Thanks, Paul! This reflection is amazing and will remain stimulating and useful for a while, for different purposes. I haven’t studied Sedgwick in depth or read her closely. From what you point out, she appears to understand (and privilege?) touch as a perceptual system distinct from sight and other senses or systems, and distinct from technology (or certain technologies?) as well. Is that right? Could it be that she didn’t develop her understanding of technology in terms of a more sophisticated aesthetic/media theory (because she was doing something else)? I’m not planning to argue with/against Sedgwick, but that kind of problem is relevant to me. I tend to think that if touch undoes dualisms, oppositions, etc., that is because it happens everywhere, all the time. In sight, sound, language, technologies, etc. Even in absence. What you say about Tai Chi as a touch amplifier seems consistent with this.