I agree with Kaitlyn that we had some issues during the conference. I think the next time, we present our object, the mockups and app should be presented first. It would also provide a framework for our project. Overall, we should really strive to keep our timing under 20. I enjoyed working with both of you. I will be posting one last post in the following days as a recap of everything I learned.

Also, thank you Marcel for pushing us and our project to the best it could be in such a short amount of time. I hope that our project does become actualized in the future as it does have many practical uses.


Reflections on Rhetoric: An Aide-Memoire Conference

ImageSorry, I couldn’t resist adding in a (semi-) humorous meme to celebrate this monumental occasion. After the stressful few weeks I had preparing to present my first two pieces at a conference, I needed to vent my emotions of relief and jubilation – and what better way than through a LOTR meme?

In all seriousness though, I am very glad that I did tear my hair out and take this grad conference so seriously, because the caliber of writing and presenting was very high. I was really pleased with the entire experience, and enjoyed the conference day much more than I thought I would. Time to start looking and applying for some real conferences!

In terms of our project presentation, I think that it would have been beneficial to place a little more emphasis on the actual product: the app, website, and mock-ups. However, the intro and theory section seemed to take a little longer in front of a real audience, versus practicing on our own. In any case, I was really pleased with the favourable reception that our app received during the demo period at lunch. Overall, things went really well, but there are a few things that I learned for next time too!

This also marks the period in which our work as a group together is finished. All that is left to do is to write our individual essays. Thanks for all of your hard work and positivity this semester, Amna and Anne! It was a pleasure working with the both of you!

Quick Post

Quick updates from the last two meeting we had with Marep and the Class


1) They liked the design, however wanted us to simply the design more and use disabilities jargon. So instead of saying, early on set Alzheimer’s, Jessica asked us to instead use the term capacities. We were also asked to level our workshops.

I simplified the design and added levels.

2) The Class

Marcel mentioned separating the text from the mockups. I removed the text, so now the interface looks exactly what it would if it were usable.

Tomorrow is the big day! Finally.

Recap of our meeting

I just wanted to recap what has happened in the past two weeks

1) We had the following feedback from our application

– that we consider the audience, when designing our product (our product was seen as too complicated)

Taking this into account Spitzer’s reaching and taking into account the scientific academic Journal that Marcel sent to us, I tried to create a product that was

A) That did not make the user feel as if they were different/stupid or served as a constant reminder of their Alzheimer’s

B) I tried to keep the design as clean and simplified as possible

C) I created two different designs, designed for two target groups (as we had trouble deciding, who we would be our target market) I think our product as something that can be as a therapeutic device by individuals with late on set Alzheimer’s (As research has found, art becomes a medium in which individuals with Alzheimer’s express themselves in later stages of Alzheimer’s as they have often forgotten words etc…)

The specifics of how I addressed these concerns

As I stated earlier, I created two mockups to demonstrate what our product would look for an individual with early on set Alzheimer’s and one mock up dedicated to  later stages of Alzheimer’s. I found it was hard to design our product simply because there are various cases and stages of Alzheimer’s, and each person has different needs. But I try to address these needs by creating a design that embodied skeumorphism. I hoped by creating something that emulated material reality, this would allow the product to tap into procedural memory and resonate more with an older generation of users, which is our target market. Furthermore, I tried to include universal signs such as arrows, a question mark, and highlight these signs with words and audio. Hopefully by creating a number of different cues, this will allow the brain to draw on many connections rather than one. As Spitzer talks about his article,   individuals who have Alzheimer’s have difficulty remembering because neural connections that allow us access to our memory deteriorate. So, while one neural connection may have been broken, perhaps there are many other paths to access our memory. Which is why I tried to create as many cues as possible rather than relying on one cute, allowing the brain to try to access as many neuron connections as possible. This is similarly demonstrated in Still Alice, in which Alice’s doctors comments that Alice is very intelligent, so while one of her neuron connections may have been severed, she has many other neuron pathways to access the same information.

Tomorrow, I am having a meeting with Jessica. Hopefully, Jessica can provide any insights to the mock up, which will allow me to edit the design.

I will post any feedback she has!



