Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 11:14:49 +0100
From: "steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk>
Subject: Re: towards a critique of technological reason


Eric

Neither of us have the time to unpack everything we've said and 
imnpliede around this - but let me at least attempt to respond in kind – 
and expand the discussion into less familiar territory. I've realised as 
I ran out of time writng these notes (MAN-COMPUTER-SOFTWARE) that the 
interaction between the line of thought along the aesthetic/teleological 
realm you describe and the empirico-constructivist realms can and do 
meet, and that the junction, the synthesis may be more fruitful 
territory than either of us had considered. The difference produces an 
interesting synthesis after all...

I am not one for heroic figures – even of the pop cultural figures like 
Elric and his other embodiment Jerry tend to leave me cold. Though I 
understand why he is a good metaphor for the understanding and works as 
a conceptual figure as you propose.

I agree that that technology can be said to give the human subject an 
enhanced sense of autonomy and does give the appearance of giving 
autonomy over nature. Certainly it has enabled to shape and control what 
constitutes the natural world both consciously and unconsciously. The 
unconscious being in this case a reference to the accidental aspects 
which are only now becoming known and understood. Broadly speaking we 
can I propose date the conscious aspects since the first industrial 
revolution and the invention of the city states (10K or so years ago). 
The unconscious/accidental changes date from the explosion in human use 
of fire and the increased warming of the planet that resulted in the 
changing of the worlds weather systems. But in neither case would I 
accept the argument that technology had become partially autonomous – 
leading to the social domination of the human subject. (we'll get to why 
shortly). Because it is not clear that either pole (conscious and 
unconscious, known or unknown) could be necessarily said to be 
devastating anything. Indeed the warming of the planet that resulted 
from human activity over the past 20K years can (it's been argued 
recently) be said to have stopped the cycle of the ice ages which is in 
most of our interests.

This does not impact on the argument that humanity is the biggest 
mass-extinction event since the asteriod or comet wiped out the 
dinosaurs. Merely that the impact of humanity on the biosphere is 
complex, and we should probably accept that we are more an element of 
the biosphere than we want to.

To borrow a phrase - I don't want to make a fetish out of Deleuze and 
Gauttari but I find it interesting that many of the philosophers I most 
admire who have written about science and technology have a definitive 
relationship with them. For example Virillo, Mumford, Dumezil, Foucaul, 
Stengers and of course Serres.

The reference to the second skin, the external prosthesis – does remind 
me of the rightly famous Freud quote on technology – which makes the 
astonishingly insightful statement that the prosthesis rests uneasily on 
the human. (The actual quote is upstairs on Z's shelf not in my 
commonplace room). But after living with the quote as if it was a 
'truth' I understand now that the 'uneasy' is wrong. The uneasiness can 
be said to derive from the realisation that the technology never works 
as desired. But also more importantly through the gradual realisation 
that 'technology' is not owned solely by us uneasy human animals, 
(recently watching the crows using cars to crack nuts on the crossing, 
the heron fishing using bread). Notwithstanding this it is true that the 
difference you identify as prospectively and retrospectively does mark 
the difference – as long as you understand that I simply doubt (as an 
engineer as much as a philosopher) that the technology can ever work any 
better for us than it does for the crows. If I think about your use of 
the term I have to ask: Can the technology really be said to make we 
technological beings 'cyborgs' ? Does the metaphor add anything to our 
understanding of the being-technology relationship ? My response to this 
is that what I distrust in the concept is that it is unnecessary – we 
beings who use technology – are merely beings who use technology. 
Calling a crow a cyborg rather demeans its blackness as it swaggers and 
swoops around putting the correct value on the Ferrari it uses as a 
nutcracker.


