tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post2790227966400830465..comments2023-11-05T07:27:43.837-05:00Comments on Narrative and Technology: Marie-France's Future in "Neuromancer"Adamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post-80176230486602813992016-12-20T15:27:36.161-05:002016-12-20T15:27:36.161-05:00This website is so cool and full of constructive i...This website is so cool and full of constructive information. Keep sharing and I will always support to such a great blog posts<br /><a href="http://aidenmanny33.wixsite.com/mysite/single-post/2016/12/05/Amazon-Echo-Overview" title="website here" rel="nofollow">website here</a><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00248296275628982891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post-43090412064064909022014-02-15T13:58:50.258-05:002014-02-15T13:58:50.258-05:00Maybe vainly, I wish that your introduction could ...Maybe vainly, I wish that your introduction could have been a little more precise. I'm not saying it isn't good - just that maybe you could have indicated what you're doing with Heidegger more from the beginning.<br /><br />I like the 2nd paragraph a lot - your discussion of "needs," in particular, at least anticipates Marcuse, which was quite interesting.<br /><br />Your summary of Wintermute's power/influence is ok. Nitpick: why "he" rather than "it?" Not that you're wrong - it's just important but unexplained.<br /><br />One thing I'd suggest is that Wintermute, while using everyone else as standing reserve, first and foremost uses *itself* as such. It is, in other words, a source of energy which it is is using to destroy and recreate itself. The dissolution of humanity into the standing-reserve is, of course, humanity's point, so the central fact that Wintermute relentlessly uses everything, including itself, is right in line with Heidegger. Integrating more of this point - the danger that humanity as well as its tools are absorbed into the standing-reserve - could have helped out your next paragraph on Heidegger.<br /><br />"It feels no need for progress; it is already fulfilling its potential." -- This is good material. I'd like to see this related back to Heidegger also. Implicitly, Neuromancer represents an alternative to or rejecting of the standing-reserve, but I'd like to see you be clearer and more explicit about it. You are interested in, and describe how, Wintermute was obviously the victor. Does this mean, then, that a nightmarish, Heideggarian vision of the world as pure standing reserve has taken place? Or did something else happen, such that it was precisely this most dangerous/frightening aspect of Wintermute that was moderated by Neuromancer's influence?<br /><br />"Case is arguing for the unknown, for crisis, for possible catastrophe (Ben-Tov 182)." -- I'm noting that you are making good *compact* use of research.<br /><br />"No one, not even the AIs themselves, can articulate or even conceive the power of their new being." -- this is very good. But I wonder if *you* can articulate it, or at least the meaning of it. I know I'm being monotonous here, but Heidegger, frustrating though he is, gives us some of the tools to articulate that that new power & new mode of being might mean (which at some level is why I think you began with Heidegger).<br /><br />Overall: I liked this a lot in most ways. Your writing is generally clear and provocative, and you handle complex ideas well. Your research is quite good - you use it effectively, rather than throwing it out in bulk for the reader to figure out. You begin well with Heidegger, and you do a good job tracing many aspects of the "catastrophe" (the greek word usually literally means "flood" but etymologically indicates something like "turn against") at the end of the novel. But I am looking for one big thing which I don't yet see: an attempt at articulating what the catastrophe means, or how we wrap our minds around it. You don't *need* to do that through Heidegger - but you went there first, not me, and from my point of view Heidegger provides everything you need to express what the catastrophe means (my personal viewpoint - search for "saving power" in the text). Or, in short, your conclusion is less coherent, or doesn't move as as far foreword, as it might have, despite the many merits of this essay.<br /><br />An alternative: talking more throughout about "needs" - including what the new, united entity needs, and what humanity needs - might take you to interesting places too.Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.com