Looking back over week 3 (week 2 for me in reality) it looks like I take a rather humanist approach to most aspects of cyberculture.
My end of block visual artefact was not intended to represent my view of digital technology. I don’t see ‘it’ as something to be feared, although it’s clear that many do. It is the use we make of it as a species that is my primary concern. Reflecting on the media linked by my fellow students and content I have found myself brings some of this into sharp relief. Indeed the blog post mid-week that followed reading Katharine Viner’s article in the Guardian was rather more from the heart than the head. From a thematic point of view I’ve definitely been more interested in ‘the preservation of the authentic human’.
The Google Hangout on Friday was useful. As an on-line student it’s always good to know that you’re not alone and to hear first hand that others are having a similar experience. Availability of previous iterations of the course was queried and it left me in something of quandary. I had found Tweets and post from the 2015 course when researching some of the terms used in the reading, but I had avoided looking for the Lifestreams so as not to be influenced by them, or risk inadvertent plagiarism. However, I came away from the Hangout with two thoughts; firstly that the blogs posts of our predecessors would be useful in helping me understand the concepts we’re studying and, secondly, that I’m leaving a legacy in my own Lifestream. This latter galvanised me into making my Lifestream more accessible, with the bonus effect of helping me understand the inner workings of WordPress a little better.
I’m still catching up on the reading and film clips and have saved up (put off) the Cyborg Manifesto until early next week.