Cybernetica Mesopotamica

A Balzan Foundation Research Project

II. A system of websites

For a website theory: principles

Giorgio Buccellati – December 2022, November 2024

Overview

We focus here on the website as an epistemic system, i. e., as a system that organizes and conveys knowlegde. Underlying a full-fledged website theory are some basic principles which affect either the the website as a whole or the organization of its parts, as we will see in what follows.

In each section (the whole, the parts and the display) I will indicate how the current potential of the website seen as an epistemic system is exploited only minimally in current standard websites, or is not exploited at all, and how the dgital discourse model can instead achieve precisely that goal.

I. ABOUT THE WHOLE

Perception of the whole

A physical book gives an instant perception of itself as a whole: when holding it and even just leafing through its pages, before actually reading it, we have an immediate perception of its general scope, its length, its internal divisions. The deeper we get into reading, the more we become aware of the internal interdependencies, and can check them by going from one page to the next.

This is altogether different with a website. Its structure is wholly in the background, and even the terms in common parlance, such as browsing or navigating, are indicative: we have a perception of the surface, such as it appears on the screen at the moment, but we are given no clues that may help us to perceive the website as a whole (for more on this see below).

Aggregative nature of websites

A major function of websites is to offer access to extensive databases, whether scholarly or not. In this regard, the structure of a website is essentially aggregative, in the sense that it serves as an organized container where one can find what one is looking for. The websites in our system serve this purpose, in the two standard ways that are common to all websites.

Information is organized so that it can be sorted and consulted according to predetermined patterns.
The search function allows for queries, and in some cases for more complex correlations among available choices.

Discursive nature of websites

The discursive nature of standard websites is generally limited to any given page displayed on the screen: just like this page, one can scroll up and down, and follow the text from top to bottom. In standard websites, on the other hand, there is essentially no discursive thread from one page to the next. This is so in part because there is no perception of the website as a whole, so that there is no perception of the pages as constituting as a whole. The case of analogs such as a PDF version of a printed book is not pertinent, because what we have here is not a properly digital, but only an electronic item – precisely, an “analog.”

As a matter of fact, one begins to notice that the attitude one brings to a website is being extended to the printed publications: it is the progressive loss of our ability for “deep reading.” This has a negative impact on critical thinking and more, and one solution is to encourage a return to the printed world.

An alternative, and more effective, solution is to develop the ability to write discursive websites. Again, this is discussed at length in Digital Discourse, and here I will again only mention two aspects, very simple and yet indicative of what the trend can be.

Our websites have an introduction and a conclusion. They frame the whole and, so to speak, "declare" it. We also refer to links as leading the "reader" to places "above" and "below," which also suggest that one has a sense of continuity from one page to another. These are small points of style, which are however indicative of the intent to conceive of the website as an organic entity.
More importantly, perhaps, we think of the process as being one of "writing" a website: this means that one has such a structure in mind as the work develops, and the result is that the discursive nature becomes part and parcel of the final product. Part of this is the effort to write pages in function of each other, maintaining a full coherence among all of them. -- A possibly interesting experiment would be to do the reverse of what one normally means by "analog," namely to print a website exactly as it is otherwise found digitally.

Order

The French word “ordinateur” for “computer” emphasizes the function of organizing and sorting (“ordering”) data. Indirectly, this function entails an awareness for the inventory of data as a whole: when sorting according to different sort keys, we know that this affects the corpus in its entirety, without exceptions.

The same thrust towards a recognition of wholeness is found in the search function which is an indispensable component of all websites. In a subtle way, a search does in fact presupposes a whole: when, for example, we search this website for a word like “cubism,” we rightfully assume that the discovery of only one instance of the word means that there are no other instances in the entire corpus (the website).

But this is at best a very faint premonition of what wholeness really means: it tells us that there is a whole over which we have some measure of control (because we can make a firm statement of non-occurrence beyond the one instance discovered in the search), but it does not tell us anything about this whole as such and the direction of the argument within it (assuming there is one).

Orientation

A fundamental aspect of a digital discourse is that it provides orientation for the reader. This means that it must be clear at all times where one is located in function of the whole, i. e., in function of all its components and of the outer boundaries that define them.

Dis-orientation is the result of how standard websites are currently “constructed” and “used.” It is like being on the open ocean on a cloudy day without the help of a compass. One can see in all its most minute details the vast expanse of the water around the ship, but one has no sense of where one is in relationship to the final destination. Instead, a website written as properly digital discourse, provides at all times the sense of where one is, where one comes from, and where one goes. (See also above about the metaverse.)

