Re: [-empyre-] if a tree falls in a forest...

On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, Melinda Rackham wrote:

> alan wrote:
> > Just wanted to say no to this - for one thing - the hardware is the
> > software is the wetware is the mindware - for another there's no "x
> > running y" - for another the "the world outside our skin" is also inside -
> > interiors are highly problematic, given the nature of tacit knowledge and
> > prostheses - and for another - I'm not sure what "hardware colonies" are -
> > unless you're referencing something like Minsky's society of mind -
>  ahh its the problem of definitions.. where do we split things up..  i go to
> many talks where "leading scholars"  happily talk about the real and the
> virtual like  they exist in different universes...
> i get annoyed at that.. but then when i am trying to explain thinsgs its
> hard to say  "well we are all just one big blob and there is no
> differentiation."  i am you am everything.. .. i agree what we don't end at
> the skin ( thats a very haraway cyborgian construct notion isnt it.)but its
> a very practical soft and permeable boundary to use..
> how would you differentiate humans in interaction with technology?

I wouldn't. I'd differentiate among origins, those in relation to tissue,
and those not. But not even that. We're prosthetic from the origin itself.
Culture and language are already prostheses. Merlin Donald has written on
this, and Polyani's tacit knowledge bilds on it as well.

> > - They're not alive in any case. Human interaction does give them life for
> > that matter, any more than rollerblades "come to life" when someone's out
> > skating. It's a matter of function and reception -
> im surprised you say this after what youve said above.. i thought the roller
> blades would be happy to get out of the bottom of that closet and go out for
> a spin..
My ankles are weak...


This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and MHonArc 2.6.8.