The screen book can carve out a sector in the functionality of reading not already matured by the paper book. This promise is already advanced by the achievements in text navigation and presentation at the Institute. The challenge is not to lose focus out in the future of reading generally. The future of the book is a very narrow topic, but it is hopelessly diffused in discussions of the future of reading. Reading is ambiguously analog and digital, attentive and ambient.

I do like the allure of being ambivalent rather than being digital. The Institute could also be cool and promote both screen and paper.

In conversation with David Weinberger at a Berkman Center-sponsored dinner this evening, Dave says, [Quote] Making something explicit is most often an act of violence. Something that's implicit is inevitably contextual. We do violence to it when we lose that richness. [Unquote] Dave is explaining why "social software" is important in preserving content and richness of true knowledge communication.

Ambiguity is "good" because the real world is full of paradox and uncertainty, and rarely well represented by simple "yes/no" choices. A knowledge model which is capable of recognizing this is clearly preferable to one supported by rationally-scientific, politically-correct mis-information, even though black-and-white choices seem to make for easier decision making.

ambiguity is "good" because the real world is full of
incompetent people who often have very fragile egos,
but a very strong motive for revenge...

-bowerbird

What's up for the Institute this year? Is Sophie going to come out and play at last? Is Next/Text on hiatus or just plain dead? Please enlighten us.