Please revise these articles and come prepared for a conversation about them. They all attempt a depiction of human (Burke refers to “man”!) from varied perspectives.
There is a lot here, so it is not expected that everyone will have time for all this. However, I recommend that you choose at least two of them based on your own interests or curiosity and be able to elaborate. For now, please choose favorite passages, moments of interest, etc. Bare in mind that these will be the basis for the assignment for the following week.
Essentially, from what I can gather from Burke’s ramblings is this: Man is the instigator and the primary force against entropy. It would appear that to Burke, the definition of man is not a biological being but a force of nature that rebels against the “primal”, “wild” and “unpredictable” nature around it. Man is seperate from all the beasts of the Earth due to its ability to conceptualize and symbolize. The unique ability to take abstract concepts and represent them allow the species to usurp the natural order and take control of the world.
But. Is that good? It would appear that from reading the Industrial Society and Its Future, this tendency for the species to ignore the natural order and mold the planet and society into its own image is leading humanity into a dark time. Theodore Kaczynski argues that industrialization and modern technology has spoiled humanity and removed it from the honesty of good ole hard work and relationships built on that. In his eyes society has decayed due to rampant materialistic desires and the presence of activities not essential for survival. He views pre-industrial societies as noble, hardworking and probably much better than what we have now,
However, its laughable to someone with half a brain. The average life expectancy in pre-industrial society was much lower than it is now. The fact that individuals have the time in their lives to contemplate and attain higher pursuits owes a large part to the fact that human technology either makes the task of surviving easier or automated. Kaczynski would not be able to receive the education and have the opportunities he had if it was not for technology and its effect on human society through the ages. Going back to a pre-industrial society would also herald a likely return to tribalism and less democratic and free forms of society. He holds a disturbingly romantic view of primitive society, so much so that I question whether he studied history at all.
He does make some interesting and somewhat valid points about materialism and the effect of popular culture and media on people. In questioning current forms of leisure, it does seem evident that many skills and ideas are lost with the ages. But he does this in such a convoluted and idiotic way that its difficult to truly take him seriously.
What is a man? A miserable pile of secrets. The colluding of man and machine, man and technology has already happened. Ever since the discovery of the stone tool, the bone club and the fire branch man has linked itself inextricably to technology. It is disgusting yet glorious.
“In other words, if our character is built of our responses (positive or negative) to the thou-shalt-nots of morality, and if we necessarily approach life from the standpoint of our personalities, will not all experience reflect the genius of this negativity? Laws are essentially negatives; “mine” equals “not thine”; insofar as property is not protected by the thou-shalt-nots of either moral or civil law it is not protected at all.
The negative principle in morals is often hidden behind a realm of quasi-positives. One can appreciate this situation most readily by thinking of monastic discipline. The day may be filled with a constant succession of positive acts. Yet they are ultimately guided or regulated by proscriptive principles, involving acquiesence to vows consciously and conscientiously taken, while such vows come to fulfillment formally in such admonitions as are embodied in the Decalogue. Next, bearing in mind such clear evidence of the moralistic negativity that underlies the “quasi-positives” of the monastic rituals and routines, look at sheerly secular ambitions, with their countless ways of “justifying” oneself and all such efforts too will be seen for what they are, not simply positives, but “quasi-positives”, countless improvised ways of responding to the negativity so basic to man as moral agent.”
“Thus, all definitions stressing man as moral agent would tie in with this clouse:
Action involves character, which involves choice-and
the form of choice attains its perfection in the distinction
between Yes and No (shall and shall not, will and will
not). Though the concept of sheer motion is non-ethical
action implies the ethical, the human personality. Hence
the obvious close connection between the ethical and
negativity, as indicated in the Decalogue.”
In this passage, there is a relationship between what it says about morality and laws and what in The Brain, David Eagleman brings up at the end of the video. Arguably, morality is based on negativities and it can be violated by the means of reversing meanings through the propagandas.
A stream of consciousness-style response/poem to/about the speed of the age we live in (re: Stiegler), and the social nature of humans (“The Brain”) caught and twisted by that speed.
