[subject changed at Sarah's request as discussion isn't directly
linked to this month's theme]
I think you've missed the essence of my argument Simon.
We are essentially making the same argument, just from different positions.
I'm suggesting tools must become MORE one with us.
I'm suggesting art hasn't kept pace with the tools used in it's production.
On 23 November 2012 11:38, Simon Biggs <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> My counter arguent to this is obvious and consists of two main points.
> Firstly, there is no method by which we can de-mediate our relations with
> things. We are mediated through and through. We are our tools and our tools
> are us. To think otherwise is extremely idealistic; essentialist and
> fundamentally dualist.
> Secondly, the computer is just the latest step in the evolution of human
> language, and all that is subsequent to that (such as social form, culture,
> knowledge, etc). If we are to dispense with computers then are we to
> dispense with language? An interesting proposition - but also ridiculous.
> I'm with Heidegger on how we should understand the relationship between
> humans and things. They are ontologically fluid and of one another. We
> cannot exist separate to our tools and media and what we do, and why, is an
> inescapable function of those relations - just as we are ourselves.