9 Matching Annotations
  1. Feb 2019
    1. ew are qualified to give judgment on any work of ar

      This is still humanism, but perhaps a humbler humanism. Descartes still looms large. The objective capital T truth is still out there somewhere, and we can tell that it is perceived because of the universal rules, but the human is fundamentally not the kind of thing that can perfectly perceive objective reality because the organs of internal sensation don't work well enough, or reliably enough.

    1. designs ~ot to copy anything really existing, but to denominate and rank things as they come to agree with those archetypes or forms it has made

      This kinda sounds like a posthuman critique of humanism.

    2. a perverse use of those signs which we make use of to convey truth to one another.

      Plato: "You can't give long answers or talk funny. Just give it to me straight, without all the obfuscation."

    3. one task of philosophy is to improve language

      HU clap MA clap NI clap SM clap

      "this shit sucks. There is certainly some ideal way it ought to work, so lets make it better and better because we can and we know how things work and how they ought to and we're smart and in control!!!"

      What's the posthuman approach to language, in short? Maybe we can substitute words to come up with a different way of seeing it, like "one task of rhetoric is to invigorate language."

  2. Dec 2018
    1. Blockstream announced through a press release that they have added a fifth satellite to their network. Their broadcast can now reach most of the world. Their previous satellite formation allowed them to share their blockchain broadcasts to most of North and South America, Europe and Africa. Company’s fifth satellite allows them to reach the Asia-Pacific region, including China, India, Japan, the Korean Peninsula, and Australia.


  3. Oct 2018
    1. by our own expectations, we can impact other people's behavior

      This is such a powerful and remarkable statement. As much as we believe in the humanistic aspect and that "we have control over our own thoughts and destinies," perhaps this is not the case. Maybe, as humans we learn to control others and by controlling others this helps regulate our own beliefs and values. ---WOW! Reverse psychology much?!?

  4. Aug 2018
    1. Marcus Vitruvius, the classical Roman architect, defined architecture in proportion to the human body—an ideal building, as he saw it, had to reflect the ideal dimensions of a man. Today such anthropocentric design, indeed male-body centered design, seems irrelevant, perhaps even irresponsible, as the magnitude of our self-inflicted environmental disasters poses fundamental challenges to architects and designers. If the human body was the correct proportion for architecture for Vitruvius, what should the scale of design be that addresses today’s environmental challenges? Climatic change, species depletion, and oceanic pollution are worldwide problems. What is left of Vitruvius’s ideal of human reach has stretched to new global scales and millennial time frames. How can architecture conceptualize a planet on which humans have become involved in vast geological forces?

      Framing a post-humanist question for architecture. What would this mean in service design?

  5. Jan 2017
    1. Howeverfrequenttheireuphoricflightsabouttheunlim-itedpowersandmalleabilityofman,theyknewthatrhetoricaleducation,inpractice,sawmanaslimited,notunlimited,livinginaworldofplay,notofidealforms.

      If I'm reading this correctly, this is saying that to live in a world of ideal forms would be the less limiting option here. However, I usually consider ideal forms to be quite limiting as I generally understand idealism to be so closely aligned with essentialism. For example, when students are introduced to an "ideal argument," their notions of argument become more and more restricted. While this can be good (because it provides models for those beginning), it limits the possibilities of all of the divergent notions of argument.

      In the next paragraph, when Lanham says "when rhetoric empowers literature, it is unredeemable. That is what rhetorical literature, I am tempted to say Western literature, is all about," I jump back up here, and then back down there, and then back up here. I wonder if Lanham is suggesting something here about the essentialist notions of humanity... In other words, as long as advocacy for rhetoric carries the baggage of essentialism (like literature as always being boiled down to saying something about the human condition), it will never get beyond the weak defense?