The central premise for our app, Imaginative Recreation is to furnish a stress free environment to the target users, the Alzheimer’s patients to explore and express themselves in unique and liberating manner. This app will provide Alzheimer’s patients with  custom made workshops, tutorials with detailed step-by-step instructions to suit their individual needs in various art forms from painting, sketching to playing music. It also supplies them with their own creative space where they can freely create without following audio or video instructions. While we are not negating the role or the importance of memory we are envisioning this app to be an enabling app (not merely an aid) that will empower the users and relieve them from the pressures of remembering as other assisstive devices for Alzheimer’s patients in the current market are designed to do.

At a time when Alzheimer’s patients face identity crisis, when they seem to be erased from the social context or become invisible for friends and acquaintances our app is designed to allow its users to express themselves on the technical canvass without fear or peer pressure. Thus it has a therapeutic aspect as it will allow the users to establish new ways of looking and defining themselves. We also want to assert how technology rather than a threat to memory (as has been the impetus of our course reading from the hysteria surrounding Digital Dementia news videos to Nicholas Carr’s concerns of what the Internet is doing to our brains) can be a source that allows people, whose sense of self is being threatened or re-written, to create new selves through their positive and creative endeavors. Here art becomes the tool and Imaginative Recreation the medium with which this soul satisfying process can begin.

So what role does memory play in the conceptualization of this app? How do we place our idea within the course readings? As I look over the plethora of texts covered over the last three months I realize that memory is inherently present within the concept. Firstly, as our app places itself against the pressure to remember, recall or recollect. Secondly, even while our app asserts this it is promoting what Aristotle terms as “sense perception”, other forms of memory such as procedural memory, muscle memory and working memory. And lastly (but not the least as the ideas and the connections, contradictions continue) we are looking to create a environment that generates a positive energy thus emotional memory will also come into play.

As I said the connections, contradictions and debate continues the more we think and the more we analyse our app in the context of Memory and Techne.

The Autographer: Then and Now

While searching back through the blog to refresh my memory about certain readings, I stumbled upon the following passage that I had written about the Autographer:

Alright, so I know Viktor Mayer-Schonberger might be appalled, but I am already finding myself cozying up quite nicely to the Autographer device. As soon as class ended on Thursday, I proceeded to clip the Autographer on to my blouse and record the evening. […] However, I was shocked to discover just how quickly I became accustomed to the device and completely forgot that I was even wearing it. I was also surprised at how eager I was, upon returning home, to plug the device in to my MacBook and see just what it had captured. Like Van Dijck’s friend, who states the following: “I am not very keen on retrieving the experiences I recorded. The value of my digital collection is situated first and foremost in the fun of recording and collecting and perhaps second in knowing that these files are somehow stored, in coding, even if I will never retrieve them” (168); I am usually not especially prone to recalling memories that I have recorded. While I do definitely enjoy taking photos, videos and little notes at different periods in my day-to-day life, I don’t often look back at these collections after they are taken. I might look at items that have recently been posted on my Instagram, Twitter and Facebook, but older mediated memories get lost in a digital realm that I rarely choose to venture in to.

Looking at this passage now, I can’t help but feel a huge disparity between my original perception of the Autographer and my conception of the device after having used it for many hours on several different occasions. The more I wore the device, the less I actually liked it. As the newness wore off, I found myself losing interest in the premise behind the intelligent camera. The first two times I wore it out, I was keen to upload the photos, but after sorting through them those two times it quickly became a chore. The photos are often fish-eyed, blurry, unfocused, or visually uninteresting. Every once in a while there is diamond in the rough, so to speak, but it takes a lot of sorting-through to discover that gem, and I found myself wondering if it’s really worth the tedious process. Wouldn’t it really just be easier to pause the moment, snap a quick shot on my iPhone, and proceed with the day? Ultimately, won’t this end up saving me time, even if I do have to take the time out of the present moment in order to secure the shot? All in all, while the Autographer was a fun device to play around with for a few hours, it isn’t going to be something that I’ll be willing to spend hundreds of dollars on anytime soon.

Recommended Read

I’m currently immersed in the following book, and I highly recommend it for a fun winter break read. The book is called S. and is by Doug Dorst and is commissioned by J. J. Abrams (I know, I know – but give it a chance). The book is really entertaining and the central plot (so far, I’m only on chapter four) revolves around a man with amnesia – so it is certainly interesting to read after having devoted so much time to studying memory over the past few months. The real seller for me though, is that the book is filled with marginalia which imparts a secondary narrative. Really entertaining, and somewhat related to memory, so I thought I’d share. Oh, and I should give kudos to Lauren for finding out about the existence of this book on Buzzfeed, and knowing that it would be right up my alley!