It is such a widespread disorientation that induces a profound lack of relatedeness in the mindset and psychological posture with which we “use” current websites. It is in my view the main reason for the ethical problem that the digital turn is generating.

II. ABOUT THE PARTS

Lines

At the level of the page, the line is the metaphor that guides the presentation of the pertinent material. The epistemic dimension is found in the manner in which knowledge is organized and conveyed, following or not a unilinear trajectory. In current websites the approach is primarily non-linear, and a proper digital linearity reauires special attention.

Non-linearity

The notion of “non-linearity” is generally seen as a major achievement of the digital turn, and it might be seen as the culmination of what in the visual and other arts has been the dissolution of the natural sequence, as with cubism (see Critique 11.1.3). Digital non-linearity is indeed pervasive, but far from being an ideal, it has instead a negative epistemic impact: it leads to the assumption that there is no whole, that the disjointed fragments are all we have to deal with.

Current websites do have pages that are linearly constructed, as in a news website; but this linearity does not extend beyond the page, meaning that even in these cases there is no proper linearity to the website as a whole. Items are juxtaposed without a concern for sequentiality. Or rather: there is a minimum of sequentiality, in the sense that there is an ordering of the pages according to sommon themes or th like. But there is consequential argument that flows from such juxtaposition.

A research mindset is developing that is similar to the one we bring to a shopping visit to a supermarket: we are only interested in finding what we need, we are not interested (as consumers) in the wholeness of the inventory available in the store, even less in the ramifications this wholeness presents in terms of profitability or the like. The goods are displayed in a linear fashion, but we jump in a very non-linear fashion from what we need here to what we need there. We look only for the known; overwhelmingly, we do not even assume there is an unknown that may be of interest to us.

Analogously, we may think of the use of a dictionary: we properly “use” it, we do not “read” it, since we are interested in finding the answer to a query, an not in the semantic and semiotic research that lies behind the “construction” of the tool.

Linearity

An argument is linear because it consists of segments that follow each other consequentially: one segment acquires its full sense because of its linear linkage to the others along the same line. In other words, there must be a specific syntax and logic that guides this sequence. The term “non sequitur” refers precisely to a succession of segments that does not follow a logical consequentiality: it is not properly a “sequence” but only a “juxtaposition.” And this means in turn that an argument must be conceived as a whole: the individual segments of which it is composed acquire their meaning in function of the syntax.

Digital linearity presents a more complex picture, and this brings us back once more to the notion of perception. Non-digital linearity is supported physically by a sequentiality that is visible, on a given page or across pages in a given book. Digital linearity is not so supported, and it may be said, paradoxically, to thrive on non-linearity: it ca build solid consequential links among items that are not physically (“perceptually”) linear. We will deal with mechanism to do this below.

Linearity is therefore essentially linked to directionality: it aims towards a goal. To be properly an argument, an argument must be linear in the way in which it develops from a premise to a conclusion. That is why the introductory material in any given website is important: it defines the “boundaries” (as we have just seen in the preceding section), giving a sense of how the content is articulated within them. Similarly, the multiple side bars help in maintaining a sense of orientation and thus directionality: one remains always aware of the starting, intermediary and ending points in the digital discourse that is being articulated.

A small detail is indicative of a much larger issue: the use of references to “above” and “below,” which serve as the standard links in a printed text, and are welcome because there is a sense of where one comes from and where one goes. But this points to another fundamental element of the reading process: one must, as part of this process, retain a sense of orientation. The saturation of current standard websites with hyperlinks is at the core of the website usage, and it is indeed must useful – but it is proposed as an alternative to linearity, hence as a way of reducing or even eliminating the concern for following critically the “discourse” in which an argument must be couched.

Planes

At the level of the website as a whole the key metaphor is that of the plane. This can be a different page in the same website, or one in a different websites – and there are essentially no limits to how many planes may be invoked. The problem in this multi-planarity is that is remains generally unstructured, so that one loses quickly the sense of direction and orientation, hence of the whole within which one operates. Inter-planarity, instead, is the result of the application of the digital discourse model.

