/lit/ - Literature

>To be human is a mark of a distinction between, on the one hand, the relation between mindedness and behavior through the intervention of discursive intentionality, and on the other hand, the relation between sentient intelligence and behavior in the absence of such mediation. It is a distinction between sentience as a strongly biological and natural category and sapience as a rational (not to be confused with logical) subject. The latter is a normative designation which is specified by entitlements and the responsibilities they bring about. It is important to note that the distinction between sapience and sentience is marked by a functional demarcation rather than a structural one. Therefore, it is still fully historical and open to naturalization, while at the same time being distinguished by its specific functional organization, its upgradable set of abilities and responsibilities, its cognitive and practical demands.

>The rational demarcation lies in the difference between being capable of acknowledging a law and being solely bound by a law, between understanding and mere reliable responsiveness to stimuli. It lies in the difference between stabilized communication through concepts (as made possible by the communal space of language and symbolic forms) and chaotically unstable or transient types of response or communication (such as complex reactions triggered purely by biological states and organic requirements or group calls and alerts among social animals). Without such stabilization of communication through concepts and modes of inference involved in conception, the cultural evolution as well as the conceptual accumulation and refinement required for the evolution of knowledge as a shared enterprise would be impossible.

-- RZ/LotI

it sounds scary, depending on the kinds of fantasies you have about the future. but in a sense, all he's asking for is a philosophy compatible with computer technology and industrial design. we have every right to be apprehensive about technology, there's no question. i love Heidegger, but i am skeptical about his technophobia (and some other things). i also would like a way off of the Wild Ride. as such the situation probably calls not so much for a Revolution but an Upgrade.

we *could* have a technological equivalent of the Great Learning unconsciously (or consciously) imposed on us: that's Land's thesis about capital as computer, processing desire. and there is no upper limit on how dark techno-dystopia could be. but we could also borrow some of this to improve ourselves, as an alternative. i think YH would agree.

a machine-friendly Great Learning: now there's something to think about (if it's not already too late, &c &c).