Memo2

Thomas Solley STSH 4980-01 Senior Thesis Costelloe-Kuehn 8/29/2014

Click here to return to portfolio.

__Memo2 -- Habits, Neuroses, Talents__ > In research, however, this issue depends on the subject of choice. More often than not it is easier to describe the "object," except on the occasion when the "common descriptive modifiers" (such as name) are unknown. In this latter case I "fall back" to describing the frame rather than the object. It is important to note that this tactic is also employed when unsure of the appropriate means of address of the "object," such as in a socio-politically uncertain environment. > Example; > When seeking to discuss a topic that one knows to be "contested" or otherwise "felt strongly about" by others, one avoids "naming" the object directly and instead uses descriptive modifiers to "frame" the object via "neutral" language. > Example; > An STS professor assigns a paper on the topic of "technological momentum;" and while the student must write something about the observed Moore's Law in technology and/or the cycle of technology-inspiring-technology, the student has some room to maneuver in terms of whether they support this trend, see it as harmful, make predictions relative to certain existing technologies, etc. > Another example can be seen within the IED Term Group Project; students are tasked with certain deliverables, but can choose how they wish to accomplish those deliverables in Topic, Breadth, Depth, and Users. > The above examples only demonstrate the complex nature of assigned work, however. Even though students are encouraged to remain with a single Topic/Application, often students find themselves shifting (between Topic-Breadth-Depth-Users) before settling on an outcome. My personal preference is to choose a general Area (as a "guideline" or "interest area"), and after acquiring sufficient background data into the above four regions (which I shall call "Scope") I decide whether to narrow my focus, or to shift to another Topic. That being said usually very little time is given to actually shift once a Topic is chosen, so I prefer to come into the "choosing" having already done some research to determine if I am invested in the topic. Arguments can and have been made for sticking with a Topic even if uninteresting/invalid, as in my experience in STS seldom is research/work on a topic "worthless," there is almost always room to contribute perspective. > - Troy legislature on Unemployment/Restoration Programs (background) > - Legislature on City Refurbishment (to show fault of misapplied taxes), but likely would not need to refer to the Mayor's birthday party held last month, unless part of the argument was that this event was a gross expenditure of tax dollars. For deeming the nature of "applicable" reference material, user discretion is expected. > - However, by the opposite token, if one restricts one's research to a purely City-Legislature level, one would miss the Zoning Laws of the State of New York that regulate housing and development of urban/suburban dwellings and businesses. > Thus, while a degree of user discretion is expected in deciding how applicable material may be in Scope, I still find it useful to consider all Objects as being a part of a fractal-esqe series of Systems; "everything is connected" (with certain "degrees of networked power" no decisions are truly made in a vacuum, see "six degrees of separation" ). This you may call me being "paranoid"; when discussing subjects of an ambiguous nature, I prefer to frame my discussions with the caveat that certain lenses and biases are in existence during the discussion. I expect readers to come to their own subjective "meta" views connected with the Object, which I seek to not influence with my own neutral (and if not neutral, expressly stated) rendering of facts and data. > I take slight umbridge with the phrase "resist the construction of coherent narratives," as such a phrase indicates to me a willfulness against creating cohesive arguments (by way of spite), and presents an ideality regarding the "relativity" of objects (such as a "universally accepted" model). In my personal opinion, it is up to the reader to create meaning between objects, and the author's purpose to guide the reader to a chosen conclusion with examples and data.
 * 1) I tend to have a more difficult time defining my frame than my object -- I find that the subjectivity of the mind is difficult to translate into words that can be easily understood and not misinterpreted by others. In this explanation I point to an almost "platonism"  form of meaning behind words, objects, and sensations; in that by trying to describe my subjective views I am trying to communicate ideas that hold a particular, almost "meta"/non-quantifiable meaning into something others can understand.
 * 1) I have had the tendency to both project-hop and to "stick with" a project, depending entirely on the project. For assigned topics, little room is given for "subjectivity," though one can sometimes be creative with the "application" of the assigned topic.
