The overall stirring is that technology, interfaces to leveraging processes with less energy than otherwise, depend on existing cultural and linguistic artifacts—which are themselves technologies (they facilitate social agreement, cooperation by providing norms, signaling, and metrics e.g. rituals, mathematics, and behavioral disambiguation through communication). That is technology serves to further the abstractions provided by existing linguistic, cultural, and technological means. However, once those abstractions become integrated, if they are a "game-changing" technology they will begin to alter the very cultural and linguistic abstractions in which they depend on. In this way, they mutually manifest a feedback loop to accelerate the utility of each other.<p>This viewpoint was actually the implicit argument of Operationalists like Bridgman, Fourier.<p>It was the explicit argument of Bohr, who believed "we are all suspended in language". Bohr took this further and believed that perceptual experience itself was a linguistic model to communicate the stimuli, the outside world, to the perceiver. In the same way, everything is a language, a game (set of rules) for communication.<p>The utility of this viewpoint is to create technology which conforms and supports existing cultural/linguistic/behavior norms rather than one which obstructs them.