Proposal Heiner Benking

Exploring, mapping, and sharing Turfs

Turfs are for me fields of interests. But these fields are not just "flat" areas of interest, but deep bodies of interest. The extensional and 3-dimensional way of conceptualising fields has many merits. In this way we can model and present overlaps and interweaving of such fields, maybe even their interaction and reactions. Finally it becomes obvious that turfs have not just one boundary, on one level and in one sector, but need to be explored and negotiated, all very much depending on the positions and perspectives of the players around. Interesting are the tangible and intangible, post-material aspect with real time effects, proportions and consequences.

Humans are well equipped for the physical and visible world. Being born, we learn early to feel, later also see, or nowadays primarily "see" where we are and what is out there, we learn - maybe - how to get in touch, how to communicate with the other "out there". This programme of "positioning" is indispensable but not enough. Me vs. you, tight vs left, high vs. Low, given vs. not-given, physical vs. metaphysical, material vs. immaterial... is the fundamental programme to survive in the material world, But not good enough, even misleading in a world of many positions, perspectives, cultures, and turfs. This was already obvious in the other or dark ages, but with new means and power, "turfs" conflicts seem to clash more fatal, lasting, intense and often as never before.

Why? They can be seen as fields within fields within fields, co-existing and interweaving along and across many sectors and subject areas, but as is often forgotten across levels. Separations of rights and activities was a good solution to minimize conflicts, but with new media and transport- and tele- technology people are already there, act on many places, and all too often are considered intruders or aliens - without mandate or right.

But how to come to grips with the problem of levels, scales, or sectorial data traps, the co-existence of positions and interest fields?

To our knowledge the problem of access and assimilation along and across scales was first addresses in international ecological research and environmental management. The task was to develop meta-databases which give access to a multitude of repositories in various, domains, cultures, disciplines, times, and making use of various formats and standards of local and global data, coded- and non-coded data, representations in any kind of sign regime, icons, symbols, index (according to Ch.S. Pierce). Ecology was seen as the "frame of mind or reality" not just a discipline like many of the focussed, specialised others, but a discipline about orientation and interaction along and across scales, focussed on and aware of the proportions and consequences implied. The definition of ecology of bridging and in-between "diciplines, magnitudes and times" (see: Rubics Cube of Ecology, in ISSS COB ****) was later built as an order or orientation space, a space to locate knowledge, interests and actions, locate what we do not know and possible alternatives of interest and solutions, making visible and locating effects alternative courses of action, for example different inflictions of suffering (see Panetics ****).

Difference? Spacial 3d extensional ! haptical - virtual immersion space jointly eplorable

Another avenue to come to grips was we mean by bodies and spaces for knowledge&action areas can be found in philosophical anthropology or evolutionary epistemology. Hellmuth Plessner... ******

but will instead try to make a practical step towards including extra positions, as we have learned that solution are often not just between two parties, and views change when you look from the other side of the street, from above, from a distance, or again after a while.

When we take the "dawn" of multi-perspective reasoning serious, then we might need to make the issues more concrete, even need to include different magnitudes, levels, reaches, proportions, and consequences. But how to go on about it?

Human are first of all model making animals, so we can conceptually outline and include other view-points, even immerse into something not yet there, like fiction, go into possible futures, or go back into long forgotten pasts, making up "things" whether they have been like that or not. But such models, are as individual creations imagination, even when they include many sensations, are just presentations within our sweet mental isolation. What I am aiming at is that these mental models can not be shared, so they are as out feelings individual and not comparable.

So how about, like an artificial reality, or artefact, how about making not just mental maps and models, but conceptual maps and models which might help us locate where we are and what we see. Remember, this worked find in the sand-box or dolls-house, we were able to not only create our reality but immerse into it and assume other positions and perspectives, ways and means. Just as psychologists and wisdom keepers tell us to do, assume other realities, realise the framing or realities.

This is even well considered and explored, philosophical anthropology (Hellmuth Plessner) speaks about an ex(z)centric positionality, which implies that even science allows us and invites taking viewpoints in and out, as this has much to do with creativity and innovation, with translating and transferring structures and approaches across fields, sectors or domains.

But where is the block in the road, why do we still fight over positions and do not "get" the other view, or the extensions and intentions behind other turfs?

