tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post3575752250164641064..comments2023-11-05T07:27:43.837-05:00Comments on Narrative and Technology: Technology and NatureAdamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post-21633868871229768602008-10-21T16:52:00.000-04:002008-10-21T16:52:00.000-04:00There's some awkward language in your introduction...There's some awkward language in your introduction, and I would have liked a clearer thesis. What I like here, though, is that you're already engaging in depth with Marcuse's thought.<BR/><BR/>Marcuse is very tough, obviously, but you have a great handle on him at some points, especially in the third paragraph on art and subjugation.<BR/><BR/>I don't think that Marcuse and Rolston are actually in disagreement, although apparent disagreement may be a result of the quotes I picked. Anyway, you're making an interesting distinction.<BR/><BR/>Up through your discussion of artificial limbs, this is an able unpacking of the difference (or not) between Ralston and Marcuse. I'm not sure if I buy artificial limbs as an example, though - in far more ways, we replace (in a sense) our limbs with tools, and we do that willingly enough - we drive instead of walking, use an axe instead of our teeth(!) etc. I'd argue that much of technology is, in fact, effectively a form of prosthesis.<BR/><BR/>I like your discussion of Ralston and DADES very much. One difficulty that comes up for me is that you ignore the organic and, in fact, near-human nature of the androids - you make things a little too easy on yourself. On the other hand, the (false) idea of them as being artificial is still of overwhelming importance...<BR/><BR/>Your discussion of Taylor and Haraway in relationship to Marcuse is great.<BR/><BR/>Overall: Your reading of Marcuse is sophisticated and interesting, with the incorporation of R. being a great idea. Each individual text is discussed with great skill and clarity - there is a great deal of fantastic material here.<BR/><BR/>My only overall concern - and a relatively minor one at that - is that your central argument has a way of getting lost in the very interesting details; you handle each moment very well, but the whole doesn't cohere as well as it might, which is essentially a problem with the introduction and conclusion.Adam Johnshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11588769281227456640noreply@blogger.com