[Sigia-l] "Buy your way to the top of the job-seeker pile"

[John Fullerton]

> 'Findability' has no concern for true
> definition/distinction of information

In my online site, I have a list of recommended
documents. The reasoning that led to the addition
of that listing was that I knew from experience
(thinking about and writing those documents)
that they represented what was, for me, significant
work and time and I wanted to share that benefit
of experience (of the work that I had invested) with
others. That list potentially makes those documents
easier to find. The point is not me justifying my work
either in the list or in my comment now--the list is
only an example of potential benefit in making it
easier to find information. Now I know that everyone
is not accessing my site to see what I recommend,
yet it still seems of value to me to make freely available
things more easily found, to some extent for such a
limited audience who visit my site, have cause to consider
my recommendations and thus may find the recommendations
useful.

> 'findability' offers *no consideration* of the user

Though my list of recommendations is to some extent
based on a consideration of myself (my point of view,
sense of value, opinion of my work) is does certainly
have consideration of the user. The listing tries to
indicate information that is suited to general readers
(really, imagined readers of my online site). I didn't list
the often-edited recent work document because it
did not seem that it is most suited as general
information.

> the meaning of a signifier is always
> deferred and unfinished, remaining *open,*
> so that the 'process of signification' is *never*
> brought to an end. The world is not
> experienced in terms of 'reified' objects and
> events, but in terms of differences, and
> *difference* is 'dimensionless' and cannot
> be reified -- that is to say, difference cannot
> be *made* 'findable.' 

I think that deconstructive theory exaggerates
lack of simple understanding, busies itself with
proclamations that basically (now I'm exaggerating)
no one ever thinks about, intends not to be
understood, and probably deserves the treatment
it gets :)

OK, how can we help the deconstructionist?
First of all, let's imagine an online site that
advertises apples for sale. When we follow
the information received from the site, we
can purchase and receive the advertised
apples. The apples can be eaten, and that's
that. No mystery there. Of course, we can
find that we don't understand everything
about the process; however, it's quite easy
to get the apples and use them appropriately.

Now, there are any number of ways that
an apple's meaning can be different than
good-food-at-an-affordable-price. The
shipping cost may make the total price
unaffordable; the apples may not be as
fresh as those from a local store; someone
could use the apples as the subject of a
painting; a person could be allergic to
apples; different individuals may not
like apples; and we can all say, yeah,
so what :) Or we could say that we
don't have the time to imagine all the
possible differences. Yet the avenue of
tree to shop, advertisement online,
decision to purchase, shipping, receiving,
and use is very easy to understand, though
likely we have not been thinking of the
very subject before now. It even seems to
me that it is safe to say that you know what
I mean. My meaning is clear. We're not at a
loss for what all of this means. We got it :)

Sure, asking why a few times with someone
who will get more and more theoretical can
lead to what is not known. For example,
why is that so; how can I be sure; how important
is the information; under what circumstances
may it be incorrect; for whom is the information
correctly conveyed; what is required for the
communication; how certain can we be that
we all understand the information the same;
how often do we think that we do understand
things the same without verifying that we do :)

Have a nice day
John Paul Fullerton
j-fullerton at tamu.edu