 * 1) I feel that both internal dynamics and external determinations play a role in all Objects. There is almost always a series of "lenses" that must be used to describe Objects; these lenses shoudl ideally include as much data about internal and external factors that affect the Object (within chosen Scope!) as needed. For example, if talking about Troy Unemployment/Restoration Programs, where one's Objective was to place blame on the Troy Legislature for the fault, the following would likely apply;
 * 1) The fascination with "outliers" or unusual examples remains a subjective discussion. Some research fields would do well to be reminded of the evolving state of Science -- where new data is ideally accepted into academic circles, debated, reproduced, and the original model changed to incorporate the results. Specifically I make reference to certain regions of interest which Transhumanism includes in its domain -- consciousness, organic/mechanical augmentation, artificial intelligence, and eco-preservation (e.g. impact) relative to modern-day politics. If case studies challenge an accepted norm, I support (with appropriate discussion and confirmation) discussion of the case study(s). While I wish to inform readers with as much information as they might need to make their own intelligent, informed opinions, some counter examples are not based upon proven science or method; these I will exclude unless subjectively within the scope of my discussion.
 * 2) While logics can be seen within a variety of entities within the world/universe (and indeed, science seeks to impose an "order" of sorts [some would argue so as to better understand][this is combined with apophenia , the tendancy to see meaning in "random" information]), I prefer not to assign purposeful meaning between objects unless there exists a Scientific Method-inspired procedure  for testing this assumption. That being said, a thesis is "subjective" (almost by definition, see  and "The Absurd" ), therefore any "logic" imposed is open to a degree of debate.
 * 1) In my mind "over-generalizations" are a Topic description that has too shallow of a Scope -- usually by choice, dictated by the enforced length requirements of the discussion. For short works, there may not be room to provide multiple and/or deep examples; some standardized models of information are by definition "abstract" in their scope (such as a Thesis or technical paper's Abstract); and some audiences are not experts in the fields of choice, thus requiring more of an overview than a technical manual. For my part, I believe an overarching argument is useful for many "objective" or "argument" papers that seek to convince the reader of a chosen opinion's validity (which comprises the majority of academic papers); however, research papers follow the whims of funding, self-complexity, and happenstance, and as such may begin with a proposal but end with a summary of "why X did not work."
 * 2) I find interpretations different than my own to be useful in broadening perspective, however depending on the severity of conflict may be seen as intimidating. Certainly, interpretations "different" than my own and more heavily supported are embarrassing.
 * 3) I have not found many papers to "write themselves" and maintain the same tone of argument throughout the discussion; more often than not, the arguments are changed and updated to support the latest information available, and as such are changed as the paper is "fleshed-out." One of my past papers for Intro to STS was easier to write in terms of the body arguments first, and to fill-in the conclusion and introduction last; however, this meant revising the substance of my Thesis and body paragraphs to become a more cohesive whole.
 * 4) I find metaphorical examples to be the most frequent support for papers -- as my scope is the past has restricted the use of QED examples. When using relative comparisons, however, I enjoy the use of metonymic phases to convey deeper meaning {SEE 1 ABOVE}, as "slanguage" to me is rather crude and unsuited for scientific discussion (in paper).
 * 5) I find "binary" questions to be rather restrictive in terms of their perceived meaning -- very rarely (if ever) in the universe can entities be simplified to a binary state {SEE 3 ABOVE}, as the process of "simplification" (or even "classification" via apophenia) causes a "loss" of quantifiable data pertinent to the entity, e.g. whatever "outliers" the Author chooses to exclude to have the entity fit within a binary state... If one views entities in the universe as subject to Complexity Theory , Chaos Theory , and self-modifying systems of complexity (or "self-complexity," as dubbed by Ron Eglash). In this system, "natural" or "universal" phenomena are part of an unmeasurable (fractal-esqe) number of elements acting on each other -- since the entirety of the elements cannot be measured, the phenomena remains "unpredictable" and subject to internal chaos (where the internal elements act on each other in unmeasurable ways). See [[file:reflection_paper2_RD6.docm]] for more on self-complexity and the status of "acceptable" measurements.