[Humanist] Re: 23.131 from 'as if' to 'is'
willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk
Sun Jul 5 10:13:30 CEST 2009
No argument from me against Gray Kochhar-Lindgren's galloping as-if. But
I ask again: does computing speed the journey, make it harder for us to
think that one of the waystations is the end of the road?
There's no question that we're incapable of construing some state of the
machine as final (e.g. as if putting up a static website were basically
the same as publishing a book on paper, however cheaper and less
prestigious). But the physical characteristics of the form we use affect
us; they constitute a difference that makes a difference. Is our grip on
finality loosening as a result?
Let me ask a further question. If our grip is loosening, then how now
are we going wrong?
Humanist Discussion Group wrote:
> Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 23, No. 131.
> Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
> Submit to: humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org
> Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2009 09:21:47 -0700
> From: "Gray Kochhar-Lindgren" <gklindgren at uwb.edu>
> Subject: RE: [Humanist] 23.129 from 'as if' to 'is'?
> In-Reply-To: <20090704093745.193F38891 at woodward.joyent.us>
> Interesting question. For me, as a non-computationalist, the as-if gallops
> right through all of the as-ises as a kind of ontological principle. There
> could be no "is" without the "as-if," since the latter opens possibility. I
> tend to run this through the Kant (als-ob), Husserl, Derrida, Deleuze
> Happy 4th!
> Gray Kochhar-Lindgren, PhD
> Professor: Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences
> Director: Center for University Studies and Programs
> University of Washington, Bothell
> Fulbright Scholar in General Education
> University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong America Center
Willard McCarty, Professor of Humanities Computing,
King's College London, staff.cch.kcl.ac.uk/~wmccarty/;
Editor, Humanist, www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist;
Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, www.isr-journal.org.
More information about the Humanist