Weird spellings to capture less-weird distinctions…
What is exposed to computability is not the object in and of itself but one of its phases observed in a site-specific location open to a given machine-process.
Back in April 2004, Adrien Miles and Jeremy Yuille composed a Manifesto for Responsible Creative Computing in which one of the key statements is that computer literacy is synonymous with network literacy. I am venturing the suggestion that network literacy deals with “computible” objects. Such objects are indeed computable they are also as often remarked fungible.
And yet I am totally unhappy with this ible/able play I have initiated if it doesn’t keep in mind that there is a material substratum. The digital technologies allow us to play with faithful copies. Replication is at the heart of the matter. And an ethics in its structure. Yuille and Miles, in the context of their manifesto and from the perspective of teaching students who work with the soft artifacts of the creative industries, place _praxis_ between _knowledge transfer_ and _learning_. Under the rubric of praxis is the following single sentence: “Breaking, gleaning and assembling is a theory of praxis for these literacies.” Sure if you are dealing with the breakible copies, the gleanible copies and the assemblible copies — morphs on the computible.
Morphiblia — the object of study of humanities computing.
Banking on the fungible … As Yuille and Miles write “Learning happens when things work, different learning occurs when things don’t work.”
And so for day 1955