How do we augment our ability as humans to set objectives? How do we observe that process? How do we gain insight into hidden aspects and drivers of setting intention? How do we recognize our own framings? How do we re-frame? If the Anthropocene Epoch means anything, it is that our own emoto-cognitive lenses make all the difference.

Human-system/Tool-system fine-grained intersections and compositionalities. There are UX and UI levels here. There are likely further levels having to do with intentionalities of (semi-) autonomous Tool Systems, how they are to be guided by Human intentionalities, and - most importantly - how humans fully ascertain and guide their own intentionalities.

posthumanism as a TOOL to understanding

and creating, as Braidotti says elsewhere

constructive tools that extend capabilities, intellectual partners

Saying that the usual and formal definition of Technology as simply a tool or a means to end is untenable, not able to be defended from objection, is to take away Technology's connection to humanity. This is problematic. Technology, at least in the way humanity knows it, would never exist without humans. Sure, if you classify the way an otter uses a rock to open a clam or the way a monkey uses a stick to get ants as technology, then yes it would exist without humanity. However I believe that although technology can be classified as a tool, I do not believe that a tool can be classified as technology. Technology, as defined, is the practical application of knowledge to an area. A tool is a device used to accomplish a task, especially in a profession. The key to Technology is the idea of knowledge. Does an otter have knowledge about the anatomy of the clam or of the physics behind using a rock to open the clam? No, so the rock is a tool. Technology only exists because of Humanity's knowledge, humanity creates Technology as a tool to solve our problems, technology has in its very existence an instrumental definition. Taking that away, takes away it's connection to humanity. It makes it impersonal.

The author suggests that technology can be both negative and positive. If used inappropriately it can create chaos but if used in the proper way it can be a tool to take humanity to new highs as it has been doing so, so far.

Hal is given complete control over the ship and everything inside it, even the people. It is in this way that he is beyond that of a tool. He controls, he is not controlled. As portrayed in the film he can kill any of the crew members any time, which he does, and advises the crew members of what they should do. This is perfectly described in "The Technological Singularity" where the authors states that a super-intelligent AI will be as much of a tool to humanity as we are tools to animals.

In other words, we can't say that a technology was created for doing this or that only. Most of what our technological artifacts are used for is discovered after the tool has been created. What does this mean?

Each student learns differently, technology tools will definitely enhance or detract student learning experiences, but it is impossible to say which or to utilize technology in a way that only enhances learning. I think that it is about giving students a chance to find a medium that can be used by all of them.

Well now, this looks promising!

An example of a mode being used in an unintentionally effective way would be the aural mode of Flannery O’Connor’s voice as she reads her short story “A Good Man Is Hard To Find.” Before reading the linguistic content of her story, my high school professor played an audio recording of O’Connor reading this story in a ballroom theater.

O’Connor is a Southern author from Savannah, Georgia, so one of the first characteristics I noticed of her voice was its accent. Next, I noticed the bluntness with which she spoke. Her voice sounded rather dry and sarcastic at times, which perfectly illustrated, even softened the uncomfortable humor present in the story. I became so engrossed with the aural mode of O’Connor’s short story that once the linguistic mode caught up to me, I felt shocked by the grotesqueness of the events unfolding.

The aural mode of O’Connor’s reading deceived me and lured me into a state of selective-attentiveness, however, this deception worked well to demonstrate the content of her story. “A Good Man Is Hard To Find” is, itself, an illusory and misleading narrative that culminates in a dreadful tragedy which appears quite suddenly and viciously. Until one rereads the story and recognizes the points of foreshadowing present all along, O’Connor’s voice served an unintentional purpose of misleading the (in this case) listener.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQT7y4L5aKU

One of the activities in our class textbook, Guide to First-Year Writing (6th Edition), asks us to “consider a song as an argument” (70). This activity (activity 2.12, found in chapter two) requires the participant to locate a song that appears to make an argument and answer the activity’s given questions. For this exercise, I chose the song “Love Is Dead” by Estonian musician Kerli.

