In thinking about how words are being defined and placed, I have come to the realization that all binaries end up replicating themselves as boundary objects across not only academic disciplines, but also across the lived experience. They are performing the very thing that they are:
the mind / body
is a real / virtual
live / mediatized
performer / spectator
a speaker, / listener
a(n) perceiver / object
of the self / other
now play mix and match:
is a virtual
of the other.
is a real,
of the self.
how is meaning derived?
when we move into 'online' taxonomies, how do our own assumptions (categorizations) affect the way we search, choose, and look? what does it mean when we crowd source taxonomies-think flickr, delicious, etc- do we derive more, or less meaning? How will 'efficiency' products' such as Google's Instant Search affect our categories of knowledge?
if binaries are boundaries objects across everyday life, do they help us to understand across difference, or do they reinforce cultural expectations?
These are not rhetorical questions. I throw this out there hoping to start a conversation.
the binaries were derived from the following:
Grosz, Elizabeth, Ch. 2 “Lived Spatiality (The Spaces of Corporeal Desire)” from Architecture from the OutsideGrosz, Elizabeth, Ch. 5 “Cyberspace, Virtuality, and the Real” from Architecture from the Outside
Auslander, Phillip, Ch. 1 "Introduction An Orchid in the Land of Technology"
Auslander, Phillip, Ch.2 "Live Performance in a Mediatized Culture" from Liveness Performance in a mediatized culture
Phelan, Peggy, Ch. 7 “The Ontology of Performance: Representation without Reproduction,” from Unmarked: The Politics of Performance