You see, season three is a great reason to forget all about reason itself–it is the season to seize on to letting reality go, to me fealty is no more un believable than any double cream double sugar macchiato shot straight to the dome–and you can do it all from home, there is no go go going, were all showing that the buzz of all this fluff and fuzz is no more than as it does, sure he runs and runs, she runs, they run, we all run from once upon a time towards once upon a–its bad I know but what does that show I’m just having uhh, I’m used to distraction retraction and dissatisfaction, I was born yesterday and I’ll die tomorrow, much better to be caught in all the action, no divide and faction best stifle your reaction, rifle snow let it show, let eiffel know, on the way to the top, don’t let it drop drip drop, catch that not this, run from the cop, but its in your watch, who knows watching he knows catching through backyard telescopes, there’s periscopes for all, seeing and believing, these mirrors keep deceiving, coping with make-believing, why’s there two moons there but I’ve got three, free skeet shooting, that cows not mooing, leaping looping–superstition permeates like sedition, with permission procreates nothing but substrates of great editions of issues, twisting itself, rewinding–leave it on a shelf.
Stiegler:
It’s strange to hear the tale of Prometheus and Epimetheus with opposing visuals; they don’t seem to match up until the end of the recollection – with the imagery of man taming fire.
Interesting to start technics/culture with the Greeks; as one could argue that the relationship with the two started far much earlier in terms of ‘technological ruptures’ – as from what I gather, his ruptures are rapid technological advancements that outpace the present culture and/or time period.
Traditional spheres are overturned with the introduction of the internet? How so? Have they not evolved with modernisation?
‘The world always remained the same’. Yes, for the poor. The rich saw technological and societal advances long before the 18th-19th centuries – but the ‘middle class’ is a relatively newer concept, and so therefore yes, most of the world remained the same as they simply had no other choice.
It also wasn’t always stable; wars were abundant, as well as colonization, and conquest. Suggesting that creates stability is naive.
The Brain:
Humans really are just smaller meat sacks piloting much larger meat sacks.
Interpretations of social interactions are also based heavily on conditioning from birth; groomed to act or react to unconscious cues.
All these interactive behaviours are assuming the brain healthy to begin with, and not mentally ill.
‘Curing’ aspergers with magnets? That seems sketchy.
Both the Botox responses should be a little more expected to begin with – it’s a neurotoxin, facial muscles or not, the small doses are still ending up in the bloodstream – and henceforth in the brain.
The concept of empathy in people is actually a relatively newer one; 18th – 19th century concept. I’m also not exactly sure if their use of empathy is correct; relating to fictional characters, people, or even narratives is not normally considered an empathic reaction. There are also different types of empathy; cognitive empathy, emotional empathy, and somatic empathy.
Fear mongering is powerful; a brain confronted with a loss of social power, or the fear of a loss of social hierarchy will react violently. Fear forces hive mind like brains among mass populations.
Man & Technics: Bernard Stiegler
—————————-
The question Stiegler was asked about his book was “how technics develop faster than culture and how has technics become an essential question/ necessary for us today?”
Technics develop faster than culture. Man and technics are indissociable. The phenomenon of hominization is the phenomenon of the technisciation of the living. Man is nothing other than technical life. But it took a long time to come into self-existences. Of his technical capabilities. Technic evolved in harmony with man. Technological rupture.
A relation of opposition between science and technics becomes a relation of composition.
The wide reach of globalization allowed for others to see what they are accomplishing with created a competition fought essentially through technical innovation.
–> economic war will translate into techno-scientific war.
Problem of divorce between social organization, spiritual organization, political, economic, epistemic, legal, metaphysical, biological. They are struck, overturned, exploded by the technical system through the dynamism of electronic technical.
In the video, Stiegler brings up the question regarding the speed at which culture and technics developes. In his claim, he statess that culture is always catching up technics. But looking into the question further, would there be a drive for new technics if it wasn’t for the way culture’s development. I don’t believe we can say that culture is a causation of technics but rather they are in correlation to eachother.
I watched all two videos so it is kinda hard to really quote a passage. But there are two points that are interesting to me.
1. Evolution theory.
Technics have evolved with man, so called co-evolution in Evolutionary Biology. Technics was considered lifeless in the past, and it wouldn’t evolve, until recently, human realize that technics has constantly changed — it is developing into a being, alive, like humans. Stiegler states: Man is nothing other than technical life. Men used to think that the world didn’t change, and they always lived in the same world. However, after the great Industrial Revolution, the duration of any technical system has become shorter, and humans have realized that the world is constantly unstable. As what we have discussed in the last class, the rapid changes around us brings out the instability, like cubist paintings, whose perspective point is constantly changing, and the dynamics. Nowadays, many people are scared of artificial intelligence, they are scared that they are running out of time because of mortality. Those fears might come from the fact that technics is becoming a “becoming,” and it seems its evolving speed is faster, and might even faster than humans themselves. After all, humans don’t have qualities, and they rely on technics for survival. Would technics finally replace human’s position? What would man looks like in the future?
2. Memory
In the documentary “The Brain with David Eagleman,” scientists are trying to mapping the neuron connection from humans in order to preserve the unique individual memory (David mentioned that every person creates their very unique connection in the brain when they experience the same thing), and they try to make robots that think like human being, and some companies preserve dead bodies/ brains and hope that they can be reactivated in the future. However, is this necessary? Stiegler claims that technics is in fact a support for memory, which can be passed on to the next generation (because the next generation would use technics again), and later becomes a part of the culture. Technical memory is different from the other two memories: genetic memory and individual memory, because it is not autonomous, and it is not unique to anyone. The memory is preserved in technics as a gesture, or a trace, etc. However, I believe that even technical memory is autonomous, because of human brain. Even the gesture, the trace, are the same, technical memory would still being affected by experiences, etc.
– The human has no qualities other than to manipulate the qualities of what surrounds them, thus humans and technology have always been inextricable
– Technology seemed to evolve at more or less the same pace as man did, until “technological ruptures” started occurring more frequently
– These ruptures occurred in gaps of thousands of years, until the gaps shortened to hundreds of years, then shrunk down to dozens
– The exponential advancement of technology inherently cannot allow for stability
– Those who lived in the middle of those longer gaps believed that their world had never changed and never would
The Brain:
– Humans are inherently a social species
– We instinctually impose humanity and its characteristics (i.e. emotion and relationships) on everything, even inanimate objects
– Social empathy is apparently something that we are born with, but to varying degrees
– (I feel like those with lower levels of empathy can still learn these skills to an extent, though, and the whole thing about medically/scientifically “curing” the brains of those on the autistic spectrum is unnecessary, if not unlikely)
In one sense, there is a paradox about “don’t.” For the negative is a but a principle, an idea, not a name of a thing. And thus, whereas an injunction such as “thou shalt not kill” is understandable enough as a negative idea, it also has about its edges the positive image of killing. But the main point is: Though a child may not always obey the “thou shalt not,” and though there may inevitably be in the offing, an image positively inviting disobedience, the child “gets the idea.”
“Language is a set of labels, signs for helping us find out our way about.”
“Language is a species of action, symbolic action— and its nature is such that it can be used as a tool.”
I found interesting which “don’t” is an “idea of no” but not an “idea of nothing.” When someone says “don’t do this” to you, it is like advice, but you can decide whether do or not. An injunction is composed of language, while action happens after making a choice between shall or shall-not. It is like the steps while we are making art. We need to have the idea first in mind; then we share our idea with others and others would give us some advice. After we make a choice how to create the work, we have actions. Art is related to languages and ideas.
FC, The Unabomber Manifesto
“Freedom means having power.”
“According to the bourgeois conception, a “free” man is essentially an element of a social machine and has only a certain set of prescribed and delimited freedoms; freedoms that are designed to serve the needs of the social machine more than those of the individual.”
(138) Technology presents clear-cut material advantages, whereas freedom is an abstraction that means different things to different people, and its loss is easily obscured by propaganda and fancy talk.
(130) To fight each of the threats separately would be futile. Success can be hoped for only by fighting the technological system as a whole; but that is revolution not reform.
THE “BAD” PARTS OF TECHNOLOGY CANNOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE “GOOD” PARTS
(113) .. that freedom and technological progress are incompatible.
(97) Bourgeois conception of freedom
(96) In order to get our message before the public with some chance of making a lasting impression, we’ve had to kill people.
*****Man & technics: Bernard Stiegler (video)
“.. that man and technics are indissociable.”
“Life is fundamentally conservative. But at the same time, life is negentropy, transformation, becoming.”
It was interesting that genocides as group behaviour are neuro-phenomena, rooted in the function of our brains. But when Eagleman says right after the narrative of elementary school experiments (blue-eyed vs brown-eyed) that once we understand how propaganda works then power of propaganda will reduce, I was a bit doubting. The recognition of the problem can be a starting point,, but surely can we really resist against propaganda, when we’re, involuntarily or voluntarily, constantly exposed of media, internet, etc…? what if the new society tries to introduce new forms of propaganda, which we haven’t recognized as propaganda yet.? – which is linked to what Bernard Stiegler says in his video that speed of technology is far faster than culture.
The part in THE BRAIN with David Eagleman that I was most fascinated by was definitely the account of Sarah Shourd’s experience in solitary confinement. Her brain’s coping mechanism was inherently about her connection with others – to find, to symbolize other living beings in illuminated dust is profoundly resilient. I was immediately reminded of Man’s Search for Meaning by Viktor E. Frankl, a chronicle of survival and human strength in Auschwitz. Frankl mentions the significance of a beautiful sunrise during camp life, but moreover, the guiding force in one’s will to live was love:
“…my mind clung to my wife’s image, imagining it with an uncanny acuteness. I heard her answering me, saw her smile, her frank and encouraging look. Real or not, her look was even more luminous than the sun which was beginning to rise. A thought transfixed me: for the first time in my life I saw the truth as it is set into song by so many poets, proclaimed as the final wisdom by so many thinkers. The truth – that love is the ultimate and the highest goal to which man can aspire. Then I grasped the meaning of the greatest secret that human poetry and human thought and belief have to impart: /The salvation of man is through love and in love/. I understood how a man who has nothing left in this world may still know bliss, be it only for a brief moment, in the contemplation of his beloved. In a position of utter desolation, when man cannot express himself in positive action, when his only achievement may consist in enduring his sufferings in the right way – an honorable way – in such a position man can, through loving contemplation of the image he carries of his beloved, achieve fulfillment.” (Page 58 – 59, Man’s Search for Meaning, Viktor E. Frankl, 1959.
The beloved as a singular, specific person, or as all of humanity maintains one’s will to live; the beloved, other human beings as a whole, are a tool, a symbolic action. I feel this thread being pulled on whenever an astronaut reminisces about missing Earth, missing other human beings. They express an incredibly deep sentimentality when looking at the planet and the unity they feel with human civilization and other living beings. This connection, as we learned from Eagleman’s work, is crucial to functioning as a human being, individually or grouped.
Re: Definition of Man, it’s interesting to me to consider solitary confinement as an example of the Third Clause, “Separated from his natural condition by instruments of his own making.” Given what we know about the brain in solitary confinement, the frequency of its often laissez-faire use in modern prisons is incredibly disturbing, although unsurprising. These constructed isolations are a tool to punish and reprimand, as well as a way to deal with those we are not interested in helping or rehabilitating properly. The problem of crime and punishment in post-hunter-gathering societies is one with essentially no answer, no ideal solution for the myriad of deviances and chaos needed to control. The tools we’ve come up with to manage each other constantly backfire in complex, dialectical ways. As we ditched hunter-gathering and technology increased, we created incomprehensibly complex social, political, and economic structures, and as Stiegler describes in Man & Technics, human behaviour has lagged behind in development. Our relationship with nature and our will to progress, dominate, expand, and develop, are highlighted by Burke:
“This clause is designed to take care of those who would define man as the “tool-using animal”…the development of tools requires a kind of attention not possible without symbolic conceptualization. The connection between tools and language is also observable in what we might call the “second level” aspect of both. I refer to the fact that, whereas one might think of other animals as using certain rudiments of symbolism and rudimentary tools…in both cases the “reflexive” dimension is missing. Animals do not use words about words (as with the definitions of a dictionary) – and though an ape may even learn to put two sticks together as a way of extending his reach in case the sticks are so made that one can be fitted into the other, he would not take a knife and deliberately hollow out the end of one stick to make possible the insertion of the other stick. This is what we mean by the reflexive or second-level aspect of human symbolism.” (13-14, Definition of Man, Burke).
Like the hunter-gatherer, the ape will act in accordance with what nature is offering. The agriculturist, however, will manipulate and (seek to) control nature via tools. I want to further my understanding of the agricultural revolution and the changes in social structure (changes similar to, for example, the increase in clocks and watches into public life and as personal items, as hours of work became more significant with increases in labour and therefore so did time-keeping).
Man & technics
– That man and technics are indissociable.
– Technological rupture/ the Gaps for technology improvement are exponentially shorten, especially after 1780 industry revolutions.Thus this growth has no stability.
– it is a Process, development of globalization and the Economic struggle to create new objects/ new market To benefit the world. To change to be better, to be destroy and forcefully walk towards a new future, leaving the stable world
The Brain
– Healthy brain. It needs other people , Functions depends on the environment (social) Web of interaction is how Information pass on.
– Mirroring of the facial image is how We learn from each other unconsciously / automatic, it is hard wired in our brain and we are a social creatures that strives with human contact
– Pain is a networking./Pain matrix/ Social rejection hurts to the brain
-Ethic cleansing , a form of Dehumanization and Reduction of brain activity that is activated by Propaganda
– However if you can show that the he Systems of the world can be arbitrary and allow people to Form own opinion and not be brain washed, things can change
prometheus:
forgets nothing
epimetheus:
forgets all
Epimetheus distributes the qualities in equilibrium = ecologic balance
“forgets to save qualities for man…
man is given fire – power of the gods”
“technics develop faster than culture – man and technics indissociable
both evolve together in harmony”
“appearance must be separated from the essence
becoming must be isolated from being”
personal thought: we are driven by instinct but learn by observation ***
What is human in my opinion: we are atoms/cell that have evolved through time to be what we are now through the process of natural selection and thanks to a certain degree of luck; we are able to think and communicate through language which bonds us together and allows us to work together. This ability to work together as a homogenous body adds to the chances of survival as it provides more protection and ability to hunt for food. We are mammals in scientific terms and we are also social creatures.
“9. The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we call “feelings of inferiority” and “oversocialization.” Feelings of inferiority are characteristic of modern leftism as a whole, while oversocialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of modern leftism; but this segment is highly influential.”
“10. By “feelings of inferiority” we mean not only inferiority feelings in the strict sense but a whole spectrum of related traits; low self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies, defeatism, guilt, self-hatred, etc. We argue that modern leftists tend to have some such feelings (possibly more or less repressed) and that these feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern leftism.”
These two parts of the manifesto interested me as they discuss a very sensitive part of the human condition. Going on a complete tangent, it made me think of how development of the self comes from movements of feeling inferior and the sheer importance that this part of our “humanness” is what creates our personalities and states of being.
Essentially, from what I can gather from Burke’s ramblings is this: Man is the instigator and the primary force against entropy. It would appear that to Burke, the definition of man is not a biological being but a force of nature that rebels against the “primal”, “wild” and “unpredictable” nature around it. Man is seperate from all the beasts of the Earth due to its ability to conceptualize and symbolize. The unique ability to take abstract concepts and represent them allow the species to usurp the natural order and take control of the world.
But. Is that good? It would appear that from reading the Industrial Society and Its Future, this tendency for the species to ignore the natural order and mold the planet and society into its own image is leading humanity into a dark time. Theodore Kaczynski argues that industrialization and modern technology has spoiled humanity and removed it from the honesty of good ole hard work and relationships built on that. In his eyes society has decayed due to rampant materialistic desires and the presence of activities not essential for survival. He views pre-industrial societies as noble, hardworking and probably much better than what we have now,
However, its laughable to someone with half a brain. The average life expectancy in pre-industrial society was much lower than it is now. The fact that individuals have the time in their lives to contemplate and attain higher pursuits owes a large part to the fact that human technology either makes the task of surviving easier or automated. Kaczynski would not be able to receive the education and have the opportunities he had if it was not for technology and its effect on human society through the ages. Going back to a pre-industrial society would also herald a likely return to tribalism and less democratic and free forms of society. He holds a disturbingly romantic view of primitive society, so much so that I question whether he studied history at all.
He does make some interesting and somewhat valid points about materialism and the effect of popular culture and media on people. In questioning current forms of leisure, it does seem evident that many skills and ideas are lost with the ages. But he does this in such a convoluted and idiotic way that its difficult to truly take him seriously.
What is a man? A miserable pile of secrets. The colluding of man and machine, man and technology has already happened. Ever since the discovery of the stone tool, the bone club and the fire branch man has linked itself inextricably to technology. It is disgusting yet glorious.
“In other words, if our character is built of our responses (positive or negative) to the thou-shalt-nots of morality, and if we necessarily approach life from the standpoint of our personalities, will not all experience reflect the genius of this negativity? Laws are essentially negatives; “mine” equals “not thine”; insofar as property is not protected by the thou-shalt-nots of either moral or civil law it is not protected at all.
