 |
 |
Hello cris -- " The trouble that i have with ideas about the 'totality of relations' is the burden of a kind of panoptical implication that seems utterly reprehensible to me as it convoys (yes i mean that) authority and front loads 'meaning' into a system that Hayles identifies as a fading binary of presence / absence." In turn I have to say, I find -this- barely comprehensible. What system is Hayles talking about? Do you "identify" it in the same way? Could this be one of those clashes of discourse only, because I don't see that the concept of human relations considered as a totality can be in conflict with the concept of "a fading binary of presence / absence", other than in terms of how the authors of these expressions might think about the usefulness of precise language. I do think it can be important that people here should agree with me, or with each other, because in that way mutual interest and even commitments are formed and amplified; I find the countersuggestion -- which rests again on the exalted image of 'eclectic' individual participation -- quite insidious (though I'm sure you wouldn't see it or mean it that way). K %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%