Or test tube. Or optical glass. Maybe the first stirrings of the Glass Age are felt as early as the telescope. Scrambling of scales. Immanentization of the celestial spheres. Spinoza was a lens maker by trade.
-
-
I understand the premise but politely disagree; the lack of substance is phenomenological or hermeneutic but not in fact. We still communicate through a medium.
-
We’re obviously not talking about substance in the metaphysical sense.
-
But substance is always metaphysical. It can have a positive-factual dimension— but even that—especially that— is subject to Heraclitean flux changing from epoch to epoch. What “matters” in discerning the meaning of our epoch is where the Soul dwells today and that’s the Cloud.
-
My point is that we’re not saying that glass or vapour are metaphysical substances, only material, media, necessary for the transmission of information. The digital is an analog dream, like all dreams.
-
Maybe we should call metaphysical "substance" something else, like "superstance" or "metastance" thus acknowledging the distinction between what we're literally standing on and what floats ceaselessly, seeking bodies.
-
Sorry misread you and deleted the tweet. Substance has a very long history in philosophy. Metaphysics kind of owns that term, really. I should have used a different word earlier.
-
Damnit now how are we going to conflate matter and substance™? I suppose it's not necessary to articulate a
#GlassAge but it does make tweeting about it more of a Mr Toad's Wild Ride™
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
And the medium of our communications is not purely logical; even a bit is analog, rounded to the nearest 0 or 1. Digital appears rational because it rationated away everything else, externalized its costs, like a 3 year old running away from home.
-
Truth.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.