Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 15, No. 334.
Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
<http://www.princeton.edu/~mccarty/humanist/>
<http://www.kcl.ac.uk/humanities/cch/humanist/>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 08:26:14 +0000
From: Ben Welsh <inter66ested@yahoo.ca>
Subject: In response
I am very curious as to the nature of Osher
Doctorow's response to the ideas presented in Arun
Tripathi's email. If we are to premise our discussion
on the subject of Borgmann's work, I am fascinated at
the nature of the response. I will reprint the
introductory questions here for clarity of my
conundrum.
"How can one experience oneself as an integral part of
nature - not at a conceptual level, but as an actual
experience?"
"How have we lost the experience of our connection
with nature?"
My initial reaction to Arun Tripathi's email was based
primarily on a transcendental philosophical approach,
whereby I presumed the phrasing of "actual experience"
and "connection with nature" to be of literal meaning.
This being the case I could not agree more with
Borgmann's idea. There has been a fundamental
degradation of the relationship between life and
nature ever since the onset of objects and practices
that remove human hands to places far from the
physicality of a natural existence. Within this
framework it is possible to understand technology in
the past and present century as removing our
connection with nature. However, this being the case,
what are the possible solutions open to a society
interwoven with the very fabric of what separates us
from accessing our physical world on a continuing
basis? I would like to suggest the possibility of
impossibility, keeping in mind the present technology
we are functioning with up until now. Any out of body
interface with technology inevitably detracts from the
self actualization only possible through the unbroken
connection with our natural environment. Until
technology begins to move inward, in symbiosis with
humanity perhaps in the form of interface technology
as suggested by some cyborg theorists, there must be
an inherent and inevitable separation between the
natural world and its inhabitants.
This being said, are we to stop striving for
development of greater technological advancement? Is
there a response to my presumed inevitability? Osher
Doctorrow suggested "to try limited scales of adoption
and compare them with similar situations where the
technology is not adopted - in effect, make
alternative decisions into a benign or benevolent
competition, perhaps indefinitely." Is this a worthy
venture or simply a means to an end? I had not thought
of this possibility and am intrigued by the resultant
effects it may have in deciphering some code for
understanding sections of the world as affected or
disaffected by technology. This being the case, how
would perception and reality be balanced out? Where
would the impetus for decisions come from? Would the
groups be made aware of their status of test subjects
and how would the non-technologically tainted group be
observed; from within their group and without
knowledge of the other, or from without with an
arguably skewed viewpoint? This idea is of great
interest to me and I welcome any comments and
criticisms.
Thank you,
Ben Welsh
_______________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.ca address at http://mail.yahoo.ca
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Oct 30 2001 - 03:43:52 EST