Sure technology is a tool however it is also an extension of culture and with any form of technology there is cultural intentions, goals, or motivations through usage no matter how great/trivial on a case by case basis.
I don’t believe in the addage that all technology is neutral, that is very deceptive form of thinking.
Understanding technology as a manifestation of culture it can be said that anything cultural is not neutral specific. Culture is never neutral ever.
Upon reflection ZS, I think I’d have to agree with you. I brought up the analogy of a knife which can be used to kill or to heal. But then you could bring up guns–used to kill or… what? ← That’s pretty much the only purpose guns were invented for.
So when you bring in the fact that technology is a product of human motives and needs, it can speak volumes of what we are driven to do. I think the context in which my point stands is the context of technology already being there. If it’s already there, a person can do whatever he or she wants with it–it depends on their moral inclination, desires, needs, etc. So an actor can buy a gun for the purposes of having a prop in a movie. But as for the inventor of the gun–he designed it with a specific purpose in mind–to kill (people or animals). And so the reason why a specific technology or tool was invented (which expresses certain inclinations and intentions of a culture) might be different from why such technology or tool is used by others in a later time or place.
An actor however with a gun prop nonetheless partakes in a simulative exercise of violence even if it is designed for entertainment only however upon reflection that we entertain ourselves with simulations of violence on stage speaks volumes, does it not?
Moreover think of something as simple as dining utensils which manifests the proper cultural appearance of eating itself. I could go on and on…
Evangelical Christianity’s embrace of Trump’s presidency reminds me of the pattern through which the Jesus movement became Church Christianity. Like many Evangelicals today, Proto-orthodox Christians understood power as the possession of an Almighty God on high, not of the people below. In Romans 13:1 Paul says “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.” Pauline Christians understood the emperor to be God’s deputy on earth, upholding divine justice, not as a tyrant whose position was based on force. Church Christianity willingly accepted imperial patronage because it had a great deal to gain. Christian writers like Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260–c. 340) were quick to characterize Constantine as ‘the deputy of Christ’, and eager to insist that the alliance of church and Empire was part of God’s providential plan for the world.
I dunno man. The Dark Ages only lasted 200 years and even then it was limited to the Western part of the Roman Empire. Things were pretty cool in the Eastern Roman Empire.
You want to get all kooky with 1000 years meaning “1000 years” instead of some other metaphor, you’ve got 1000 years (accounting for rounding errors) between the Return-of-Christ-as-Constantine and the fall of Constantinople.
It’d be pretty easy to spin this in all sorts of fun ways.
Hell, the Renaissance and the Enlightenment both had a lot of sympathy for the character of Satan.
In light of the NXVM scandal, I’ve been working with some friends on creating a sex cult. This is a really good spin.
