really, the “mechanical mishmash” problem has nothing to do with aesthetics and everything to do with materialism. humans always in a state of becoming cannot be known or reduced to a token.
I think she was referring to the ” mechanical mismatch” between the physical characteristics of electronics (“boxy and rigid”) and humans (“curvy and soft”). So it comes down to what you mean by materialism – there’s so many varieties these days I try to avoid the term altogether. In a significant sense, the Emptiness I discuss is deeply materialistic, in that it derives from causes and conditions, but is all about becoming. On the other hand Heidegger’s “standing reserve” points to a materialism that is merely reductionist.
Atomic Geography 
really, the “mechanical mishmash” problem has nothing to do with aesthetics and everything to do with materialism. humans always in a state of becoming cannot be known or reduced to a token.
ibul, thanks for your comment and interest.
I think she was referring to the ” mechanical mismatch” between the physical characteristics of electronics (“boxy and rigid”) and humans (“curvy and soft”). So it comes down to what you mean by materialism – there’s so many varieties these days I try to avoid the term altogether. In a significant sense, the Emptiness I discuss is deeply materialistic, in that it derives from causes and conditions, but is all about becoming. On the other hand Heidegger’s “standing reserve” points to a materialism that is merely reductionist.