Re: [silk] ‘Kind’ technology?

On Feb 6, 2018 11:54 AM, "Srini RamaKrishnan" wrote: On Feb 6, 2018 8:57 AM, [...] Stalin would consign to Siberia those who didn't believe in communism. Today, the banks will have us living under the bridge, if we are lucky, if we don't believe in capitalism. I tend to

Re: [silk] ‘Kind’ technology?

On Feb 6, 2018 8:57 AM, "Tomasz Rola" wrote: Frankly, the whole thread reads a bit surreal to me, to the point where I wonder if my English... On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 06:54:52PM +0100, Dave Long wrote: On some other day, Someone Else wrote: > >"We are human beings, not human

Re: [silk] ‘Kind’ technology?

> > > > On some other day, Someone Else wrote: > > >"We are human beings, not human doings". > > This may be very deep and wise and yet I happen to have other opinion > on this: those who do not do might as well cease to be and nobody > would be able to tell the difference. We are perfectly

Re: [silk] ‘Kind’ technology?

Frankly, the whole thread reads a bit surreal to me, to the point where I wonder if my English... On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 06:54:52PM +0100, Dave Long wrote: On some other day, Someone Else wrote: > >"We are human beings, not human doings". This may be very deep and wise and yet I happen to have

Re: [silk] ‘Kind’ technology?

On 02/04/2018 11:54 AM, Srini RamaKrishnan wrote: Not my phrase, but I like it, "We are human beings, not human doings". You remind me of a wise woman I once knew. When asked what she did, her answer was, "I don't /do/. I *be*. I *be* MaryLou." Miss her. Cheers, / Bruce /

Re: [silk] ‘Kind’ technology?

"We are human beings, not human doings". Thinking along these lines, and taking kindness to involve a recognition of the human- (or living-)beingness of another, I might attempt to argue that technology can be supple[0], but only individuals[1] could be kind to each other ... or is this