Prosthetic Paradise (was Re: pynchon-l-digest V2 #1012

[Terrance F. Flaherty]

jporter wrote:
> 
> Kai contends:
> 
> >  According to Bruno Latour's actor/network theory, a much debated
> >approach in
> >  the contemporary sociology of technology, humans and non-human artefacts
> >can
> >  both be observed as symmetric "actants" (- Aktanten) in a
> >"socio-technical
> >  network". Visitor + Automatic Door Opener = Entrance Machine.
> 
> I've always been prejudiced toward Doormen myself, but that's another
> issue. It should be mentioned in this thread that the definition of "Human"
> is probably incomplete without mention of "machine," or some related
> concept, perhaps the broader "Technology."

Yes we have touched on this (Homo FABER) a bit, but we never
really defined this relationship or what is technology,
technological activity, tools, machine, machine tools,
science, applied science, applied technology, the
relationships of these to culture. Robert E. McGinn's
definition is of use here:
"Technology is a form of activity that is fabricative,
material product making or object transforming, purposive
(with a general purpose of expanding the realm of the
humanly possible), knowledge based, resourse-employing,
methodical, embedded in a socio-cultural-environment
influence field, and informed by its practitioners' mental
sets."  

Some comments on this definition:

Fabrication means working one's will on ingredients.
Purposive means goals are involved (this is where Values
enter the equation--is technology morally neutral?) 
Knowledge based means not only "scientific" knowledge,
animals other than man use tools, how is knowledge
scientific and otherwise different t and unique for man or
is it? 
Resource employing can include so-called "human resources",
hence concepts such as human engineering.
Methodical means there is a step-by-step Procedure involved.
Is some Structure needed? Is flipping a light switch a
technological act?
Mental sets are Values or emotional responses. 

OR

Technological activity is the systematic (re)organization of
people and or nature toward a specified end. 



> 
> Language, in fact, was one of the first technologies, a close second to, or
> a simultaneous co-technology in combination with, self-conscious awareness,
> both evolving from the more general consciousness which proceeded
> self-consciousness.

Yes! This is related to Chomsky's "Plato's Problem." and to
"Descartes' Problem."

> 
> An argument can be made that machines are just linguistic forms. W.C.
> Williams has considered it from the opposite angle- words, or in his case,
> poems, as "word machines."

Hmm, how is machine defined here?


> 
> Language probably was much more external, or rather, independent (as was
> "thinking") for proto-humans. Gradually, or perhaps not so gradually, a
> genetic predisposition, and dependence on grammatical sign usage
> co-developed with the signs themselves. This is not to say that language
> was "internalized." It would be more accurate to say that an internal
> dependence on external signs, symbols and grammatical structures
> co-developed, and I mean "signs, symbols and grammatical structures" in the
> broadest sense: from body positions, emotional grunts, etc., through pebble
> tools, up to and including meta-technologies like genetic engineering
> systems and the internet, and perhaps, even psi and spiritual technologies.

The dependence on "grammatical sign usage" sounds like UG or
something like it? And that humans have speech apparatus and
not wings? Or both? 

> 
> Whether or not the relationship between the internal, animate,
> self-concerned and autopoetic systems which perpetuate their mutual
> co-dependence through what is currently deemed the human form, enjoy a
> mutually co-dependent relationship with the external inanimate
> configurations on which they are dependent, or, whether those external
> configurations are merely our linguistic expressions- without independent
> agency (or as I prefer- desire)- and, therefore, merely artifacts of our
> agency or desire, is, to my mind, an open question.

Right, an open question that we are learning more about each
day. 


> 
> Certainly, both human forms and machines must be replicated, or in our
> case, reproduced, in order to persevere, as time goes by. And certainly
> reproduction and perseverance of the human form is ever more dependent on
> the presence of increasingly sophisticated and complex machines.

Right, the big difference as you suggest, is that humans
reproduce, like other life forms, but machines may be made
to replicate, produce a copy of. As life, humans must
reproduce to persevere. Machine do not reproduce in this
sense. The can be made to replicate. 

> 
> Just as I think it would be incorrect to say that language has been
> internalized, I would disagree with the notion that desire, if only for
> self-perpetuation, has been externalized. Whether it has arisen
> spontaneously amongst the machines is another question.

This is an important point, could you expound on it please. 




> 
> When we find the nature of our desires so perplexing, how can we hope to
> understand desire independent of our own?
> 
> jody