« in the open | Main | quo vadis, sophie? »
some important points Bob brings forward 
01.09.2007, 12:59 PM
Growing up in catholic school, yearly we had a retreat in the Jesuitical tradition of withdrawal from secular things in order to get in close contact with the spirit. I actually enjoyed those days of reflection on my faults, weaknesses, doubts, and so on. It helped me to know myself at a young age, and to act upon that knowledge. I think it would be a good idea to begin this retreat by visiting the Institute's strengths but also its weaknesses. It would be interesting to hear you guys analyze what has been good and what has not. I suspect there is a lot to learn there, and perhaps that will provide some guidelines for further
conversation.
some important points Bob brings forward:
1. Second Life: is a brilliant prospect This is quite interesting from the view point of postmodernity. We call "real time" something that is not quite strictly time, not real either, all takes place in virtual reality. Thus, the antinomy time/space that was true for almost two thousand years is cancelled. This is perhaps the most significant change in our present/future. This is intimately related to the concept of new forms of orality. However, even though this is a concern of the Institite, it's not a direct concern of the future of the Institute. (The same with our indebtedness to the Greeks, the validity of the canon, and so forth.) For the purposes of this meeting, it's important to keep that into perspective. It's easy to get diluted in the details. What is central here is, if adopted, is how to push forward such fabulous idea.
2. we like to believe that we are good at combining theory with practice: which has been possible thanks to your ability to persuade Macarthur. For how long can the Institute count on unrestricted grants from a foundation which trusts you to, "do something interesting?" Who decides what is interesting? This seems a rather shaky financial terrain on which to erect a future.
3. projects which feel much more like full-productions rather than experiments: this seems to be counterintuitive to the Institute, but it has served as a springboard for more thinking, and the realization of what practice really means. Which brings us to the next point:
3. the further we go with these experiments the more we realize the necessity of inventing radical new forms which are capable of dealing with complexity in useful ways. increasingly it seems that two dimensions aren't sufficient. what would it mean to reconceive the book as a three or four dimensional (social) space: this takes us back to the first point, but also to the recognition that what you call "dimensions" are here defined under absolutely new terms. This is quite virgin territory. You have to collect your specimens and experiment before you produce treatises, and way before you think of the library where they'll reside. I believe it is important to think of the Institute as a lab. You have finite resources, you cannot be everything.
4. authors and readers are undergoing substantial changes. what experiments are necessary to take this strand of inquiry to the next stage: this is what you are already trying, and becoming experts at. Your web-based projects, and Sophie, with all its problems, seem to be the experiment at hand. Is the Institute ready for the next stage? What resources would that take?
5. Sophie may be a viable tool in the next several months. Is Sophie promising enough for us to really get behind it and push, or should we abandon it for web-based alternatives. if Sophie is something we should support, to what extent should we be planning a "publishing program" around Sophie to explore and show-off it's potential: What is at stake here? Are web-based alternatives incompatible with Sophie? Do you trust Sophie will do what you want it to? Meanwhile, web-based alternatives are there to explore. These explorations could feed future Sophie-based projects.
6. concerns about google's role as archivist and gatekeeper of our collective culture have led us to try to pull together a movement aimed at encouraging the creation of a public trust (in opposition to google and other private, for-profit entities). and this in turn raises huge questions about the socio/political context for everything we're doing. how political can we/should we be, and in what way?: this is important, but not crucial for the existence of the Institute at this moment. You can be activists, but have you the resources or the time for this huge endeavor? If your political concerns come before anything else, then the Institute must be absolutely, and honestly, restructured. Which brings us to the last point:
>
7. we've either got to scale down our ambition substantially or else gear up for significant fund-raising. if we go for expansion, the question is how do we do that and not sell our souls for funding. if we opt to stay small and lithe how do we concentrate our efforts so that we continue having an impact. can we achieve our goals (whatever they are or should be) within the context of the institute or is it time to consider another structure?
Posted by sol gaitan at January 9, 2007 12:59 PM