Absence of rabbits is not a thing—we don’t need a word “rabbitlessness.” Absence of inauthenticity is not a thing either. Just an absence.
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness
Realized recently that I care much less about this than most because I never watch TV, surf with AdBlock+, etc.; so never see advertising.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
Maybe if I got a normal contemporary dose of advertising, I would believe in “authenticity” too.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
I think
@vgr’s attempt at steelmanning went wrong, tho. He’s entirely missed the point of the thing he’s critiquing (if I’ve identified it).2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness And that point of the thing is? (I assume you mean whatever X I've reified as 'cultural ether')1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
.
@vgr meanings do not live in individual people’s heads; they are collaborations almost always.2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness Certainly. My point is, you don't need mysticism to account for how meaning is constructed socially.2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@vgr This is the point that is hardest to get across to (e.g) cognitive scientists. I spent years doing that, in the late 1980s… Some got it2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@Meaningness It's hard to get across not because the social-as-primitive way actually has problems, not because people are being obstinate
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.