My answer? These positions and turfs are hanging "out in the air". Their have not been localized and materialised as models, they did not get to the level of reality as our sand box models, landscapes and castles. First we need to make them more real. I mean extensional and explorable, as everybody knows - as one "COMMON" we have to resort to - what a body and sensory-motor perceptions are. As nowadays augmented virtual realities are created we might wonder why we only create them to design new interiors or explore new terrain, but not to cope in the land of turfs.

Beside the need for tangible, immersive, extensional models, which help us share realities, we need a common grid, matrix, or lay-out, as it is helpful to locate where things are common or different (boundaries) maybe only to realise boundary in order to move or erase it. (by the way this was written in a poem already in 18** by (Friedrich R¸ckert) LINK *****

As marking and mapping of territories is a cultural activity as long as we speak about civilisations - finding ones way and home has little to do with invation of other cultures - we realise that we need framed realities, agreements, common frames of references,... in order to not only find out if we are part of a certain conceptual plot or lay-out, but make issues concrete instead of vague and disputable. SEE http: Show or Schau and CONCRETENES Gebser).

So what we are talking here about and doing is not just to simulate - move to other times or positions - but to make issues concrete, jointly explore in common frames of references, AND later reason about issues along and across cultures, times and scales.

This means first of all to agree on the dimensions and scales used for commons. It doesn't make sense to agree on everything or design ones own reality as the yards-stick for everything else, talking something one owns or controls as the basis for the rest. So we are not talking here about a Consilience (Wilson) but an approach for the more contextual and general for a big picture overview which creates "places" for "what we know and don't". Such general layouts or general "switching systems" will not and can not give answers to all questions but are designed and constructed to provide means to establish and share orientations, build bridges concretely in conceptual realms.

This essay is not the place to present the layout and dimensions of real and virtual cognitive spaces, what is called a "cognitive panorama", this is done elsewhere http:// *****, und COB ISSS ****** but instead do reflect what is the difference to other models to make a little more sense in this worlds. First it is not a theory of everything or an esotheric schema, but instead a way to individually and collectively negotiate "positions and views concretely and devise strategies to establish solutions to live with the checks of balances in the modern times "human problematique".

The impact of modern media, telecommunication, nano-technology and life-sciences requires that we define new realms for new answers. We might not only need to include but connect and relate signs in out worlds, as signs, pictures are symbols used without any common meaning and understanding. The use of shared models to map "turfs": present their commons, overlaps and differences will not make progress without a way to bring together signs. The proposal in design and mapping to understand layouts or maps as super-signs (Ch Wood), as spacial layouts where we can locate, relate, connect signs (symbols, images, representations) again in the common frame of references as above. See: spactial-spacial ****** Turfs are present, presented and represented in many ways, orientations, and media. It is high time include not to exclude and go beyond dealsmkaing to shared stakeholding and strategies to serve multiple objectives in our omniplex - not possible to be mapped or planned - realities.

1500

Individual, Collective/Common, and Cyber Turfs:

???? Reflections about embodiment, shared ownership and levels, proportions and consequences of "turf" in shared Cultures and Cybercultures ???

Let us try for a moment, just for this essay "spacial embodiment" - let's try to consider something immaterial for "real" or "solid" in order to be able to communicate better - share more tangible assumptions and concerns. This would mean that immaterial "objects" or "subjects" can be considered extensional and perspective, which means that issues or concerns are seen as to overlap or intermesh, and we can see the subjects in question from different distance (granularity/detail) and from different angles.

The prevailing, ubiquitous alternative is to consider only objects as real, as they can be measured. With a postmaterial paradigm which aims to overcome the distortion of realities we might be able to overcome the old schism of material-immaterial, exoteric-esoteric by building something "in-between". Turf is an example of something "in-between".

How to come to grips with something multiple or hybrid?

Let us for a moment try the approach of architects and artists. Let us make a model. So what is this turf? A field of interest or concern? Do these fields overlap and interact, co-exist and change as wave fields with surprising results? Are these fields flat, narrow or deep? Do they propagate in all directions?

When coming to the result that fields should me modelled in 3 dimensions, then we could maybe embody such fields, make them solid, materialise to show their outreach.

Next would be to wonder how such a field of information, knowledge, or meaning could be presented. Maybe like a cloud, transparent with some particles, or solid and opaque like we know it from the objects? - Interesting Questions...

Defining and transcending Boundaries in a House of Eyes

Let us for a moment not hesitate, by overlapping claims for water, markets, sectors or channels, but explore the idea of 3-dimensional fields (turfs) further.