In place of this the model I am biased towards the Deleuze/Guattari 
understanding of the machine/technology and the assemblage. (I have fond 
memories of reading about the man-horse assemblage driftworking its way 
across the plain). However the critical thought is that because a 
technology has no subjectivity or organising centre it is nothing more 
than the connections and productions it makes, it is what the technology 
does. There is no home or ground beyond this. Let's use the the example 
of the lonely knight on her horse. In your cyborgian rationale the 
assemblage PERSON-HORSE-STIRRUP is enclosed within the term (is this 
intended) and appears to be determined by the universality of the 
concept. Whereas the Deleuzian assemblage opens out the liasons between 
the heterogeneous terms within of course the specifics of the historical 
moments. In medieval times perhaps the PERSON-HORSE-STIRRUP refers to a 
military unit but in the present it is a unit of strange pleasure, the 
pleasure of riding their (probably) beloved horse.. Both historical 
moments show the person and animal entering into a new relationship, 
both change. But the critical point is that the assemblage is not in 
itself technological, for tools and technology always 'presuppose a 
machine and the machine is always social before being technical. There 
is always a social machine which selects or assigns the technical 
elements being used....' The underlying strength of the understanding is 
that it proposes, what should be the obvious truth but which is usually 
inverted, that a technology remains marginal and little used until there 
exists 'a social machine, a collective assemblage' which is capable of 
using the technology, of establishing an assemblage 
(MAN-COMPUTER-SOFTWARE) (CROW-CROSSING-CAR) – perhaps we can accept that 
this is a symbiosis which is defined by the inter-functioning of its 
parts, but which can only come together within the specific social 
machine. The specific social moment....

If then on the oneside any technology will always fail to work as we 
desire - this has two causes firstly because it always fails in the face 
of entropy, but secondly because the social machine which defines and 
assigns the elements used is always a social misassignment. The 
technological crows recognise this as much as the humans driving their 
cars, both are social beings using technology that meets and changes the 
nature of their thoughts.

compression factor 100/1

laughs I hope this made some sense...
steve





Eric wrote:

>Steve,
>
>I don't know if you are familiar with Michael Moorcock's fantasy hero
>Elric or not, but he is one in the great tradition of nomadic warriors
>like Conan the Barbarian. His distinctive feature is that he has a sword
>named Stormbringer, which is actually a etheric vampiric entity that
>requires blood for sustenance.  
>
>This weapon makes Elric the greatest swordsman of his age, but it also
>requires that he ultimately becomes a kind of servant for Stormbringer,
>serving up deeds to meet it dark needs. 
>
>Such a relationship makes a perfect metaphor for discussing technology.
>I think you would agree at least partially with me that technology gives
>the human subject autonomy over nature, which allows it to at least
>partially shape and control it for its own ends. At the same time,
>however, this very technology itself is partially autonomous, and leads
>to the social domination and control of the human subject as it
>devastates the very ecological matrix from which it emerges.  
>
>I don't want to make a fetish out of Kant, but I find it interesting
>that many of the philosophers I admire who wrote about technology such
>as Benjamin, Adorno and Lyotard were also very interested in aesthetic
>issues that stemmed from Kant "Critique of Judgment".
>
>>From my perspective, technology is not merely nuts and bolts, an
>external piece of hardware or machinery. It is much closer to a second
>skin, a prosthetic which creates as well as enhances our very perception
>of the world.  I think much of the difference between us on the cyborg
>issue comes down to the fact that you see it prospectively and question
>whether or not it can work from an engineering standpoint, while I see
>it more retrospectively.  
>
>For me, technology is the entire manifold of aesthetic, conceptual, and
>social complexes that enfold the very machinery, thus making it
>palatable for humans. Thus we humans have always been cyborgs whether we
>know it or not. 
>
>What separates the inhuman, the infans from the human, what we otherwise
>call the process of acculturation, is in fact the traumatic retrofitting
>required to become a socially well-adapted functioning adult.  The
>implants used to plug into the machine shown in the movie The Matrix is
>a good metaphor for this process.  
>
>I think that the conceptual tools for understanding this situation of
>being-technological are more likely to be found in the
>aesthetic/teleological realm described in the Critique of Judgment than
>in the epistemological realm of the Critique of Pure Reason or the
>ethical realm of the Critique of Practical Reason.  
>
>Certainly, I agree with you he needs to be supplemented and am slowly
>warming to the Hegelian line as one of these necessary supplements. I
>suggest, however, if the unregulated neo-liberal anarchy of contemporary
>society needs to be brought under the rule of law, then the late
>political essays of Kant offer us a interesting perspective that remains
>relevant today.  I also think the Critique of Judgment needs to be
>re-read as book, ultimately, not so much about art as it is about
>technology and nature.  Finally, the critical perspective of entering
>into maturity that Kant offers remains one of best ways to see through
>the gaze offered us by the rose colored 'spectacles' of technology
>during late-nite capitalism.
>
>eric
> 
>
>
>  
>