The title alone presents Kerli’s argument: love is dead. Answering the activity’s given questions, however, caused me to contemplate Kerli’s song as a complex communicative device; I soon realized that Kerli’s message is not as simplistic as the title implies. In my response, I hypothesize that Kerli is a mistress who has made the difficult decision to leave a secret relationship. By referencing lyrics that support my interpretation of the song’s argument, I was able to appreciate the narrative present in the song, and analyze its method of storytelling.

Previously, I felt most drawn to the aural mode of “Love Is Dead,” however, this activity prompted my explicit admiration of the song’s linguistic mode as well. Through the following questions, I discuss how and why the linguistic mode of the song’s argument is supported by its aural mode:

How would you describe the musical style of the song? In what ways does the style of singing and instrumentation help convey the rhetorical argument?

Here is a snippet of my response:

*The composition of the piece seems to describe the navigation of a dangerous path. It’s as if one has to look over one’s shoulder while listening to this song. By employing a sense of danger, the ballad mimics the traitorous and deceptive nature of Kerli’s secret relationship.

In the song, Kerli’s vocals are slightly distorted. She sounds as if she is singing from behind a glass wall, showing that she is both unsure of the words she is singing to herself, and afraid of being honest about her doubt of the worthiness of her relationship. The instrumentation is forceful and almost overpowers Kerli’s voice at times. One is never unaware of the thematic orchestra scoring Kerli’s ascent through perilous territory. As the song advances, however, Kerli’s angelic voice increases in power. She continuously repeats and chants variations of “love is dead, love is gone, love don’t live here anymore,” alternating between singing these words, chanting them, and crying them to the audience.*

As this article’s authors point out, the aural mode of media “signals information” even when we are not consciously aware of those signals.

At first, I only appreciated the superficiality of the composition of “Love Is Dead,” and simply recognized that it sounded good to me. I now realize, however, that the aural mode of the song also performs the deeper, more complex function of storytelling. The sound of Kerli’s song influences the emotions that I feel upon listening, and the imagery I conjure in accordance with the music.

Read the full response on my website, Postscript Reverie: My Analysis of "Love Is Dead"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBDiHFS1TjY

better than BMIQ

ResearchMap from Digital Promise ; education-focused resource

recipe for merging transcripts of a gene into a single compound transcript

This is a fascinating concept; to think of rhetoric as being intentionally invented, or crafted in a certain way, to exclude others in an effort to create societal division and establish hierarchy. I suppose I've typically thought of rhetoric as something that occurs naturally in the world on multiple social levels of understanding and manifestation (and also as something that exists in a relationship of mutuality between the "author/speaker" and the "audience" see: rhetorical triangle), and not as something that was deliberately created as a tool to subjugate others. In fact, as we've discussed in class, the participation or reception of an audience is actually a sometimes necessary contribution to the "rhetoricity" of a speech/text/artwork/etc.

Okay again back to Lorde... Her concern was that feminist theorists had coalesced around a consensus that left out the very voices of those whose difference was essential to the project of overturning the patriarchy. Lorde asked, “What does it mean when the tools of a racist patriarchy are used to examine the fruits of that same patriarchy?” I guess I see a similar flaw in the white abolitionists' dismissal of Douglass, in that oppression cannot be disrupted using the logic that justifies oppression, i.e. the use of Douglass as a black man as "tool" in himself and the exclusion of his very relevant experience from their dialogue; are these not other forms of bondage? Also thinking about how "tool" can be interpreted here, i.e. tool as logic, rhetoric, government, Christianity, whiteness, Douglass himself, etc.

Don't forget adverbially. JJ=MSM tool

I think this is achievable, if we emphasize specialized libraries and cooperative models around resources (i.e. tool/tech libraries, food banks/co-ops)

use of voki

Respec (sadly) doesn't quite have a command line tool...at least not one comparable to a browser's output.

Maybe PhantomJS (which Respec uses for tests) would do a better job?

using voki

These are interesting metaphors which suggest rhetoric is a tool or object which is neither inherently good or bac