Well, my undergraduate minor was in Philosophy and half the department was
made up of phenomenologists and the other half was made of logical positivists
(if that's the correct term). They were in a constant undeclared war. At any
rate, I have a fairly ok background in this stuff. In fact, I was considering
pursing graduate studies under Glenn Gray, one of the more contemporary writers
So, to answer your question, in terms of a definition of materiality (Katie's
term), which, by dictionary definition, is a "material nature or quality," only
by linkage to that meaning. More to the point in terms of the discussion,
technology, and specifically, typography, I'd think you'd find more clarity in
this regard, in the work of Robin Kinross, who underpins his theoretical
arguments in _Modern Typography: An Essay in Critical History_ and _Fellow
readers: notes on multiplied language_ with consideration for the material
basis of typography (printing, and the accruements of).
There are, of course, several phenomenological studies on technology, though
they are somewhat outdated and do not take into acoount the new digital twist
in the road. But, we are moving a wee bit off track here I suspect.
Bryan Hutcheson wrote:
> By materiality are you referring to what Marx, Hegel, the phenomenologists
> and existentialists referred to as materialism?