:)

And another thing

Rebecca Blood's brain works better than mine. I want to go back and edit posts as new ideas come to me, 'cause this way it's just going to be a jumble.

First, Hansen uses big words that confuse me. Second, I wish I had discovered this earlier. Sorry that my understanding's subject to evolution as I read.

Anyway, so I was thinking about what I was thinking about before, and that tablet PC (Which, I was told this weekend, is NOT the future. I think they were jealous.) really jumbles things up with the ability to write on pages. Now, from what I can tell, you're not really writing *on* the digital page-photograph, but instead on top of the page in a program that attaches itself to the page-thing. That's just really messing with me.

But how does the embodiment of a digital image differ from the embodiment of analog image? It goes through one more step of mediation, yes, but does this change the actual mechanism of embodiment? Am I really missing something here? Probably.

Help me out. Sometimes this sounds like McLuhan on steroids, that the medium is the only thing and even its message is fuzzy, and other times it sounds like as long as we think of an image as something (i.e. a book page) then that's what is.

Now, wait a minute. Maybe that makes sense. So we think of a digital object as a thing and interact with it as such, while the medium has a subtle effect on who we are as human subjects. The medium effects us while we look the other way, processing the (insignificant?) images.

And voila! Everybody's right. Cog. Psych and Philosophy skip happily down the lane with one another.

Wow. I think I just completly mischaracterized Hanson to suit my own needs.

posted by Sue @ 2:22 PM