IVIV (12): 195-197

[alice wellintown]

> I hope we can all agree on this, at least in literal terms. But even
> recognising that there is no 'IT' to technology - that it isn't some
> conscious force which is out to destroy us - that recognition doesn't
> necessarily preclude an occasional shiver of dread that our logical,
> rational view of technology as not having agency might be horribly
> wrong. A bit like being 'afraid of the dark', even though 'the dark'
> is, in itself, neutral.

That technology is neutral seems obvious, but, again, that's not what
those P-texts say. You needn't belive in the spirit of machines,
magic, I sure don't, and who knows what the author believes, and I
don't care, but the texts, the texts, they believe. To read the works,
you have to believe or suspend disbelief. The reader has to accept
that he is that fellow at the start of GR who is, preterite, and will
not be saved.

But what do I know.