If such a fictive, extensional field can be constructed to present something in the future or past (with the eye of another timeline or epoch), it can be very well constructed to simulate a micro- or macro view of our framed reality, or a schema outlining the field of subjects or disciplines. Such a shared thinking "out of the box" might help us to be more aware of information or knowledge from the "others" - from the "other side", aware of positions, perspectives and contexts of our reasoning

Talking about other view sounds familiar? Well many of us seem to be in sweet isolation, in our physical and conceptual ivory tower, so we just use words, empty words, not tangible and without reference. The scaffolding designed to position views might help to fix and relate other experience, observations, and concepts.

(As an aside) We have such a mind architecture a Rubik's Cube of Ecology in 1990 and later an "House of Eyes". The benefit lies in identifying "me, we, you, they, others,.. models", Realities where can compare different lenses, like micro and macro angles, or in the language of Children "worm, fish, birds, generation, culture "eyes".

But please let's not stop here on our a-perspective and u-topian journey as we are running with some speed. Who tells us that the model's dimensions should only be spatial and temporal scales? If we dare "Phantasia" then why not take fields of knowledge (subjects or languages), magnitudes or spatial scales as dimensions or axis in a fictive space, so we can simulate what it is like in nano worlds (micro-scale), at meso-scale or somewhere on the level of stars and galaxies (macro-scale or big picture overviews, which educators like Comenius recommended to avoid getting lost in the woods).

As we can outline and see the overlap of fields of knowledge or interests (turfs) we can study their overlap, what unites and separates theoretic-biological and bio-chemical knowledge and most interestingly, if we use such strange or arbitrary dimensions as above, we can mark the claims of what certain fields cover and what they omit, - what we do not know or hide in hindsight, or more generally - what we know and do not know. This might sound trivial but let us remember:

The greatest single achievement of science in this most scientifically productive of centuries is the discovery that we are profoundly ignorant; we know very little about nature and understand even less. Lewis Thomas.

So if we could simulate and embody fields of interest, we could consider different granularities, a detailed map of knowing for each specific specialised field, and a map of contextual or overview knowledge.

Why ? and Why not ? Where and what we do not know?

Because our "Store of Knowledge" is not only not in order, but non existent! We have no clue of what we do not know, no clue where we have to look in order to find it - as everybody knows it is hard to find something if we do not know what we are searching for, and as search machines in the internet provide you with tons of "glut" as long if you spell it in this certain way. If you hit the bottom, missed one stroke, or search for it in another culture/language you are lost.

The Problem seems to be our nominalistic thinking and insistence on proper spelling on one side and on the other side the loss of Orientation and Common Frames of References in our modern multi-media Cyberculture as we get every day more and more lost in parallel or disconnected media and sign worlds.

BEISPIEL: CANYON !! BRIDGE ...

Let us assume for a moment that in above artificial or imaginary spaces - were we have located our "fields of information" - it is possible to give also location to entities presented in different media or with different sign systems. Then we could link and combine different presentations, different forms, even when they would exist on different levels or in different cultures/times.

A strange idea and vision - somewhere form "others"...

The problem is that we like learned (LIKE LEARNED?) to be more and more abstract and vague in our thinking and post-modern relativity and subjectivity of radical constructivism has led us into a world of "worm-eye" universes where nothing is common, shared, agreed upon any more.

Sometimes I feel we should try to agree on certain rough outlines, not only to place, but also find something there, if it exists. This would have certain clear advantages, We could not only agree upon certain shared categories and their locations, but have a look if something is available in a certain area of knowledge, in whatever language...

You will oppose by saying objects, subjects, issues, turfs,... are not indexed, do not have indices (so we) THAT WOULD HELP US know to which regions they belong. This is true. But we could think about indexing in matrixes roughly where they belong, build a pattern language... Remember, - we are in Phantasia! and need to travel on.... ( but such knowledge and Interest patterns have been sketched by school classes with the result that young people realised that many things have roots in many disciplines and fields, that organisations have a multitude of functions and areas of activities, and people can have many interests, jobs, concerns,...)

Cyberspacial Topography and Stratigraphy

(link Axel Bruns) n-dimensional Village M/C 9811 http://www.media-culture.org.au/9811/village.html

We could go much deeper in saying how we can connect Sign- and Media- Spaces, Micro and Macro-Spaces, Temporal, Cultural and Transdisciplinary Spaces, but this is written elsewhere where we speak about a Conceptual Superstructure, A Cognitive Panorama, a magic Space or a Rubik`s Cube of Ecology,...

