I'd like to add that Edward Casey's *Fate of Place* is also 
a stimulating set of reflections and history of the concepts
involved,

Kevin Tharp <k.tharp@cqu.edu.au> writes:
> Regarding the place - space conversation, a question comes to my 
> mind.  When we invest of ourselves in cyberspaces or cyberplaces, 
> are we investing in the space/place, or are we investing in the 
> people that occupy that space/place.  

I'd say we are investing in what we can do as well.  That clearly
involves the people, but it also involves the demands of offline
life, the way it fits in with our online activities and so on.

It is  possible certain structures of online forums might facilitate
different kinds of actions, different kinds of interactions etc.
They m ight also attract different kinds of people.

Thus giving the feel of different kinds of space or place.

And it would be the ability to make the comparisons between
forums, and sites and what they enable, which make them seem 
like different kinds of 'locale' (to use the term I prefer :), 
to an extent which is not the case with 'phone space' or 'TV space'
where only a limited set of relatively uniform actitons are 
possible.

> As a researcher/practitioner 
> in the development of cyber**aces that can encourage and support 
> the interaction between the people of a geographic locality, it 
> seems to me that an understanding of such things lies in the 
> perceptions of the people that appropriate them as part of their 
> lives.  

So yes, if its a community forum that we are thinking of, then
the way this enables actions in the community is really important.
otherwise people will continue to use the old channels for many things
 - if not everything.  The old channels will support old power 
networks for one. If the community computer network becomes a local 
business spam channel for example it will probably be abandoned 
pretty quickly - at least more quickly than a bushfire or flood 
alert channel might be.  So there are issues of power to begin 
with.  The network is never 'pure'.

> Similar to the concept of community (dare I use such word in 
> educated company), it is not the infrastructure that makes the 
> community, it is the people that make the community.  The 
> community is then supported by the infrastructure.  

I'd suggest that the infrastructure is not quite that passive.
The infra structure allows certain types of community to form, 
and is in turn shaped by the politics of that community and 
may reinforce those politics. The more permanent the structure
the more it enstructures. But even a permanent shifting structure 
enables certain behaviours more than others.

These structures can then largely determine who interacts with who
and thus which people ally with each other, which people compete
with each other, which people become the pivital points of 
communication, which people get defined as outsiders, criminals
or heretics and so on.

jon



UTS CRICOS Provider Code:  00099F

DISCLAIMER
========================================================================
This email message and any accompanying attachments may contain
confidential information.  If you are not the intended recipient, do not
read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message or attachments.
If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete this message. Any views expressed in this message
are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly,
and with authority, states them to be the views the University of
Technology Sydney. Before opening any attachments, please check them for
viruses and defects.
========================================================================