Multi-planarity

Non-linearity may in fact be re-interpreted as multi-linearity: it is a multi-segmental reality where what matters are the individual segments have a linear sequence within themseles, however short that sequence may be, but do not relate to other linear seauences in any consequential manner. This is apparent in any single website, but is magnified by the interconnection of multiple websites as it is made possible by the saturation of hyperlinks.

These websites may be seen as planes, and current websites may be seen as multi-planar in the sense that their pages are parallel and directly accessible to each other, as are websites among each other. However, multiplanarity does not entail consequentiality: the correlation among planes is then not structural, but accidental, anecdoatl, episodic.

Inter-planarity

What inter-planarity adds is that an argument can proceed linearly along multiple paths and draw on planes that are written concurrently with each other in mind. It is a radical transformation of the earlier epistemic models where the argument, as presented by any given author, is intrinsically unilinear and uniplanar. A notable exception is found in a (printed) book where a cross-reference is made to another part of the book that is essential for an understanding of the current one.

Inter-planarity is the feature that most clearly defines the nature of digital discourse: this is the wider framework within which inter-planarity occurs.

We may note that critical thought as such is interplanar, in that it draws on multiple resources and on one’s own judgment. However, this interaction is not made explicit until it is formalized with additional written arguments that are superimposed on the original one. Interplanarity, on the other hand, is construed as such from the beginning, and is possible only because of the digital format it can take.

Just as language was to sounds, and just as writing was to representational images (see above), so an inter-planar website is to a website in current use. A current websites has planes, but they are used in a multi-planar mode; the planes are constructed in isolation, without concerns one for the other; hyperlinks connect the planes, but not qua planes, only to the extent that there some information in the linked detail which is of interest to gthe linking fragment. In an inteplanar website, on the other hand, planes written in function of each other, so that all the pages cohere into a unity that is enhanced by the possibility, afforded by the digital medium, to truly interact with each other.

System dynamics

There are two distinct ways in which the parts within a website system interact, depending on whether they revolve around each other wihtout a proper sense of direction beyond itself as if in a whirlpool, or whether the parts are effectively in discourse with each other aiming towards a shared common goal.

Whirlpool

In standard websites, the tendency is to create a whirlpool of information that rotates around the main theme stated on any given page, eventually outspinning itself. At best, this takes the shape of multiple cross-references, where any given entry is linked to another on a different page. The effect is similar to what we have with printed books, when we look up a word in a dictionary: there is in effect a minimal interaction, since the two entries illuminate each other; but the interaction stops there, at the level of the entry or at best the page, without any interaction among the planes within which eeach entry is embedded.

This happens especially with online encyclopedias, where one may notice varying degrees of interaction, from a casual one to one that invites reading the whole linked page. For example, looking up “whirlpool” in Wikipedia, o;ne will find a link to “water” which is clearly very marginal to the topic at hand, but also one to “vortex” which may be seen as properly parallel to the whole entry about the whirlpool.

citing source

But even in such cases, the interaction stops at the level of the page. There is no interplay among planes, i. e., among larger structural wholes that develop a full argument articulated in a number of pages.

Discourse

Such interaction among planes is the one envisaged in our websites. There is an overarching argument that weaves itself out of multiple other arguments, arguments which run parallel to, and are written in function of, each other. This type of interaction is embryonically present in the world of printed books, and I give two examples in the website dedicated to bibliography. But these very examples show the vast chasm between this type of “discourse” and the one that is made possible by digitality, nd spcifically the website model.

I will give below some examples of how this works in practice, while the main theoretical treatment is reserved for the Digital Discourse website. The term itself does in fact stand for the overall conceptual approach to this issue and to our Cybernetica Mesopotamica project.

III. DISPLAY

The filter

Whatever the underlying structure of websites may be, their content is channeled through the physical dimension of the monitor. Websites exist independently of this physical tool, but they can only be accessed through their being displayed graphically in whatever small portion the tool allows. This is an important dimension of website theory, however tightly related it may also be to its implementation.

A consideration about this role of the display brings us back to the notion of perception. What we perceive of a website is, at any given time, the very limited portion that is displayed on the surface of the panel in front of us. We should therefore reflect on the nature of the interaction between this intermediary medium and the structure of the website that hides behind it. The display is like a filter that lets some aspects through and others not.

The question is, to what extent does the monitor filter the substance of the websites to which it gives access. And in this regard we may consider two major alternatives which can be subsumed under the metaphors of the funnel and the window.

