#CritLit2010 final reflections

At the end of the course, I would like to return and close the matter of  semantic language, the cultural dimension as a matter of “linguistic relativity”.

Different in interpretation of the world are based on linguistic differences, but rather in a particular way of seeing the world, which depends on the conditions under which life develops and culture of a community.

Do we only see the world that which is distinctly reflected in the syntactic and semantic categories of language?

It seems that semantic habits are associated with the usual form of organization of the experience (*).

In this matter of semantics, I find that the issue of culture is the foundation. Semantic dimension is closely related to the issue of perception of the world and how we encode the set of experiences linguistically. On the basis of that experience are beliefs. That is, we experience what we believe. In that sense, what we believe constitutes a sign, a credible speech.

If it were not for my belief in the possibility of searching certain information in Google and the believe of  what I get is based on my search criteria,I would not trust the search engine as a truthful tool. I will opt to other browser or I will go to a library as I used to do in the past. (I like libraries, and the Search engines do their work well)!

Words such as Google, Twitter, hashtag, widget, cooperation, partnerships, mailing, posting, list, labeling, forward, login, log out, surfing, blogging,microblogging, linking, hypertext, indexing, folksonomy, are discursive constructions with a semantic content in our culture digital.Most of these terms, until ten years ago did not even exist.

Immersed in a technological culture, I understand my virtual environment  #CritLit2010 community as a human group or network with which to exchange knowledge and information from shared beliefs. We all have common goals, wishes to meet and interact. We have something to share and reflect, despite the ones who  abandoned.

For those involved, the meanings of the objects or signs are shared. Internet and its various platforms (Moodle, Twitter, Facebook, Ning, Blogger, WordPress, Delicious, Friendfeed, etc …) is the descentralized network on which we interact continusly and discontinusly, we suspended “in air” in the ubiquity( Scott Lash) in generic spaces and scattered information. We started the course  with a notion of finite fragmented concept of time. Weekly reflection modules, distributed knowledge, subject to assessment, rationalization, peer verification.

What has previously expressed to see what the semantic dimension?

Linguistic peculiarities are related to the worldview of the culture itself. In CritLit2010 shared knowledge is linked with how to express or interpret reality in the community. This reflects a set of values and interests built.

Instead of this, what happens in other cultures?.

In the culture of native peoples, the notions of time and space have another semantic dimension. In considering the universe as a whole, these people do not make divisions between nature and humans. They have a holistic view of the universe,  a different view of the world.

For them “words” means nothing more than to any westerner would. The mode of transmission of knowledge is oral and takes place over generations. They live in a different world. It is not an objective world, but rather the result of a different interpretation and in that sense, is the result of the language they speak. The space is infinity. Material, time and energy are linked, connected.

However, these ethnic groups with strong cultural heritage community and different cultural symbolic domain are giving us a lesson. And in that sense Ulop return the comment that made me think about the possibility of participating observers of reality. Groups of native people, activists of the Free Software movement, we are showing how the union of diverse interests can be set to achieve the common good. This is an example of technological sovereignty and sustainable societies.

Ending this post, I wanted to write about it because the emerging semantic dimension (Emergent Semantics) configured as a virtual system of boundaries transformation . In that sense, again to configure an existing knowledge.
By the way…¿what am I taking from this course?

I’m taking from this course not only the experience of having deepened the complexity of the connectivity, but the possibility to reflect on my own practice that is interwoven with  others.

And although I did not participate in the reading of all blogs, not all were actively involved, it is significant to know that there is a community created with the same intention.

Besides the interesting postings of my colleagues and their feedback on the entries, I’ll rethink on CritLit connective knowledge by Stephen Downes, Steve Mackenzie ´s taxonomies  in Critical Literacies. I won´t forget Heli ´s self connection with emotions and  the integration with the world in unity (as Heli said she would reconnect to “Finnish spring” in pursuit of internal balance) as did Suifai John Mak on Facebook every time you wrote “I need a break” (and he knew, he should took it!).

The eclectic exchange on different platforms (I kept wanting to participate in the sessions of Elluminate) intermittent interactivity of synchronous and asynchronous,  was a learning experience. Learning to be a participant observer, is the message that Ulop who spent “shaking trees” (but what if the entities we are measuring don´t exist? S.Downes).

This experience led me to question, to wonder how much of this and learned knowledge helps me to participate in the world I live and the next?.

It may not be as little as I feel it but not much of that I suppose. Sure,  the critical path is to Critical Literacies, participation and observation.

I am grateful to Stephen Downes and Rita Kop too, for the possibility of  let me participate on this course. And to all the community of having traveled CritLit2010 this moving and inmersive experience.

(*)Pescador, José Hierro “Principios de Filosofía del lenguaje”. Teoría de los signos, Teoría dela Gramática, Epistemología del lenguaje. Cap V.”Ideas Nonnatas”,   Alianza Editorial. Madrid, 1980.
This entry was posted in SEMANTICS and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to #CritLit2010 final reflections

  1. ulop says:

    >but rather in a particular way of seeing the world, which depends on the conditions under which life develops and culture of a community.

    Hi Maria. I like how you said this.

  2. Hi Maria,

    Do we only see the world that which is distinctly reflected in the syntactic and semantic categories of language? That makes me think deeper into this riddle:

    Do you know who Karl and Ken are?
    Who is Ken AndeRson and who is ULop in the CritLit2010 Moodle?

    I could only share this question with you on this blog. I am more than happy to reveal my understanding to these questions through other means, like email, but I am concerned about internet spammers looking for baits around blogs and emails.

    I like your question: how much of this and learned knowledge helps me to participate in the world I live and the next?
    Have a wonderful time of learning.


  3. Pingback: My theory « Ulop's Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s