Where has the month gone? The past few weeks have been so hectic that I have barely had time to stop to jot down my thoughts and reflections on the course readings. The development of prototype versions of our app (, website (, and forum ( have all eaten up a lot of my time, as have assignments and tasks in my other two courses. As such, this may be a slightly longish post (sorry, Amna and Anne) as I sort through my diverse perspectives on a number of the readings. Ideally, I want to connect my observations back to our project in order to continue to fortify our base of theories to help in paper-writing and in the “theory” section of the presentation we intend to deliver at the upcoming Rhetoric: an Aide-Memoire conference.

Since I last left off with Spitzer, I plan to proceed from there in bullet-form, outlining especially pertinent theories and ideas that can help to enhance our understanding and interaction with our app and website.

Philip K. Dick’s Paycheck”

  • How external indications can prove helpful in scenarios where memories are impaired
  • Further highlights the necessity of creating an intuitive, easily navigable app and brainstorming how to best address the fact that people with later stages of AD will have a harder time accessing the arts activities – how do we find a way around this?

William Gibson’s “Johnny Mnemonic”

  • Acts as a reminder of how technical, external aspects engage with human identity
  • It is necessary to create an app that is technically appropriate for the people it is catering to – this means simplicity, but not to the sake where people feel as if they are being treated condescendingly
  • The focus on the information economy, and the length that people go to to change their identities, remain hidden, etc. is important because the people using our app and website may value anonymity. This means that we will have to ensure that settings are in place so that people will only be recognized for their work if they choose to be. Ie. people who choose to share certain pieces of art on the gallery pages may not want to share their art with everyone, but might want to keep it limited to the Imaginative Recreation community. Privacy issues are something that we should discuss.
  • This text breaks down binaries between the human and the machine, the self and techne. What sort of binaries are we dealing with when we try to develop a product for people living with AD? How will these binaries get in the way of our product’s success – something that we might want to discuss.

Marcel O’Gorman’s “Bernard Stiegler’s Pharmacy: A Conversation”

  • Technology is defined by stabilized repetition. While Stiegler is referring to more simple technologies when he asserts this, I think that this is worth considering in relation to our app. The beauty of this in practical terms, and in relation to our app, is that users can access any workshop or tutorial as many times as they like, and it will be the same every day. This will allow users to work on a particular skill or type of painting, drawing, etc., as many times as they like. Additionally, if users forget part of the workshop there is no pressure to remember – the repetitiveness of this tech is a strong advantage for people living with AD.

Bernard Stiegler’s “Anamnesis and Hypomnesis: Plato as the First Thinker of the Proletarianisation.”

  • Man’s externalization of memory has always been part of human nature. As such our externalized memories form part of our identities as human beings.
  • Every device is technically a memory aid. Just as Anne mentions in a previous post, while our app aims to steer clear of memory discourse and AD, memory is always implicitly there. How does memory emerge or come into play specifically? How can we try to reduce the amount of remembered knowledge is required to access the workshops, etc.? This goes back to design.
  • Talks about how art forms like painting, sculpting and drawing are an important externalized form of memory that allows for the hands to duplicate what the eyes have once seen. When considered in this manner, our project is more linked to memory than we might have previously accounted for. This is something that we might want to discuss. Is this a new unseen advantage or disadvantage for the aims of our project?
  • Memory and power are inextricably linked. Stiegler describes how the proletariat loses their power when they do not have access to the memories that have led to their slave-like conditions. He further describes how those who are able to define history (and control social memory) are in a more powerful situation. Following this stream of logic, people living with AD would be seen as particularly vulnerable or powerless. Our app/website aims to help to remove/overcome this powerlessness by shifting the importance away from memory and instead turns to creating and being productive in the present moment.

David Wills’ “The Dorsal Turn”

  • Draws on Derrida’s concept of differance a lot – which refers to the gap between signifier and signified. We will want to limit the differance as much as possible between what we are trying to express, and what is being interpreted, in order to ensure our app is as intuitive as possible 

David Wills’ “Techneology or the Discourse of Speed”

  • Since technology moves faster than culture, it is often difficult to foresee what the effects of a technology might be
  • Tools and humans co-evolve with one another
  • I forget if this came up in the text, or if we just spoke of it in class, but Marcel brought up Heidegger, who describes how being human has the unique side-effect of being cognizant of our own decline, of our own finitude. I think this is especially pertinent in relation to AD because, horribly and inescapably, there is no known cure. Arts and leisure activities can provide a form of escapism from this knowledge, and can allow for individuals to express their complicated feelings about this (and other aspects of their lives), and can allow for people to connect with others which can ideally aid in the process of coming to terms with this fact.

