By assuming a precise engagement, we limit the shape, reasoning and discussion of technology. As a non-neutral force, technology within the symposium was stripped back, becoming an involved and interconnected part of bias development and purpose. Like Bec, I too feel the saturation of theories is reaching a breaking point, particularly when trying to breakdown the relationships that exist among all things- literally and philosophically. The questions surrounded technological determinism and the engagement of technologies, musing between the relationships of engagement and the affordance of purposes and forces.
On another note, the idea of the term digital being outdated seems to linger around the discussion of technology neutrality. While Giorgia argues that neutrality is impossible like Adrian, the way in which we have been groomed to respond (yes, Adrian, much like Pavlov’s dogs) is a clear example of this interrelationship. While you could argue that text itself is a neutral force- that being it can be contorted to mean or instruct different things- that train of thought does not consider language development, the relationship we have with letters and language conventions surrounding separate technologies. George touches upon this relationship, writing ‘nothing exists abstractly by itself.’