Well, I never argued against that. (Well, not directly....) It's the
anti-Occamism of using the word 'and'....
Yes, the choice of lunchbox was a meme-action. The need for a
lunchbox...? well, there may well be a rub there. I don't think so. You
may.
Is it of any interest that the more I used lunchboxes, the end result of
my consumerism was to purchase sturdy, generic, metal lunch boxes without
ornamentation? It is to me....
It is very much a function of PR to direct people away from utility. I
would contend religion is prone to the same motivation. (Then again, I
have always contended religion is a part of the service economy.)
I do not want CoV to direct people against utility. I have never, once
form follows function set in, wanted ornamentation for ornamentation's
sake.
That said- if a CoV (or any other) image could be used within the
form/function (and a coating of some sort is needed on a metal
lunchbox...) of an object, then that is almost a good thing- it allows
full utility of the object, and passes the ideograph around. It is one,
perhaps memetic, approach to a 'pure' object.
And I don't mean in the Platonic sense. You can't back-engineer to a
Platonic form.... I mean in the evolution of design sense.
This also pertains to ritual, and whether or not CoV should ever have
any.
*****************
Wade T. Smith
morbius@channel1.com | "There ain't nothin' you
wade_smith@harvard.edu | shouldn't do to a god."
morbius@cyberwarped.com |
******* http://www.channel1.com/users/morbius/ *******