k-punk
Spectres of Mark
Computers are existentialists - computing beyond the pleasure principle
I still think some people are missing my point.
Articulating things in terms of existing human 'needs' - there are of course no human needs of any kind, the whole notion of need is ideological through and through - immediately massively limits the potential of any technology, especially computers, which in being Nothing - in having no essence - can potentially be anything.
The idea that there is a more 'complex and nuanced' view of computers than that they are simulation machines is really quite stunning. What could be more complex and nuanced than the idea of a machine that can simulate the function of any other machine but which itself is Nothing? (Sadly think that using the magic word 'Baudrillard' has closed down thought here -- because aha, we all know what Baudrillard says, don't we, and it's not very interesting
). The idea of computers as simulators is really not at all controversial, and certainly not reducible to Baudrillard (who in any case is a master of the subtle and the nuanced, whatever reductive readings of him maintain). Much of Sadie Plant's stuff in the nineties, in which she parallels computers with women, both of which have been defined as nothing but simulation, lacking in any essence, makes good use of this idea that computers are simulation machines.
No, I haven't used Linux, but then I'm lazy and I don't really want to defend such laziness. My default position would be argue that yes Macs are superior etc etc, but this is to avoid the broader and more crucial techopolitical point about potentials. 'User friendliness' basically slaves computers into the human pleasure principle, to - if we pursue Sadie's parallel - becoming prostitutes, dressing up in familiar garb to service the same old dreary desires. 'All I wanted to do was watch the movie': well, yes, precisely. But there are more destratifying potentials that human-computer interaction could explore --- once both use value and the pleasure principle are left behind.
I still think some people are missing my point.
Articulating things in terms of existing human 'needs' - there are of course no human needs of any kind, the whole notion of need is ideological through and through - immediately massively limits the potential of any technology, especially computers, which in being Nothing - in having no essence - can potentially be anything.
The idea that there is a more 'complex and nuanced' view of computers than that they are simulation machines is really quite stunning. What could be more complex and nuanced than the idea of a machine that can simulate the function of any other machine but which itself is Nothing? (Sadly think that using the magic word 'Baudrillard' has closed down thought here -- because aha, we all know what Baudrillard says, don't we, and it's not very interesting
). The idea of computers as simulators is really not at all controversial, and certainly not reducible to Baudrillard (who in any case is a master of the subtle and the nuanced, whatever reductive readings of him maintain). Much of Sadie Plant's stuff in the nineties, in which she parallels computers with women, both of which have been defined as nothing but simulation, lacking in any essence, makes good use of this idea that computers are simulation machines.No, I haven't used Linux, but then I'm lazy and I don't really want to defend such laziness. My default position would be argue that yes Macs are superior etc etc, but this is to avoid the broader and more crucial techopolitical point about potentials. 'User friendliness' basically slaves computers into the human pleasure principle, to - if we pursue Sadie's parallel - becoming prostitutes, dressing up in familiar garb to service the same old dreary desires. 'All I wanted to do was watch the movie': well, yes, precisely. But there are more destratifying potentials that human-computer interaction could explore --- once both use value and the pleasure principle are left behind.
