From: "Anthony Crifasi" <crifasi-AT-hotmail.com>
Subject: problem of technology
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 11:59:15 +0000


Rene de Bakker wrote:

>"For all of us, the arrangements, devices and machinery of technology are 
>to
>a greater or lesser extent indispensable. It would be foolish to attack
>technology blindly. It would be shortsighted to condemn it as the work of
>the devil. We depend on technical devices; they even challenge us to ever
>greater advances. But suddenly and unaware we find ourselves so firmly
>shackled to these technical devices that we fall into bondage to them.
>
>"Still we can act otherwise. We can use technical devices, and yet with
>proper use also keep ourselves so free of them, that we may let go of them
>at any time. We can use technical devices as they ought to be used, and 
>also
>let them alone as something which does not affect our inner and real core.
>We can affirm the unavoidable use of technical devices, and also deny them
>the right to dominate us, and so to warp, confuse, and lay waste our 
>nature.
>
>"But will not saying both yes and no this way to technical devices make our
>relation to technology ambivalent and insecure? On the contrary! Our
>relation to technology will become wonderfully simple and relaxed. We let
>technical devices enter our daily life, and at the same time leave them
>outside, that is, let them alone, as things which are nothing absolute but
>remain dependent on something higher."
>
>- Discourse on Thinking
>
>===============>
>So when Heidegger has talked half an hour about the inescapable bonding 
>power
>of technology, only then he adresses the Messkirchers to talk about the 
>margin
>of freedom within the technical world, that is left to hid Mitmenschen.
>They are limited to the adoption of a different attitude, as can be seen 
>above.

Are you saying that for Heidegger, whatever "different attitude" towards 
technology may be in principle possible, still the bonding power of 
technology is so inescapable that technological Enframing must always be 
resisted? Or are you going so far as to deny that technological Enframing is 
a genuine revealing at all (as often happens with modern artists and 
environmentalists)?

>How come Anthony has left this out? Because his
>purpose is a calculating, not a contemplative one. But as long as we keep 
>nihilism
>outside, it cannot be overcome. We just strengthen it harder inside.
>And that is his purpose: to save science, technology, philosophy, Bush and 
>religion.
>Sorry Anthony, can't be.

Sorry Rene, let's read more Levinas. I'll post more soon, but time is tight 
now.

Anthony Crifasi

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail



     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---