Yes indeed, because of technological processes. Furthermore, they have little to give. But if the computer is not a machine in the normal sense, then in what way is it not the product of a certain number of technologies?
The main difficulty will stem from the ambiguity between those two entities. This is a danger or possibility tempting many creative writers. The university becomes the "reservoir of thinking," plunged into concrete life.
Actually, I have observed that all the people who have become aware of that reality have a negative attitude toward it; they are fearful, anxiety-ridden, and sometimes even panicky.
Then, reflections on the media entered the forefront of his thought: the TV object was at the center of the home in Baudrillard's earlier thinking and the media, simulations, hyperreality, and implosion eventually came to obliterate distinctions between private and public, inside and outside, media and reality.
Barzun argues—correctly, I think—that science as science did not come into being until the middle of the nineteenth century.
It is simply how the system works. A more complex picture might have political and economic power in a competitive symbiosis, each supporting the other while squabbling at the periphery for marginal advantages. Then, inhe had an acute experience of vocation.
An ideal structure is imposed: One single machine performs each stage of the process, and there has to be a continuous flow of raw material along the production line of the machines.
The narrative point of view is that of the Abbott, and I think that as readers we are supposed to adopt his perspective.
He derives his outlook from M.