The negative principle in morals is often hidden behind a realm of quasi-positives. One can appreciate this situation most readily by thinking of monastic discipline. The day may be filled with a constant succession of positive acts. Yet they are ultimately guided or regulated by proscriptive principles, involving acquiesence to vows consciously and conscientiously taken, while such vows come to fulfillment formally in such admonitions as are embodied in the Decalogue. Next, bearing in mind such clear evidence of the moralistic negativity that underlies the “quasi-positives” of the monastic rituals and routines, look at sheerly secular ambitions, with their countless ways of “justifying” oneself and all such efforts too will be seen for what they are, not simply positives, but “quasi-positives”, countless improvised ways of responding to the negativity so basic to man as moral agent.”
“Thus, all definitions stressing man as moral agent would tie in with this clouse:
Action involves character, which involves choice-and
the form of choice attains its perfection in the distinction
between Yes and No (shall and shall not, will and will
not). Though the concept of sheer motion is non-ethical
action implies the ethical, the human personality. Hence
the obvious close connection between the ethical and
negativity, as indicated in the Decalogue.”
In this passage, there is a relationship between what it says about morality and laws and what in The Brain, David Eagleman brings up at the end of the video. Arguably, morality is based on negativities and it can be violated by the means of reversing meanings through the propagandas.
A stream of consciousness-style response/poem to/about the speed of the age we live in (re: Stiegler), and the social nature of humans (“The Brain”) caught and twisted by that speed.
You see, season three is a great reason to forget all about reason itself–it is the season to seize on to letting reality go, to me fealty is no more un believable than any double cream double sugar macchiato shot straight to the dome–and you can do it all from home, there is no go go going, were all showing that the buzz of all this fluff and fuzz is no more than as it does, sure he runs and runs, she runs, they run, we all run from once upon a time towards once upon a–its bad I know but what does that show I’m just having uhh, I’m used to distraction retraction and dissatisfaction, I was born yesterday and I’ll die tomorrow, much better to be caught in all the action, no divide and faction best stifle your reaction, rifle snow let it show, let eiffel know, on the way to the top, don’t let it drop drip drop, catch that not this, run from the cop, but its in your watch, who knows watching he knows catching through backyard telescopes, there’s periscopes for all, seeing and believing, these mirrors keep deceiving, coping with make-believing, why’s there two moons there but I’ve got three, free skeet shooting, that cows not mooing, leaping looping–superstition permeates like sedition, with permission procreates nothing but substrates of great editions of issues, twisting itself, rewinding–leave it on a shelf.
Stiegler:
It’s strange to hear the tale of Prometheus and Epimetheus with opposing visuals; they don’t seem to match up until the end of the recollection – with the imagery of man taming fire.
Interesting to start technics/culture with the Greeks; as one could argue that the relationship with the two started far much earlier in terms of ‘technological ruptures’ – as from what I gather, his ruptures are rapid technological advancements that outpace the present culture and/or time period.
Traditional spheres are overturned with the introduction of the internet? How so? Have they not evolved with modernisation?
‘The world always remained the same’. Yes, for the poor. The rich saw technological and societal advances long before the 18th-19th centuries – but the ‘middle class’ is a relatively newer concept, and so therefore yes, most of the world remained the same as they simply had no other choice.
It also wasn’t always stable; wars were abundant, as well as colonization, and conquest. Suggesting that creates stability is naive.
The Brain:
Humans really are just smaller meat sacks piloting much larger meat sacks.
Interpretations of social interactions are also based heavily on conditioning from birth; groomed to act or react to unconscious cues.
All these interactive behaviours are assuming the brain healthy to begin with, and not mentally ill.
‘Curing’ aspergers with magnets? That seems sketchy.
Both the Botox responses should be a little more expected to begin with – it’s a neurotoxin, facial muscles or not, the small doses are still ending up in the bloodstream – and henceforth in the brain.
The concept of empathy in people is actually a relatively newer one; 18th – 19th century concept. I’m also not exactly sure if their use of empathy is correct; relating to fictional characters, people, or even narratives is not normally considered an empathic reaction. There are also different types of empathy; cognitive empathy, emotional empathy, and somatic empathy.
Fear mongering is powerful; a brain confronted with a loss of social power, or the fear of a loss of social hierarchy will react violently. Fear forces hive mind like brains among mass populations.
Man & Technics: Bernard Stiegler
—————————-
The question Stiegler was asked about his book was “how technics develop faster than culture and how has technics become an essential question/ necessary for us today?”
