pynchon-l-digest V2 #1012

[Terrance F. Flaherty]

David Morris wrote:
> 
> >From: "Terrance F. Flaherty"
> >
> >FrodeauxB at aol.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Mr. Ludlow:
> > > Re: your post. Many believe that our machines, from the first tool to
> >the
> > > latest technology, are us.
> >
> >Nonsense!
> >
> > > They are our agents, just like our finger or fist.
> >
> NOT nonsense!  He is quite right.

Nonsense. Explain it. How is he right. A pen is just like a
finger? Again, I say,  Nonsense. 
> >Are machines us or our agents? Are our hands agents?
> >
> Yes.  What do you think they are?  Are they YOU?  When you lose your finger,
> is there now less of you?  In a sense, only very literal, yes, but many
> hope/believe to survive the loss of their bodies.

Yes, if you cut off my legs there is now less of Terrance,
very literally less.  Some may hope or believe or plan to
"survive" the loss of their bodies, this is a related topic
but does not support your argument, yet. 
> >
> > > Using a pen to write makes it part of me.
> >
> >Nope. To write with a pen is to use a tool.
> >
> 
> you are so curtly dismissive of Frodeaux's intended meaning.  We are all
> born with a set of "tools."  

What set of tools ? Hands? No, hands are not tools. What is
a tool, what is a machine, what is technology, what is
technological activity? What is science? What is applied
science? What is applied technology? What is the current
relationship between applied science and technology? How is
it different than it was just 50 years ago? These are some
of the questions that we may have to address if we are not
going to be curt. 


Some w/ more and better than others.  

More and better tools? Humans make and use tools, they are
not born with them. When a carpenter braces a stud with his
knee, holds nails in his teeth, swings a hammer with his
hand, he is doing what humans have always done, he is
engaged in technological activity (homofaber).  

Over time
> these tools are more keenly honed, sometimes used-up, sometimes taken-away.
> There are some folks whose consciousness ends up trapped for years, fully
> aware, inside a body that cannot move.


You can sharpen a saw, you learn to use a hammer with such
proficiency that it appears effortless, you can increase the
size of your muscles, improve in craftsmanship, become a
master, a skilled tradesman, but you are not born with
tools, humans are born helpless, unfinished, totally
dependent, not on tools, but on each other, tools--you make
them and use them. 


> 
> >
> > >Using this technology to send this
> > > makes it a part of me. The machines may not be physically integrated
> >into my
> > > body, but when I use them, they are me.
> >
> >Again, nonsense.
> >
> > >Some are integrated. A pacemaker is a
> > > simple example of the integration.
> >
> >Integrated how?
> >
> > >The sooner we realize the symbiotic
> > > relationship that has existed from our earliest days, the better. A pure
> > > Luddite is highly improbable, if not impossible. We're talking degrees,
> >not
> > > absolutes. We ARE Borg!
> > >
> > > frodeauxb
> >
> >I am not BORG! We are not Borg. What does symbiotic mean
> >here? There is No symbiotic relationship between living
> >humans and machines.
> >
> >BTW, the human mind is not a computer. It works more like
> >the human digestive system than a super computer. Humans are
> >more like earth worms than robots.
> >
> >Terrance
> 
> I fully agree w/ this Cajun.  We are not saying that we're not biological,
> but we've exceeded, and will continue to exceed our biological limits w/
> technology.  

Nonsense. What biological limits? What determines these
limits?

With DNA manipulation the line between the Biology and
> Technology will only get further blurred. 

It's not blurred. Are you talking about clones and growing
ears on mice and so forth? 

 The Coplear (sp?) implant, like
> the pacemaker, is only the beginning of this "integration" (meaning:
> replacing or augmenting our biology with technology).

Having a pacemaker or dentures or an artificial heart does
not make my mother a robot anymore than having a baboons
heart make my son a baboon. 

> 
> We are not yet Borg, because our minds are still relatively our own, and
> alone, and this mind is what makes all the world outside it "the other,"
> including all of the body except whatever keeps consciousness going.
> 
> David Morris


Do you contend that the mind and body are distinct? Or that
the "soul" and the body are distinct? This will bring us
back to the current GRGR chapter, Leibniz, and Hitler's
architects and one of the most important shifts in Western
thought--"things are to be understood by their uses and
purposes, not by their elements or antecedents-- and how the
view of humans as parts, slaves, follows from this Platonic
Programme. 

TF