Date: Tue, 26 Apr 94 01:24:58 CST
From: "tiel0001-AT-student.tc.umn.edu" <tiel0001-AT-gold.tc.umn.edu>
To: technology-AT-world.std.com
Subject: recapitulation


     Upon reading P.K. Jamison's post it occurred to me that our conception 
of what it is to be human is probably based upon our experiences (what else 
would it be based upon?) and thus upon our experiences of technologies.  
Technology helps give the world of possibilities in which 
we live its shape; we wouldn't even wonder whether certain modes of life 
were really ways of fulfilling our potential as human beings unless we 
lived in a world where such ways of life were possible, or at least 
imaginable.  But Jamison's question may have been about what it really is 
to be human, rather than about what we may at any given time think it is.  
If what we are is a function of what we can do (and I'm thinking now of 
certain debates in bioethics where being human is equated with being able 
to do certain things, like be aware of one's surroundings and interact 
meaningfully with others), then once again technology becomes important; 
just think of all the things we can do now that most of the people who ever 
lived could not.  (We're aware of so much more than our benighted 
ancestors were, and can interact in ways qualitatively different than 
most others could it seems to me, for instance.)  But this too could be 
mistaken; the question asked was about what it is to be human, not about 
what it is to be a late-twentieth-century American or some such thing.  The 
wording of the question suggests that an answer is sought that could unify 
us with our earliest ancestors.  Here I get totally stuck.  Maybe I'm 
misunderstanding the question, "Is what it means to be human, that 
discourse, based on our experiences and if so, our experiences of 
"technologies" (both as philosophies and things)."  I'd be curious to 
read a few more words on just what is being asked by the quote.  I guess 
there were a couple of possible answers to it summarized 
in the 'Recapitulation' posting by Askanas, but I'm still not sure I 
understand what the question was.       
     That posting also had an assertion in it which both confused and 
interested me: "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".  I 
will admit that I wasn't paying really close attention to the extended 
discussion between Askanas and Devor by the end of it, so I may well have 
missed something in there.  But from where I am it's not obvious why one 
wouldn't wish to involve oneself intimately with the development of 
technology; it's my own (perhaps naive) opinion that if more people were 
meaningfully involved in it the results might serve a somewhat broader 
range of interests than at present.  I'd be glad to read something by way 
of explanation of this.
     Incidentally, I did get the Conley book but haven't read it yet.  
(Between doing my coursework and reading my e-mail I find that I don't have 
much time....)
                                                  Erik Tielking