Alayna Munce’s When I Was Young & in My Prime

  • Like with Still Alice, this novel provides a glimpse into the life of someone actually struggling to live with AD
  • It is important that Mary enjoys playing the piano as long as she can – even when she is playing horribly off-key, she enjoys the act of playing and her procedural memory seems to remember this act a lot better than other more abstract tasks (66)
  • It raises important themes regarding the body and mind, and how they are both separate and related all at once – how are the mind and body both necessary (to varying degrees) for different art forms? How are they separate when creating art? Why does this matter, and how can we address this?

Lastly, something in class that was brought up in relation to the nursing article, was that if you can design an app/product that fits in to the lifestyles and self-images of the users, it will be much more successful.

In any case, here are a few things to think over and which may be helpful for the final iteration of our project!

Stiegler, Wills in the context of our project

I was thinking about how our project tries to break normative ideologies of Alzheimers by instead rejecting notions of popular memory discourse. I wanted to think about our object philosophically as well. If humans have always been technical and memory is essentially the first artificial intelligence, there is no way around this ideology because memory makes us innately human. So, while we are trying to breakaway from memory, at the same time we can’t break free from memory because all the technology we create is memory based – including our object. I think that in the context of our object to think with, we should embrace technology as prosthesis – as an extension of the human. Our device can be seen as something that can be an extension of an individual’s creativity, as a memory device – not to pressure them into remembering, but as a reminder of their self worth – that regardless of this disease they are still creativity, autonomous human beings. Our device then can be see as a prosthesis of their creativity but also as an extension of their new identity. Do you guys think this is too far fetched and not philosophical enough? 

Davis Wills, “The discourse of speed”

Techneology or the Discourse of Speed by David Wills Notes:

(237) “Technology is generally related to either reduced labour, increased speed or both.”

Technology is created in order to save us time and labour. Will discusses throughout his paper the consequences of the creation of technology that is focused primarily on speed.

 (237)“It seems more and more clear that the desire to reduce labor has been sacrificed at the atlar of speed, giving birth to an increasingly universal class of Web or e-mail slaves more laboriously time-constrained than ever and whole state of mechanical prosthetic stricture is structurally no different – through economic and ergonomic differences increase exponentially –“

The desire for faster and more efficient technology has in effect created individuals who are actually ironically more time-constrained than ever. Humans have become slaves to their web browsers and e-mails.

(238)“Speed gives rise to the distance that motivates and configures every anti-technological nostalgia – what might be called, in the context of this discussion. “If there had been no railway to conquer distances, my child would never have left his native town and I should need no telephone to hear his voice;..”

Technology is created to solve problems, but in solving these problems it creates new ones. Thus, creating a need for new technology. This creates a feed-back loop that never ends. We can also see this passage as an example of differance, where technology instead of solving problems/issues, it continually defers problems rather than solves them.

(238)“ Distinciation, alienation, Verfremdung, ostranenie: All imply a too rapid movement into otherness, a displacement fast enough to reveal a rupture, and this displacement has been the dominating theme of discussions of technology at least since the advent of the industrial revolution”

The speed of technology travels so fast that it displaces us into alienation and pushes us into otherness. The speed of technology also moves so quickly that we do not have the time to realize the negative effects it has upon us.

(238)“I relate to neoligsm, a neologisitc effect that, I argue is perhaps the only means by which we can articulate the mutations of digital technology and await, as we seem to be more and more, the monstrous birth of some future mutation, the artificial intelligence or biotechnologies of our most fascinating and awful science fictive imaginings”

Neologism is the invention of a new word. Wills applies the concept of neologism to technology. He suggests reinventing our conception of digital technology is the only way in which we can discuss the negative effects of technology and biotechnology. Biotechnology according to Wills is an inherent fear in humans.

(239) L’homme est cet accident d’autombilite que provoque une panne d’essence.’