We better tighten our seatbelts, diving deeper to the again more general or central questions concerning the how and whereabouts of or "Phantasia".

So let us stick one more time to the general issues in such overview fields or turfs.

Why do we use extensional 3-dimensional spaces for our travels? Well, it is because we are discussing agreements and commons. And as everybody knows the metaphors and analogies rooted in the space of our sensori-motor experience, we feel that using space for shared orientations has its pros. We have experienced a lot of conceptual not-understanding - simply "blank" responses, apathy and aggression, as space as an a-priori can not be questioned - is plainly and only "given", and is not perceived as a potential like in many traditional cultures. Modern people often feel "lost in space" and in particular modern English speaking are concerned with spatial - layouts and maps - where any location or frame is non-existent. Where terms are just abstract labels without meaning, without referent and situational context (which is the essence of understanding!

So what is wrong in a world which is dominated by an focussed on words, leaving aside all the other senses and expressions (and media) and avoid the combination and joint- and cross- assurance of one way of experiences and expression to another.

AS YOU ...WIE DU ZU RECHT AUFBEGEHRST, LIEBER LESER als stilisitisches mittel, um den lehrer aufzuwecken WIE wichtig das is).

So let us here take "spacial" as the good old British English spelling, check your Dictionary, which reminds us of Space as the Origin and Source of many common turfs. We invite to visit http://benking.de/Global-Change/spatial-spacial.html for digging deeper and getting some further outlines and in particular explore some tragic translation problems. The Chinese Taoisms and Buddhism Difference were Space is Translated as Void or Emptyness - instead of richness and potential at the same time, has lead to a spin in Western meaning, which is more esoteric than practical

So Cyberspace as an electronic space, according to Gibson, can and calls to be used as something open which needs to be filled, - just like a good fiction novel. It could be n-dimensional but this is not pragmatic for our purposes. Gibson has inspired some Cyberculture Gurus like Pierre Levy to translate Cyberspace into a postmodernist nightmare of not only being lost in space, but extending the cultural vision towards an open-ended universality which is interpreted not as open-ended but as irreversible!, leaving behind any Culture and ending in a Cyberculture without grids, roots, directions and perspectives. See Benking/Levy CyberCulture articles LINK****

The other interpretation of Gibson is Highlighted by Bruns with Gibsons "transparent 3D chessboard" were it makes sense to make moves and move boundaries.

Coming Home

What we might want to take home from our trip to a Humane Cyberia which is not "dumbing us down" LINK Humane Information Society"¥***, is the idea that we can jointly define, reflect, even move and filter between (permeability) or FINALLY (even) delete boundaries between any kind of turfs. Such mental mobility would be the result from "stepping back" to take a higher Perspective. AN ELEVATED high stand offers long views, helps recognizing Contexts, and perceiving issues more organismically. It also enables us to perceive and agree on certain schemas, models and maps - however you might want to call them.

On another trip we invite you to know, connect, transform and transcend such a rigid 3-dimensional framework and translate into other reference schemes. For the moment let us become aware that we are players and stakeholders in many turfs, and central to peace and negotiation is agreement and deal-making, overcoming dilemmas, checks and balances by seeing what is going on, what is at stake and who is involved in which situational context. Framing Turfs or Realities might empower us to overcome misconceptions of cyberculture and to learn to communicate and share some important things that remain intangible and invisible for so many...

2000

Background Heiner Benking:

Construction, Environmental Management, Defence and Entertainment, now Cultures, Media, Education,... Sector.

Turfs- Benking

turf@journal.media-culture.org.au, heiner@benking.de

Dear Editors

I have caught now for some weeks a bad flue - influenca - and had much stress on teh table - so little was done towards where I wanted to get with TURF.

I wanted to add some words on Model Theory and give some good links and references, but this is where I am...

PLEASE EXCUSE !! S O R R Y

You are most welcome as I had no chance to consult a nativE Engslih Speaking friend to make any changes !

I FEEL THE TOPIC of "TURF" is most timely and important AND hope we can muddle through towards your final deadlines.

Best

Heiner Benking

PLASE RESPOND TO BOTH E_MAIL ACCOUNTS - future communiactions best to heiner@benking.de