## 2 Mobility and Asynchronicity  
Underlying my analysis of how Russian subjects framed oral _augmented reality_ claims in the face of _textual dualist_ norms found in written edicts and laws are informational concepts that I term mobility and asynchronicity [5]. Analyzing forms of expressed knowledge is often best served by limiting the scope of inquiry in order to keep one's interest focused. When looking at _augmented versus dualist_ claims under a \"mobility\" framework, this essay will ask the following question: to what degree does a knowledge construct allow for modification by the user or transmitter? Constructs that resist modification, like books or printed documents, possess \"low mobility\" attributes in that its form, even if copied, will remain similar in content and delivery. Constructs that allow modification, such as folktales or rumors, possess \"high mobility\" attributes that give its content and delivery great mutability between users and/or transmitters. To put it simply: low mobility constructs largely remain the same when transmitted while high mobility constructs largely change when transmitted. This has several implications with regards to interactions between _dualist_ knowledge constructs, which for the Russians meant embracing low mobility textual sources, and _augmented_ constructs, which for the subjects of Russia drew upon folkloric ideals of justice or vagueness of interpretation transliterating names or circulating rumors inherently produced. [PERSON], a noted historian of Russia that focuses on written technologies, made an astute observation in his most recent article, \"Mapping the Graphosphere\", regarding the interplay of cultural plurality in technology: \"There may be one or several cultures using a given technology, and in each of those cultures the interrelations among technologies may function similarly or differently.\" [6] When two different mobility constructs encounter each other in social space (a rumor meets a printed law) it often becomes evident that the knowledge contained in both is asynchronous in relation to each other. For example, a Russian law might stipulate an increase in peasant rents, while rumors circulated in the villages might say the new law applies only to certain peasants or none at all. The low mobility law, making one claim to reality, runs against the high mobility rumor, which makes an alternate claim to reality; thus producing asynchronicity. Unless this asynchronicity is either resolved or transmuted, it will produce disruptive effects in the social sphere. For the period under examination in this essay, asynchronous disruptions could manifest in peasant unrest or state assertion on monopoly of violence, but these were extreme results on a scale that also included compromise between both parties. Framing an analysis around epistemological concepts like mobility and asynchronicity allow a more meaningful interoperation between differing expressions of knowledge, in this case oral and textual, to be detected. When combined with the ontological implications of _dualist versus augmented_ claims to reality, mobility and asynchronicity demonstrate the depth and level of maneuver oral and textual expressions of knowledge utilized in assertion of one reality over another. This analysis of _textualualualualism_, in turn, possesses implications for how we understand present day claims for _digital dualist_ and _augmented_ realities and all the potentials that lie between. Because both mobility and asynchronicity inform the operation of epistemological knowledge claims in conflicts between _dualist_ and _augmented_ assertions on reality, there opens up a need to chart the waves of augmentation among enmeshed cultures as they operate in a specific social space and time. _Augmented_ effects ebb and flow based on a participants physical location and technological utilization, which makes documenting permeation of particular cultures into social space a continuously dynamic activity.