Reed:
>> I understand. But, the implication is that humans do what
>> machines tell them to becuase the machine says so.
Norene:
>Well, don't they? I believe they do.
I agree. I say so next. I agree with you.
>> I prefer to think of the transaction as one of
>> mutual faith and trust between the diner, the restaurant,
>> and the credit company.
>
>Reed, I'm not a logic giant, but preferring to think of blind trust in
>the blinking light as mutual faith doesn't make it so. People don't want
>to and are not required to think that much. I can't imagine waitstaff
>sitting around trying to decide if they trust a diner before granting
>credit. They let Visa and AmEx do the job for them. Yes, the blinking
>light is scary when you think of it, and it is symbolic of something
>else, but that doesn't change its power. I can't remember why you were
>using this analogy. I just thought I'd throw in that observation.
I agree with you. I agree with you. I agree with you.
I was trying to describe the MECHANISM which allows the impatient, thoughtless people to allow AmEx to do their thinking for them without worry. The little lights don't "scare" me in the sense you are implying...having mystical orientation doesn't preclude my recognizing the very mundane, digital, commercial nature of credit transactions. I'm not spooked by strange voodoo, my point is that there are infinite layers of meaning signified within that single flashing "approved".
You are asserting that there is one, materialistic, way of interpreting the world. I agree with you.
But there are more layers of meaning...and how (or if) we think of them is critical to our satisfaction and happiness.
Reed
Reed Konsler konsler@ascat.harvard.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------