Carlota Perez has a clue:
"Great surges of development represent the gradual integral transformation of both the techno-economic and the socio-institutional spheres of the social system, through the assimilation a cluster of converging technologies. A great surge leads to structural changes in production, distribution, communication and consumption, leading to profound qualitative social changes. Society, in turn, influences the path taken by the revolution."
1. Adam Fish on November 16, 2004 10:02 PM writes...
"...through the assimilation a cluster of converging technologies."
A reductive statement. If you are merely talking about industrial, post-industrial, and information societies --a very miniscule percentage of our total human history-- then...it is still not accurate because it downplays cognitive culture and up-plays material culture. The problem is that the calculus is technologically deterministic. Originality orginates in cognition, is carried by embodied minds, where it makes its structural significance, before, much later, materializing into tools and toys. Applying Marxian materialism to the trans-human-scape is simple for us in the post-industrial/information blogsphere logging 15 hours a day on-line. It is more important and challenging to develop an integrated model of the mechanics for organic creativity, its boundary-cross/ing-fertilizations, than its actualization in things.
2. RJDuberg on November 17, 2004 10:41 AM writes...
To say society "in turn" influences the revolution's path is tantamount to answering a final with "X or something". This is a clear veil over what is the essential issue by this author is with its complete lack of insight into even a first new or constructive meta-relation from which general understanding can take root and grow into a possile revolutionary moment.
Any author must reconcile themselves with this balance between their meaning imparted capable of being extended through an audience analysis among higher dimensions inclusive (or revolutionarily inpsired, or something ).
If they are to earn the true credibility which intelligent readers will give, opening the literary channels wherein yet another influence might be meta-ascertained, then; such statements as the one referred to in beginning post and above offers nothing in true distinctive info. It is a path leading nowhere if one considers the simple arithmetic described wherein the (any) result by zero produces nothing. "X or something" is slyly stated opinion on speculation at heart and if languaged well will slip by the economic review thereby gaining "influence" on a consuming and funding resource in the world for which access is proportionate to commercial success.
Hopefully, you've been able to evaluate a certain dimension of info in my analysis here which answers in substance what I've assessed in principle is key and a breakdown to the initial post's opening quote.
Zack Lynch is author of 
1. Adam Fish on November 16, 2004 10:02 PM writes...
"...through the assimilation a cluster of converging technologies."
A reductive statement. If you are merely talking about industrial, post-industrial, and information societies --a very miniscule percentage of our total human history-- then...it is still not accurate because it downplays cognitive culture and up-plays material culture. The problem is that the calculus is technologically deterministic. Originality orginates in cognition, is carried by embodied minds, where it makes its structural significance, before, much later, materializing into tools and toys. Applying Marxian materialism to the trans-human-scape is simple for us in the post-industrial/information blogsphere logging 15 hours a day on-line. It is more important and challenging to develop an integrated model of the mechanics for organic creativity, its boundary-cross/ing-fertilizations, than its actualization in things.
Permalink to Comment2. RJDuberg on November 17, 2004 10:41 AM writes...
To say society "in turn" influences the revolution's path is tantamount to answering a final with "X or something". This is a clear veil over what is the essential issue by this author is with its complete lack of insight into even a first new or constructive meta-relation from which general understanding can take root and grow into a possile revolutionary moment.
Any author must reconcile themselves with this balance between their meaning imparted capable of being extended through an audience analysis among higher dimensions inclusive (or revolutionarily inpsired, or something ).
If they are to earn the true credibility which intelligent readers will give, opening the literary channels wherein yet another influence might be meta-ascertained, then; such statements as the one referred to in beginning post and above offers nothing in true distinctive info. It is a path leading nowhere if one considers the simple arithmetic described wherein the (any) result by zero produces nothing. "X or something" is slyly stated opinion on speculation at heart and if languaged well will slip by the economic review thereby gaining "influence" on a consuming and funding resource in the world for which access is proportionate to commercial success.
Hopefully, you've been able to evaluate a certain dimension of info in my analysis here which answers in substance what I've assessed in principle is key and a breakdown to the initial post's opening quote.
RJD
Permalink to Comment