multiple identity resolves the above indicated problems and seems to me more elegant.

2. Infocology which becomes a very prominent concept in this article remains unclear because it relies too much on environments of information exchange that are defined by software platforms (e.g. Twitter, Face book etc). The concept need to be developed independently of such platforms in order to carry the significance assigned to it. A major example I can think of an infocology is a language, or particular language games within a language (e.g. how psychologists or computer scientists communicate professionally among them). The difference is that such examples exposes a rich landscape of meaning relations and nuances and not only the raw means and protocols that constrain and specify information transfer between parties.

3. The presentation is strongly focused on presence in cyberspace and seems to leave out physical presence. I think that a philosophy of a future civilization need to account for an already on going convergence and the eventual merging between cyber reality and physical reality. The core problem to be addressed is the problem of embodiment and how embodiment extends from physical expression to cyborgian (both physical and cyber) expression and how the unitary nature of identity imposed by local physical embodiments evolves into the distributed multiple identity of the future individual.

4. As to the concept Archeodatalogy itself, the meaning is quite understood and very interesting. The term chosen to signify it however is somewhat obscuring the concept. Archeodatalogy seem to mean the extraction of the 'facts' i.e. the various particular narratives and threads that weave together the meta narrative which characterizes an individual in a future civilization. But it does not cover (at least to my mind) the work of interpretation and analysis which is necessary to connect, organize and cohere the various elements into a whole. The analogy I make here is how archeology and history work together.