--WebTV-Mail-1388396704-397 Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
"Technology" (including the evolutionary process which manifests as biological "tools" such as eyes)... *technology* which has developed past a certain point (the point at which it becomes HUMANLY aware of itself as such-- and such that it might refer only to the non-human implements of a society) might be called, uh, SCIENCE?
Note: The problem... "science" (so called) is now the LIMITED perspective whose foundation precedes it and whose limits necessitate that-- though it might claim to be the whole of technology (and evolution)-- to do so is to do so at the ultimate cost of those biological systems which produce it.
Brett Lane Robertson
Indiana, USA
http://www.window.to/mindrec
MindRecreation Metaphysical Assn.
BIO: http://members.theglobe.com/bretthay
...........
Put your item up for auction! Bid on hot opportunities! Click HERE to
view great deals!:
http://www.utrade.com/index.htm?MID=59876
--WebTV-Mail-1388396704-397 Content-Disposition: Inline Content-Type: Message/RFC822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Received: from mailsorter-101-1.iap.bryant.webtv.net (209.240.198.97) by postoffice-131.iap.bryant.webtv.net; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 01:30:27 -0700 (PDT)
mailsorter-101-1.iap.bryant.webtv.net (8.8.8/ms.graham.14Aug97) with ESMTP id BAA29698; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 01:30:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by maxwell.kumo.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id CAA22334 for virus-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 02:18:58 -0600Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 00:24:21 -0700 (PDT) From: Dylan Durst <ddurst@levien.com>
> Backtracking somewhat I might agree (that eyes are tools and thus
> represent the same, or similar, "technology" which produces other
> tools... wrenches, hammers, etc.). Except, the nature of technology
> changes AFTER the point at which technology produces such institutions
> (schools, homes, churches... eyes, immune systems, etc.).
Much like a biological systems environment changes as soon as a new 'technology'/'specialization' is introduced? The 'course of evolution' (hate to use the term, but unless something new is introduced, things just get 'better', a course, of course, but no one can talk to a horse) is always changing direction AFTER a new tool is introduced (toxins? i have a solution, anti-toxins).
> The nature of technology ultimately becomes defined as the process of
> creating the IMPLEMENTS of a SOCIETY (by which such prior systems--
> biological and otherwise-- are augmented). And so, to the extent that
> technology might be defined BY these products, such technology is
> further distinguished by its relationship TO these systems.
Agreed. We're not going to have Snorgaborf antibodies until we are introduced to a Snorgaborf virus (or whatever). We are not going to develop anti-ray gun shields until we develop ray guns. I would say that technology grows in relationship to other techonolgies. I would also say that techonogy evolves in its system of 'the real world'. But I would also say the same of memes, birds, fairy tales, and software.
> Thus, "technology" as it is popularly used (to refer to the mechanical
> argumentations of one's body and the way these might be viewed as things
> which are separate from the people who produce them)-- that is,
> *technology* which relates to the artifacts of a SOCIETY-- takes on a
> different meaning AT A CERTAIN POINT... beyond which, looking backward,
> we may be hardpressed to define the process as being one and the same.
Maybe a different word is in order. So there is no miscommunication. I'm not sure if there is one already floating around, or if it is quite an obvious choice. Anyone?
--WebTV-Mail-1388396704-397--