Re: your mail

Brian,
you mentioned:
the architecture of the present is ever-constricting the possibilities,
recognizing the objectivity- and its subjectivity-- such as the Internet.
this list-- these are design tools- no?

spn: you have suggested over and over the dichotomy between
subjective(humanities) and objective(science). this is a dichotomy i
would like to suggest is far to catagorical. Generally speaking,
"antihumanist" thought would never accept such a split, rather, it would
investigate the tradition of how that split eventuated as an historical
assumption. So i propose that the framework you offer is needd to be
problematized. From there, if what you are suggesting above is that the
internet is subjective and thus a design tool, i would submit that it
might described better as relativistic and self emergent--that is neither
subjective nor objective.

To respond to Alan Sondheim's post about listlurking, a thread topic that
has surley gone further than i ever expected, Alan, i agree that
remaining inactive is a viable mode of participation but as with some
threads you have siezed upon a reduced portion of what has been
discussed. No one ever said everyone must participate, no one ever did
anything to assure such activity nor could. Much of the resistance is
moot. Even if you do engage in this forum, the possibility of inventing
one's identity is tantamount. The biggest fallacy is to assume that
engaging cyberspace is to posit one's full presence. Your identity in
here is an extention of your being, and a rather manipulable one at that.
Those who wish to protect some idea of full presence in cyberspace are
operating with far too rigid an idea of subjectivity. What i call an
epistemological redundancy. Politics, subjectivity, etc. it is all up for
redefinition and reconsideration as cyberreal.

spn
Partial thread listing: