I think Miller is right to claim that any made object can reveal or point to the societal context to which it belongs. He has an indisputable position.
For instance, in the 18-19C, before paper clips, people pinned their notes together, using long pins. No doubt there were many pricked fingers. So there was a context begging for a useful object. We should not assume that the object precedes the context; often, the context precedes the object. Art can precede its context or be at one with it or follow it. How do we make those distinctions? WC ________________________________ From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 10:53:35 AM Subject: Re: Heidegger and Singularity-string Miller writes:Saul, can you offer, as example, a single manufactured object that does not "continue to identify something the economic, social, and cultural circumstances of its audience"? Radiator brushes,button hooks,pencils,paper clips aren't quite universal enough. They presuppose steam heat,boots,a need to write things down, and a need to separate piles of paper,itself a manufactored object. Wouldn't something like string be less identifiable? Also, Miller's question has no pertinence to the problem at hand,which is the way he usually conducts his arguments. I am surprised at the improvement in his prose, one might almost think he had engaged someone else to write his responses. Kate Sullivan ************** A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220572846x1201387511/aol?redir=http ://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072& hmpgID=62&bcd=Aprilfooter427NO62)
