This term comes from Ramon Llull's definition of a man in the Ars Brevis (1303)-the humanifying animal. "Homificans is produced through the realization of the three main activities of the human soul, which for Llull are knowing, remembering, and loving, which correspond to the three superior faculties of the soul: understanding, memory, and will." https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/llull/). An interesting thought exercise that sums up other semi-nebulous terms like "actualized" and "sapient".

It's always the case that technologies made for the sake of innovation will end up being used in unethical ways. The internet can be used for worldwide communication, but it also was used by the NSA to spy on the american population.

This is abhorrence to the unknown is thought to be part of our psychology. We make patterns and molds in which to fit the world into. It makes internal processing much easier, especially when confronted with a dangerous situation. For example, when things, such as the sea-blob, go against our conceived notions of ocean animals we are more cautious as we don't know to internally lable them as "safe and cuddly" or "they will eat your arm off". (read: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4141622) I'm not a super big fan of this article as its very anthropocentric but it points to some ideas about patterns that have been thought to help us survive. While the above article may refute this, animals do a similar "patternization" of their surroundings. Its a shortcut to take in senses, really, but I think it often leads to, as Juliette said, schismogenesis. In my classes I haven't found much literature contradicting the "pattern" notions of sensing per psychology, as much as I don't like them. I'd be interested to see if other had come across any literature.

This idea of defining objects, people, or things in opposition to us, rather than defining and grouping ourselves based on commonalities and inclusivity, we group ourselves by defining and excluding those who are opposed from us. It's like schismogenesis in that we define ourselves against each other.

Eric Hayot would have a field day with this paragraph. 54545454545454 (...)

This smacks of Cooper's, Deleuze's, and Whitehead's departures from Hegelian dialectic.

Texts like Joyce's Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man suggest that the days of old mightn't've been all that long ago, and that's got its pros and cons

This reminds me of what we talked about in our last class. That is, how we believe that someone else is wrong because their "logic" is faulty. Such a belief implies that logic is purely objective, when it in fact, may not be. The question that arises from this observation is: who is to say who perceives the world clearly and who "misperceive[s] it?" How can we decipher which belief is correct?