If there are no objections from the others, let’s do that, Ewere. However, wouldn’t the second (and last) session on Hofstadter fall on the 7th of April (next Thursday)? In either case, I plan to be there this Thursday, there in the liminal zone where subjective strange loops overlap, resonate and interfere with, sometimes cancel out, but can also amplify each other, when the vibes are conducive…
Here is someone who argues (along cyborg lines, which I imagine Hofstadter would support) that we should regard our technological and digital media-extensions (including the data we produce or emanate, as identifiable patterns) as aspects of our essential selves, not just because this would be cool (which it isn’t as much, anymore) but because this brings them under the principles of universal human rights, liberties, and dignities:
https://ar.al/notes/the-nature-of-the-self-in-the-digital-age/
Where do the cyborg and the subtle aspects of the self meet up? What do these aspect enhance, retrieve, obsolesce, and reverse into when saturated? While I don’t personally identify as a cyborg, I do think there is something essential about how we relate to our technological extensions, similar to but different than how we relate to our own bodies (gross, subtle, and causal layers)—our Original Media—that must go into the concept of an intersubjective/interobjective self.
The article, to me, argues that an impoverished and fragmentary concept of self enables social exploitation, colonization by nefarious forces, and economic disempowerment. In the past, we’ve also read Donna Haraway, who brings a more-than-human, ecological sensibility into the conversation about the cyborg self: Cosmos Café [9/3/19] - Introducing Donna Haraway's Staying with the Trouble