The mind never ended at the finger tips. Getting first used to a pen, then a typewriter, touch screen, brain chip, cosmic highway; requires a new bond to be formed. “Seperation of being” is just the sensation of not finding yourself in the new medium… yet.

Very interesting read erik. Heidegger definitely had some points that he made about the differentiation between man and machine. It would seem to me his biggest gripe with the idea of machine and man is that it unifies its word, making it perfected, inhuman. If the word of a man is to be interpreted as such there should be the flaws detectable/relatable in order for the reader to associate that what it is he is engaging with is another humans thoughts.

While i can relate to his assumptions of such things as being inhuman to a degree. I think the human aspect of the idea can be one that can be falsified. If the idea you dislike is championed by that of someone fallible then you can side step the idea altogether and attack the human behind the idea.

By being able to immortalize the idea in a structured manner indistinguishable from any other the idea can hide in the crowd and be fought with on merit instead of the creator of the idea itself. Both instantiations of the written/ typed word does have its tradeoffs.

I think the embracing of the technologies (whatever they may be of any time, now or in the future) should be of one that , is the user of said technologies able to achieve said goal using them, instead of becoming consumed by said technology. It should be one of enhancing said human experience not hampering it.

I also enjoyed the view that comparison of the critique of heideggers claim that the mechanized version of writing is dumbing down of the word. As the written word itself is a self realization of rules and expectations that have been reached to by a wider audience and acceptance as a written word. The paper being used was created by mechanized means, the pen and ink as well. So if one were to accept these technologies for the written word then acceptance of the typewriter is one too far stretched, as the analogy of of the user of an instrument shown that once the user becomes acclimated to the new device it becomes apart of the writer himself.

Ideas are just that ideas, but when those ideas are placed down written or otherwise, the become reality. Ready to be consumed, contemplated, deliberated, attacked, refined.

The paper with written is the human psyche self realization, and for others to come to consensus on is what i am reading true or untrue?

Fascinating history that someone opposed to a technology would've/possibly owned the thing he desperately tried to denounce as less than. Could it be he secretly enjoyed it MORE than the writing process so as a way to right in his own mind his dirty pleasure, publicly denounce it?

Cheers bud.

THE FUCK DID I JUST READ - I MEAN I GET BEING ALL UPPITY AND SHIT ABOUT TECHNOLOGY AND FIGHTING ADOPTION OF CHANGE BUT IT’S KINDA LIKE AN UNCARVED BLOCK-THE PHYSICAL REALM IS GOING TO DO ITS THING AND SHAPE IT TO FIT WHATEVER…SO…JUST BE. GOTTA FIGHT THE RIGHT FIGHT AND TECHNOLOGY/CHANGE/NATURAL LAW ISN’T IT

I think he feared the idea of people seperating his ideas from his identity.

I see this with engineers.

They want to make something to improve the world but then they patent it to restrict the free market from benefitting without the engineers lable of approval being stamped upon it.

The philosopher's paranoia is even worse because worthwhile ideas are valuable to the recipient merely by having thunk a thought.

If a thought could be claimed handwriting rightly endears it to the originator much like the signature inscribed on the back of the typewriter.

The typewriter could not mark itself.

And a typed out signature would prove useless as proof of ownership.

Both have their place.

Heidegger apparently thought that mechanical writing (using a machine, in this case the typewriter) interferes with the "authentically handling hand", thereby concealing character, making " everyone look the same".

What would Heidegger think of our use of machines to not only write nostr notes but sign them with our unique private keys, thereby placing their authenticity beyond doubt?