From: Wade Smith (wade_smith@harvard.edu)
Date: Thu 14 Nov 2002 - 14:58:45 GMT
On Thursday, November 14, 2002, at 09:05 , Vincent Campbell wrote:
> Basically Levinson's argument is one of "soft" technological
> determinism,
> whereby information and communication technologies had major societal
> consequences, but not necessarily ones intended or foreseen by the
> inventors
> of the technology
This is also the argument of the performance-only model, as the intent
of the performer (the technology of the inventor) is not necessarily
forwarded by the actual performance (technology). There is no guarantee,
regardless of rehearsal or skill, that any performance is ordained.
> the
> telephone was intended by Bell to be a device to help the hard of
> hearing
It would be interesting to find a list of such inventions moved askew
from original intent. It is for this reason that IMHO deriving _intent_
(and thus meaning) is futile, at core. The meaning mutates in
performance, because of performance.
- Wade
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu 14 Nov 2002 - 15:02:00 GMT