minds, and so never developed separate words for them.Neither is the ugliness inherent in the materials of modern technology … a statement you sometimes hear. Mass-produced plastics and synthetics aren't in themselves bad. They've just acquired bad associations. A person who's lived inside stone walls of a prison most of his life is likely to see stone as an inherently ugly material, even though it's also the prime material of sculpture, and a person who's lived in a prison of ugly plastic technology that started with his childhood toys and continues through a lifetime of junky consumer products is likely to see this material as inherently ugly. But the real ugliness of modern technology isn't found in any material or shape or act or product. These are just the objects in which the low Quality appears to reside. It's our habit of assigning Quality to subjects or objects that gives this impression.The real ugliness is not the result of any objects ofКtechnology. Nor is it, if one follows Ph?drus' metaphysics, the result of any subjects of technology, theКpeople who produce it or the people who use it. Quality, or its absence, doesn't reside in either the subject or the object. The r
Навигация с клавиатуры: следующая страница - или ,
предыдущая -