The direct translation of this quote in English is, “Man is this accident of automobility caused by a default of essence [une panne de’essence, a ‘lack of fuel’ an ‘empty tank’].  This sentence is a pun that plays on the word essence. Essence in French relates to the essence of an artefact and it also means a lack of fuel. In English this sentence loses its ethos, as essence does not have this double meaning. Wills uses this sentence as an example of language mutating and travelling at the speed of light.

(239) “Language itself mutates at the speed of light by means of a whole range of displacement effects whose paradigm is this essential logic that is perhaps no longer simply of that of techne in the strict sense, no longer tech-neo-logism in the purest sense”

Since, Language mutates and evolves at the speed of light, it displaces meaning. Here in this passage, Wills suggests that language is no longer a techne that is left to its own devices. Language is also being effected by other technologies. By placing neologism and technology together, Wills is asking us to reinvent technology and reinvent our idea of language.

(240) “Stiegler skirts but ignores a particularly linguistic configuration of that structure of coincidence and that is our most eloquent if not our most obvious technological moment and commentary or rather mise en scene of the speed that is technics as it coincides disjunctively or disjointedly with time”

Wills suggests that Stiegler ignores that speed disjoins time, which indicates that there is no “real time.”

(241)“Language becomes indissociable from the technicity and prostheticity: “it must be thought with them, like them, in them, or from the same origin as theirs: from within their mutual essence”

Language is technical and as well as prosthetic.

(241)Stiegler emphasizes a first function of technology in its mythological origins- namely, it’s compensating for a forgetting, a fault or default 

Technology is always related to memory, it is always created to compensate for forgetting, a fault or default. Thus memory has always been technical.

(241)“The upright hominid stance inscribes a definition of the human that is utterly determined by the idea of exteriorisation, the hand reaching outside the body to enter into a prosthetic relation with a tool, the mouth producing or adopting the prosthetic device that is language. As a result, the archive is born, the human species begins to develop a memory bank, and its relation to time begins to catalogued by means of the traces of an artificial memory – the artefact, the narrative. 

When the human moves into the upright stance, it begins to externalize memories by creating tools, creating language etc. Thus from the moment, we become human, we begin to archive memories. A memory bank is created from this archivation. The narrative is also born as humans begin to catalogue and externalize themselves through artefacts.

(241)Whereby each helped the other to evolve, is now more explicitly a negotiation by the human of its technical outside, and an investment in forms of exterior memory that will continue all the way to the computer revolution of the end of the twentieth century

The sentence, “ whereby each helped the other to evolve” refers to technology and man. In the past, both technology and humans coevolved together. Now, the human must negotiate the terms of its relationship with technology as well other forms of external memory. Wills also predicts  more sophisticated forms of externalizing memory will continue in the future.

(243) “Humans graduate from simple pain and suffering to conceptual knowledge and anticipation of death itself: “compassion is mediacy, whereas the feeling of death is anticipation, mediacy, preoccupation, projection of a singular and particularizable future, differentiation inequality in the fall into time”

Prior to the invention of time, humans only experience simple pain and suffering. By creating the invention of time, humans become acutely aware of their own deaths because they have become aware of the future.

(243-244)“Temporality is technological inasmuch as it is or the fundamental form of exteriorization of the human memory: the temporality of the human, which marks it off among other living beings, presupposes exteriorisation and prostheticity: there is time only because memory is artificial”

Time exists only because we have created memory. In order to access memory, time must be created. Wills suggests that the invention of time separates us from other living creatures and that the invention of time occurs before exteriorisation and prostheticity.

 (245)“Speed reinforces the effect of a displacement in space that takes place In time: the faster it occurs, the shorter the time and the greater the displacement” (245)

The faster technology moves and the shorter amount of time it takes to evolve, the greater the effects are on us and the more we are unaware of these effects.

(245) “First predictably the body loses its soul” (245)

Because the speed of technology moves too quickly it creates/reveals ruptures, it also tears the body away from the soul.

(245-246)-“A body that is lost to itself thus described on the one hand as travelling too fast over too great a distance and losing its “contact” with the points of reference that define its behavior and its identity – with other bodies in a restricted community or with identifiable and familiar places within its earthly home”

A human loses its soul because the speed of technology displaces us into alienation, thereby isolating us from other individuals in society. It also strips an individual’s own personal identity. This again invites us to look at differance in terms of speed, in which our souls are being displaced/deferred by technology.

