Hi Alan,
I think some of these myths are true, that we're too much online and too
close to the 'virtual' to see that.
for me myths can be true in many different ways, but often not in the ways we
would like them to be true :)
Anyway which myths do you find useful?
the point for me, is that
Alan writes:
For me, re the discussion, the virtual and the real are inconceivably
entangled; on one side, subject/abjection and on the other /virtual
elementary particles/particle properties/pheomenology of inscription on
the llevel of the life world/inscription itself.
Let's just assume that
Jon,
In any case, when one of my former colleagues at UW's HITLab discovered that
VR was as effective as opioids for people who suffered 3rd degree burns,
I was compelled to return. (Videogames don't come close.)
this is extraordinary.
What kind of VR was it? and did it work for other
On Tue, 9 Oct 2012, Jonathan Marshall wrote:
Let's just assume that i don't know what the virtual is, anymore than i
know what the real is To me, they look like two (distorting?) views of
the same events.
Just because momentum and position might be ill defined and entangling
doesn't
IV
At first I went online through printouts from a friend, then I was in a tiny
shared phd students’ room, with one minute screened mac, in the Sydney
University anthropology department, with my hands screaming with pain, and the
knowledge that this work was pain – sometimes clutching thick
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012, Jonathan Marshall wrote:
No, but neither does it mean that every ill defined binary is useful
everywhere...
I don't think these terms are as ill-defined as you think and obviously
most people find them useful.
What i would like is some bigger idea of what the 'virtual'
I think this bit of Alan and my conversation is the most relevant for the
current topic,
so i have wrenched it out of context
Alan writes
I don't think
Levinasian alterity occurs at least at this technological point - which is
a fundamental issue - if you're turned down for a date online,
V
My initial problems brought to Cybermind were again clichés. How did people
maintain the order that allowed them to write, without apparent recourse to
physical violence and thus the threat of direct pain and suffering (which is,
of course, the basis of much offline power)? How did words
Alan writes:
No, but neither does it mean that every ill defined binary is useful
everywhere...
I don't think these terms are as ill-defined as you think and obviously
most people find them useful.
but that does not help define them... :)
However, i'm not really sure if you are implying
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012, Jonathan Marshall wrote:
Where we disagree I think might be the degree of suffering, or accounting
for the ease with which, for example, animal torture might be acceptable
online, the ease that slaughter can become a meme, viral, as in the
beheading videos of a few years
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012, Jonathan Marshall wrote:
Alan writes:
I don't think these terms are as ill-defined as you think and obviously
most people find them useful.
but that does not help define them... :)
The whole point is they're not subject to the kinds of def. you want;
they're much
Alan
Where we disagree I think might be the degree of suffering, or accounting
for the ease with which, for example, animal torture might be acceptable
online, the ease that slaughter can become a meme, viral, as in the
beheading videos of a few years back, etc.
For me, part of this occurs
12 matches
Mail list logo
