Re: virus: Technology (was manifest science)

Brett Robertson (
Wed, 2 Jun 1999 09:43:01 -0500 (EST)

Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit

"Technology" (including the evolutionary process which manifests as biological "tools" such as eyes)... *technology* which has developed past a certain point (the point at which it becomes HUMANLY aware of itself as such-- and such that it might refer only to the non-human implements of a society) might be called, uh, SCIENCE?

Note: The problem... "science" (so called) is now the LIMITED perspective whose foundation precedes it and whose limits necessitate that-- though it might claim to be the whole of technology (and evolution)-- to do so is to do so at the ultimate cost of those biological systems which produce it.

Brett Lane Robertson
Indiana, USA
MindRecreation Metaphysical Assn.
BIO: ...........
Put your item up for auction! Bid on hot opportunities! Click HERE to view great deals!:

Content-Disposition: Inline
Content-Type: Message/RFC822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit

Received: from ( by; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 01:30:27 -0700

Return-Path: <>
Received: from ( []) by (8.8.8/ms.graham.14Aug97)
	with ESMTP id BAA29698; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 01:30:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by (8.9.1/8.9.1) id
	CAA22334 for virus-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 02:18:58 -0600
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 00:24:21 -0700 (PDT) From: Dylan Durst <>
X-Sender: ddurst@localhost.localdomain
Subject: Re: virus: Technology (was manifest science) In-Reply-To: <> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.04.9906020013120.2379-100000@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender:
Precedence: bulk

> Backtracking somewhat I might agree (that eyes are tools and thus
> represent the same, or similar, "technology" which produces other
> tools... wrenches, hammers, etc.). Except, the nature of technology
> changes AFTER the point at which technology produces such institutions
> (schools, homes, churches... eyes, immune systems, etc.).

Much like a biological systems environment changes as soon as a new 'technology'/'specialization' is introduced? The 'course of evolution' (hate to use the term, but unless something new is introduced, things just get 'better', a course, of course, but no one can talk to a horse) is always changing direction AFTER a new tool is introduced (toxins? i have a solution, anti-toxins).

> The nature of technology ultimately becomes defined as the process of
> creating the IMPLEMENTS of a SOCIETY (by which such prior systems--
> biological and otherwise-- are augmented). And so, to the extent that
> technology might be defined BY these products, such technology is
> further distinguished by its relationship TO these systems.

Agreed. We're not going to have Snorgaborf antibodies until we are introduced to a Snorgaborf virus (or whatever). We are not going to develop anti-ray gun shields until we develop ray guns. I would say that technology grows in relationship to other techonolgies. I would also say that techonogy evolves in its system of 'the real world'. But I would also say the same of memes, birds, fairy tales, and software.

> Thus, "technology" as it is popularly used (to refer to the mechanical
> argumentations of one's body and the way these might be viewed as things
> which are separate from the people who produce them)-- that is,
> *technology* which relates to the artifacts of a SOCIETY-- takes on a
> different meaning AT A CERTAIN POINT... beyond which, looking backward,
> we may be hardpressed to define the process as being one and the same.

Maybe a different word is in order. So there is no miscommunication. I'm not sure if there is one already floating around, or if it is quite an obvious choice. Anyone?