(246)“In the context of speed that disjoins the body, we must interpret this accident as a crash out of the human and into technology”

Wills tries to talk about humans and technology as two different entities. The displacement that speed causes the body to lose its soul, thus we no longer become human but we instead become technologic. This sentence is problematic because Wills argues that we are in fact technical beings from the start, yet, at the same time he tries to separate humans from technology.

(249) “If exactness is a constant structure but between writing and photograph, what has improved is less the form of realism than the speed of the recording process..”

Technology is more or less concentrated on the speed of technology rather than the realistic aspects.

(249) “The Disjunction of memory that therefore occurs with the photography by virtue its very “instantaneity” (a disjunction that is already reminiscent of the time of technology in all the variants discussed up to this point)”

Memory becomes disjunctive (disjoined) once a photograph is taken. For example, when a photo is taken, that picture captures a moment that has already passed. The memory is dead/gone. In that sense, technology is always disjunctive because the moment is always delayed, differed.

(253) “This produces “hundreds of millions of consciousness” that are simultaneously “consciousness” of the same temporal objects” the live diffusion and production of mass temporal objects constitutive of a flux of mass consciousness.”

The formulaic techniques of Hollywood films (montage etc) controls our imagination, creating a mass consciousness that is shared by hundreds of millions of other people.

(254) “We must however, specify that real time is but infinitely deferred time, taking place at a speed such differentiation passes below the level of perception.”

Because of the disjunctive nature of time created by technology, there is no such thing as real time, rather time is always deferred. The speed at which time is differed is so minuet that we cannot even perceive the deferral of time.

(254-255) “Whereas, we also know on the other hand [that] it is being produced by the strongest, the most sophisticated repetition machines..”

Thus what is being produced is not technology that runs on real time but really sophisticated repetitive machines. “Live television” is thus not live but rather a repetition of what is being recorded.

(255) “And the benefits of technologies and therefore economic advance are inequality distributed in the extreme..”

Technology creates economical disparity.

A reference to real time that does not systematically disjoin it – that does not emphasize that time is always there already disjointed by the technological and that every effect of the technological is always already disjointed by time, progressive acceleration notwithstanding (256)

Time always becomes disjointed by technology, time is always being constantly deferred. Technological, itself, is also disjointed by time.

(256) Stiegler is right to call for differance to be rethought in terms of speed, something that Derrida reinforces: far from favouring: “delay, neutralization, suspension,” far from attenuating the political and ethical urgency of the present, differance refers to what cannot be anticipated, “precipitation itself”

Speed should be rethought in terms of differance. Since, the speed of technology is a type of differance, that constantly displaces (differs) us and technologies, meaning is loss. We cannot anticipate what will occur because we do not have the time to process the effects technologies has on us. Thus, only precipitation can be anticipated.

(257)” Lanuage is tehnology’s mode d’emploi, the medium of philosophical and other discourses on it, the remobilization of terms and the invention of neologisms (warp and morph) that name it, and so on. Language can be seen thus both to serve and be served by technology but still within an instrumentalist perspective.”

Language is the means in which technologies, philosophy and discourses are employed. Language serves technology and can be served by technology, meaning language changes technology and technology changes it. In that sense, technology and language share a Saussurian relationship that is similar to language and speech.

(257-258)“Language- like the body, like time- is one of the technologies with which humans are most familiar. It is familiar enough not even to be experienced as technology. When the most obviously instrumental technologies – everything from the simplest tool to today’s high technologies – interfere with language, it is experienced as a threat almost as menacing as the biotechnological engineering of the human itself”

Language is so familiar to us that we do not perceive language as a technology, we share the same perception of time. Wills asks us to acknowledge that language is being endangered due to emerging technologies. The threat to language is almost as frightening as biotechnological engineering.

 (257) “The notion that apprenticeship in language will take on quite different forms. That is already underway thanks to spell and grammar checks and the automatic correction, formatting and so on that word processors perform without asking..”

Language is being warped/changed by technology because of spell and grammar checks, automatic correction etc.

(257) “Just as we are rapidly forgetting penmanship, we can easily imagine future generations that will not need to learn how to spell, form plurals, conjugate verbs, obey the conjugate verbs, obey the sequence of tenses and so on.”

Wills suggests that technology is eliminating the complexity of language because of this, we will eventually in the future no longer need to learn how to spell, form plurals, conjugate verbs etc.