<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Tag, we&#8217;re it</title>
	<atom:link href="http://cultureby.com/2003/01/tag_were_it.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://cultureby.com/2003/01/tag_were_it.html</link>
	<description>This Blog Sits At the Intersection of Anthropology and Economics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 May 2012 21:10:32 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Leora</title>
		<link>http://cultureby.com/2003/01/tag_were_it.html/comment-page-1#comment-8174</link>
		<dc:creator>Leora</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jan 2003 09:31:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost/wp_culture/?p=1273#comment-8174</guid>
		<description>Here is, on second thought, the full quote from H.:
&quot;The frantic abolition of all distances brings no nearness; for nearness does not consist in shortness of distance.  What is least remote from us in point of distance, by virtue of its picture on film or its sound on the radio, can remain far from us.  What is incalculably far from us in point of distance can be near to us.  Short distance is not in itself nearness.  Nor is great distance remoteness.  What is happening...when as a result of the abolition of great distances, everything is neither far nor near - is, as it were without distance?&quot;
M. Heidegger, &quot;The thing&quot; in &quot;Poetry, Language, Thought) (NY: Harper &amp; Row)
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here is, on second thought, the full quote from H.:</p>
<p>&#8220;The frantic abolition of all distances brings no nearness; for nearness does not consist in shortness of distance.  What is least remote from us in point of distance, by virtue of its picture on film or its sound on the radio, can remain far from us.  What is incalculably far from us in point of distance can be near to us.  Short distance is not in itself nearness.  Nor is great distance remoteness.  What is happening&#8230;when as a result of the abolition of great distances, everything is neither far nor near &#8211; is, as it were without distance?&#8221;</p>
<p>M. Heidegger, &#8220;The thing&#8221; in &#8220;Poetry, Language, Thought) (NY: Harper &#038; Row)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Leora</title>
		<link>http://cultureby.com/2003/01/tag_were_it.html/comment-page-1#comment-8173</link>
		<dc:creator>Leora</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Jan 2003 10:55:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost/wp_culture/?p=1273#comment-8173</guid>
		<description>re shared books, phone numbers, etc I was reminded of heidegger on near/far and space:
&quot;how the furthest becomes near and the most familiar becomes strange&quot;
Possibly in the age of communication that is so easy, cheap, and, dare I say ubiquitous, we are attracted to communication that is less easy but perhaps more meaningful...or maybe we ascribe a new meaning to the uncertainty of bookcrossings, etc
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>re shared books, phone numbers, etc I was reminded of heidegger on near/far and space:</p>
<p>&#8220;how the furthest becomes near and the most familiar becomes strange&#8221;</p>
<p>Possibly in the age of communication that is so easy, cheap, and, dare I say ubiquitous, we are attracted to communication that is less easy but perhaps more meaningful&#8230;or maybe we ascribe a new meaning to the uncertainty of bookcrossings, etc</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

