augmentology against AR-terminology

George Shalom of Augmentology rebels against the term Augmented Reality because of the way it is used. He denounces the word "augmented" because it's not new for humans to "augment" their reality with technology. A very simple example of this is writing:

"The innovation of written language was a concrete visualization of reality-augmenting metadata"

Shalom doesn't like the use of the word reality, because in implies the fact that there is one objective reality that is enlarged, allthough it only refers to mobile web technology applications that don't even have open standards. Shalom argues that what many people call AR should be termed more specifically towards mobile web technology.

In Part II of his essay, he tries to come up with an alternative for the revealing of metadata and calls it "aura recognition" (aurec for short), explicitly referring to Walter Benjamin's use of the term aura.

"In the best case scenario, aurec will help us make sense of the emotional significance of digital phenomenon in ways which are meaningful and helpful."

I'm not sure, but I think Shalom is trying to say that aurec is the better term for AR and that it enables us to access the aura of something trough the metadata, for example a specific context. Maybe someone can read Part II as well and edit this post or comment on it.

I think aurec relates to the idea about virtually contextualizing archive material in an immersive environment, that we talked about today.