Date: Mon, 25 Apr 94 08:30:46 EDT
From: ma-AT-dsd.camb.inmet.com (Malgosia Askanas)
To: technology-AT-world.std.com
Subject: Recapitulation


Since this list is now larger than it was a month ago, and since 
at least two of us, Michael Current and I, are far from having read 
the Conway book, let me in the meantime try to re-start the 
foundational discussion that started in the earlier days of the list.  

My basic question about technology is what attitude to take towards
it.  When I asked this question on the list earlier, it was pointed
out by Boreas and others that the answer was very much dependent 
on one's model of what it means to be human.  Boreas also felt that
the question cannot be fruitfully discussed if "technology" is taken
as some kind of uniform undifferentiated phenomenon; instead, one must
recognize and consider different kinds of technology.

David Devor, whose interest in this list is strongly motivated by his
commitment to Project Mind, immediately provided living proof of 
the connection between a strong model of "humanity" and attitudes
towards technology by putting forth his own model, in which the purpose 
of humans is the liberation of the spirit from the shackles of matter, 
and the solution to the problem of technology is an enormous accelaration 
of its development so as to get it out of its current enmeshment in matter.
This resulted in a protracted discussion between me and David, which
ultimately died down because of my frustration with what I perceived
as his inability to respect and engage with any other model of humanity 
(in particular mine).  One of the most interesting questions raised
by this discussion, in my mind, was whether it was indeed possible to
arrive at a stance towards technology in the _absence_ of this kind
of single-minded worldview.  

I would say that my own internal model of what it means to be human
leans towards some flavor of existentialism.  A very great role in my
worldview is played by notions of solidarity.  My main problem with
technology is that if one postulates that its locus is some kind of
"we", then it becomes a sort of mutation-within-ones-lifetime, a
"natural" force in which ones own humanity is no longer one's own
project at all; this is the picture that arises both from reading the
government's statements concerning the NII and from reading, say, 
Baudrillard.  On the other hand, if one wants to maintain the position
that one's humanity is indeed to some extent one's own project, then
one must separate oneself radically from the forces which govern the
development of technology, thus putting into question the possibility
of "solidarity". 

I apologize for the length of this post, but I think this history
of what happened and what issues were raised will perhaps be useful.  
I personally would very much like to see a continuation of this 
discussion.  It seems to me likely that many of us are on this list
for the same very fundamental reason. 


- malgosia