Skip to main content

paths in the grass: a visual metaphor for virtual architecture


This image from my PhD thesis uses a minimal stereotyped image of a college campus as a visual metaphor to describe a space of emergent learning.  This idea is expanded upon in the "Patterns of Peeragogy" paper, which uses a similar metaphor:
This image is of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, where I've been several times.  It still looks somewhat similar to the picture, though a bit more built up!

The concept here is that the common-place architectural structures that have emerged at the university represent meaningful "patterns" that apply in more general learning-and-production settings.
Collegial and convivial peer support via remote collaboration or short-term meet-ups may fill some of the requirements of “student life”. Peeragogy can also happen in neighborhoods, and among persons sharing long-term co-habitation. While a traditional Dormitory may not be necessary, a shared rented or cooperatively-owned living/working environment could be an asset for peeragogues working together on A SPECIFIC PROJECT (Figure 7).
Here I'd like to draw attention to the "Quad", an in some sense under-determined physical space that sits in the "middle" of the various already-emerged architectural features.  Although it has some meaning relative to those features, and is not simply an empty space, it is also something of a blank slate, on which traces of momentary action and interaction may be temporarily observed.  Sometimes these structures will thicken into new structures, for example new buildings or paved-over paths.  As a campus (or city, or other social structure) becomes more developed, these "patterns" become increasingly solid.  Even a formerly blank slate becomes constrained (e.g., in its definition as a "common space").
I propose that some version of the first set of images above could be used to organise the existing posts on this blog and our ancillary writings, e.g., using CMap Tools, so that we get a high-level view of the structure that has emerged here.

The "Context/Nonlinear/Feedback/Metalearning/Roadmap" framework should be "harmonised" with Dan Harmon's outline and the Aboriginal yarning framework described previously.  We could use a "4-up" framework to wind a longer "rope" of meanings out of the various threads that have developed here so far.

From http://howdidyoumakethis.com/square-pin-loom-speed-weaving/
I think that this sort of "emerged" outline would be very useful for subsequent writing projects -- it would complement the more rigid frameworks that come from Harmon et al.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The plot thickens (with Herbert Spencer)

In a paper attempting to outline the conceptual domain of comparative psychology , Herbert Spencer discusses the quality of impulsiveness in relation with human races (bearded and unbearded). Among his "sundry questions of interests" about the relationship between mental energy, evolution, complexity, etc. are the following notes: ( b ) What connection is there between this trait and the social state? Clearly a very explosive nature - such as that of the Bushman - is unfit for social; and, commonly, social union, when by any means established, checks impulsiveness. ( c ) What respective shares in checking impulsiveness are taken by the feelings which the social state fosters - such as the fear of surrounding individuals, the instinct of sociality , the desire to accumulate property, the sympathetic feelings , the sentiment of justice? These, which require a social environment for their development, all of them involve imaginations of consequences more or less distant; and th...

Extra channels

In the following, I would like to clarify the connection between channel and context and concomitantly the difference between metachannel and parachannel . Paul Kockelman urges us "to notice the fundamental similarity between codes and channels" (2011: 725) but instead of that purported fundamental similarity points out the contrast between them. I argue that context , or objects and states of affairs (Bühler 2011[1934]: 35), demonstrate a closer relationship to channel than to code. This is largely because the first three fundamental relations, sender or subject , context or object , and receiver or addressee , belong to Bühler's original organon model while code , contact and message , which were previously implicit in the organon model, are made explicit as additions to the model by Jakobson (1985[1976c]). Thus the most productive approach would be to pair a component from the original organon model with an additional component in the language functions model....