Q: (The Happy Tutor): AKMA, did you feel awkward sort of kind of giving a blessing to a mixed body.

AKMA says he did feel awkwardness since he’s aware that not everyone wanted to be blessed. So he omitted the performance of the blessing he was talking about.

Q: (Me) Does AKMA’s and Trevor’s position make bodies subordinate to ID?

I don’t trust myself to paraphrase their answer, but here goes: AKMA says that his position doesn’t denigrate the body, but he also doesn’t want to locate identity merely in the physical. Trevor says that the lump of flesh you drag around with you isn’t the only type of body: communities are also bodies. I reply that there is something special about the lump of flesh: communities can’t have sex, make babies, feel pain or die.

Betsy Devine says there’s a continuum of physicality and presence. E.g., when she was young, families had a special viewing room in the church. Does that mean that the families weren’t there for the Mass?

Alex says that digital IDs reflect things we already know about. What are we importing into our understanding of digital ID. (Great question.) What’s going on with Digital ID is a continuation of our separation of identity from the physical. I say that that sounds like alienation to me. This is not a popular idea with the attendees because it’s “value-laden.”

Alex says: “When you live in a digital world, you need a really good chair.”

[Note: This entry commits inadequate bloggery.]

Categories: Uncategorized dw