The funnel

The funnel metaphor is appropriate for the current use of websites. What comes through, i. e., what is displayed, is an end in itself. There are, of course, plenty of sugegstions leading to a myriad different places (the hyperlinks), but they do not refer back to the website which has been funneled, much less do htey enlighten us about its structure.

The funnel ends up being more like a diaphragm, something which divides and separates after having restricted the amount and the nature of what has come from the point of origin.

Attention is drawn to the detail that emerges, often with a dazzling imagery that tends to limit or in fact eliminate any interest in what is upstream. The perception is exclusively that of the fragment that is immediately in front of us, which may lead to more fragments, just as attractive even if only marginally linked to what was perceived just a moment ago, and never illustrative of the wider structure of the whole that lies behind.

The funnel type of website serves very well the need to find information about a given item, for example, something we want to buy online. But even then, we are immediately lured into considering new items which we had no intention to buy at all, but seem attractive, especially having reached successfully our goal of completing the transaction we had embarked on initially.

The window

What we aim for within the Cybernetica Mesopotamica system of website is for the monitor to serve as a frame that points to the whole by defining the whole’s outer boundaries and thus its inner structure. This whole is not limited to the current website. It embraces, through inter-planarity, a number of other websites that are written in function of each other, and thus constitute a larger whole than the one of the present website.

The notion of a frame is well represented by the metaphor of a window: a window is an opening onto a wider reality outside the narrower confines of a room. True, it is a fixture of the room; but its real function is to trigger an interest in what is outside, not to serve as the ultimate target of interest. (A stained glass window is an exception that proves the rule.)

The display panel is thus to serve at all times as a window onto the structure of the website. How this may de done will be dealt briefly below. What we should stress here is the need for the website to be seen as a whole even while we are limited in scope by the very nature of the tool that makes the display possible.

IV. COROLLARIES

Ethics and epistemics

Much is being written and said about the ethical problems and risks of digitality, particularly with regard to artificial intelligence. It is essentially a question of control, an issue that our species has confronted before, notably with the introduction of language first and of writing later – something which will be discussed in depth in the Digital Discourse website.

But upstream of the ethical dimension, in ways that are not being sufficiently recognized, is the epistemic issue, especially as it concerns the structure of websites. We are being drawn more and more into the whirlwind of fragmentary information, and we are losing the ability, even the inclination, to deal with the whole – to be “oriented.” This is sharply reducing the interest in constructing proper arguments, and thus to develop and maintain a true critical sense.

Methods and techniques

The fundamental distinction between methods and techniques must be stressed from the outset (see G. Buccellati, Critique chapter 7“).

A technique refers to the way in which a tool is made, maintained and used. It is essentially non-inventory specific, i.e., it is independent of the data to which it is applied. Thus the use of digital photography requires a special know-how of cameras, but not of the object being photographed; in the same way, the use of a car requires to be able to drive it, not to know where one wants to go, or why.

A method, on the other hand, refers to the way in which a tool is applied with regard to a given set of data. It is, therefore, inventory specific. Thus a photo taken with a camera must have the purpose of illustrating a given aspect of the data, while setting a destination and showing how to go there is the reason for actually driving the car, not to mention the reason behind the trip.

In other words, shooting a photo or driving a car is matter of technique, whereas knowing why one shoots a photo with a camera, or knowing how to get to one’s destination with a car, is a matter of method.

“Writing” and “reading” a website

The notion of digital discourse, as applied in the websites of the Cybernetica Mesopotamica system, raises the bar, in that it requires to write and read in ways that integrate multiple arguments into a single overarching whole. It is a challenge that has not been faced yet, and one that, in my view, is more pressing and important than the one relating to artificial intelligence.

“Writing” a website entails much more than designing a frame and then storing data in it. It requires the abiding effort at maintaining a full sense of the whole of a core argument in its relationship to the parts that are being marshaled in its support. It is the same effort we have in writing whether single page or a fully developed book, where the author starts from a premise and builds up the argument to a proper conclusion. In a website, or a system of websites, this requires attention to the multiple planes that are co-present in the larger frame.

Analogously, “reading” a website is very different from “browsing” or “surfing”: it requires attention to the core argument the author proposes, and the ability to follow its unfolding along the multiple planes of the wider frame. It requires as if a squared critical sense, where one is not only expected to bring to bear on the author’s argument other planes that are not yet considered by the author, but one is also expected to follow the multiple planes that are already co-present in the source document.