Bill, et al,
in relation to the earlier discussion of Bowles and Gintis, here are some
observations which come to me as I research a text book chapter on Digital
Literacy I am rereading chapter 8 of Kevin Robins & Frank Webster., Times
of the Technoculture(1999).
They point out the computer tools we implement therefore have
characteristics that are best fitted to the ways that suit global
capitalism:
- Cybernetic theory interprets social, psychological, and biological
processes in terms of feedback loops and control loops
- It is not neutral, it privileges mechanic over holistic thinking;
cognition over intuition, calculative over deliberate life.
At one point I was going to pitch into the phylo-onto-geno debate with
some observations on Maturana and Varela and the concepts of autopoeisis
and the development of language from a phylogenetic biol;ogical
standpoint. However reading robins and Webster has made me think again as
M & V derive from cybernetic theory.... yet I do not see Bateson as being
quite so loopy. Is a view of phylogenetic development that is based on
cybernetic models an outcome of capitalist modes of thinking. Do our other
theories suffer in the same way?
Martin
"A big Hi to all you sentient beings out there. For the rest of you, the
trick is to bang the rocks together."
D.N.Adams (1952-2001)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 01 2001 - 01:01:00 PDT