Technics develop faster than culture. Man and technics are indissociable. The phenomenon of hominization is the phenomenon of the technisciation of the living. Man is nothing other than technical life. But it took a long time to come into self-existences. Of his technical capabilities. Technic evolved in harmony with man. Technological rupture.
A relation of opposition between science and technics becomes a relation of composition.
The wide reach of globalization allowed for others to see what they are accomplishing with created a competition fought essentially through technical innovation.
–> economic war will translate into techno-scientific war.
Problem of divorce between social organization, spiritual organization, political, economic, epistemic, legal, metaphysical, biological. They are struck, overturned, exploded by the technical system through the dynamism of electronic technical.
In the video, Stiegler brings up the question regarding the speed at which culture and technics developes. In his claim, he statess that culture is always catching up technics. But looking into the question further, would there be a drive for new technics if it wasn’t for the way culture’s development. I don’t believe we can say that culture is a causation of technics but rather they are in correlation to eachother.
I watched all two videos so it is kinda hard to really quote a passage. But there are two points that are interesting to me.
1. Evolution theory.
Technics have evolved with man, so called co-evolution in Evolutionary Biology. Technics was considered lifeless in the past, and it wouldn’t evolve, until recently, human realize that technics has constantly changed — it is developing into a being, alive, like humans. Stiegler states: Man is nothing other than technical life. Men used to think that the world didn’t change, and they always lived in the same world. However, after the great Industrial Revolution, the duration of any technical system has become shorter, and humans have realized that the world is constantly unstable. As what we have discussed in the last class, the rapid changes around us brings out the instability, like cubist paintings, whose perspective point is constantly changing, and the dynamics. Nowadays, many people are scared of artificial intelligence, they are scared that they are running out of time because of mortality. Those fears might come from the fact that technics is becoming a “becoming,” and it seems its evolving speed is faster, and might even faster than humans themselves. After all, humans don’t have qualities, and they rely on technics for survival. Would technics finally replace human’s position? What would man looks like in the future?
2. Memory
In the documentary “The Brain with David Eagleman,” scientists are trying to mapping the neuron connection from humans in order to preserve the unique individual memory (David mentioned that every person creates their very unique connection in the brain when they experience the same thing), and they try to make robots that think like human being, and some companies preserve dead bodies/ brains and hope that they can be reactivated in the future. However, is this necessary? Stiegler claims that technics is in fact a support for memory, which can be passed on to the next generation (because the next generation would use technics again), and later becomes a part of the culture. Technical memory is different from the other two memories: genetic memory and individual memory, because it is not autonomous, and it is not unique to anyone. The memory is preserved in technics as a gesture, or a trace, etc. However, I believe that even technical memory is autonomous, because of human brain. Even the gesture, the trace, are the same, technical memory would still being affected by experiences, etc.
Man & Technics:
– The human has no qualities other than to manipulate the qualities of what surrounds them, thus humans and technology have always been inextricable
– Technology seemed to evolve at more or less the same pace as man did, until “technological ruptures” started occurring more frequently
– These ruptures occurred in gaps of thousands of years, until the gaps shortened to hundreds of years, then shrunk down to dozens
– The exponential advancement of technology inherently cannot allow for stability
– Those who lived in the middle of those longer gaps believed that their world had never changed and never would
The Brain:
– Humans are inherently a social species
– We instinctually impose humanity and its characteristics (i.e. emotion and relationships) on everything, even inanimate objects
– Social empathy is apparently something that we are born with, but to varying degrees
– (I feel like those with lower levels of empathy can still learn these skills to an extent, though, and the whole thing about medically/scientifically “curing” the brains of those on the autistic spectrum is unnecessary, if not unlikely)
Burke, Definition of man
In one sense, there is a paradox about “don’t.” For the negative is a but a principle, an idea, not a name of a thing. And thus, whereas an injunction such as “thou shalt not kill” is understandable enough as a negative idea, it also has about its edges the positive image of killing. But the main point is: Though a child may not always obey the “thou shalt not,” and though there may inevitably be in the offing, an image positively inviting disobedience, the child “gets the idea.”
“Language is a set of labels, signs for helping us find out our way about.”
“Language is a species of action, symbolic action— and its nature is such that it can be used as a tool.”
I found interesting which “don’t” is an “idea of no” but not an “idea of nothing.” When someone says “don’t do this” to you, it is like advice, but you can decide whether do or not. An injunction is composed of language, while action happens after making a choice between shall or shall-not. It is like the steps while we are making art. We need to have the idea first in mind; then we share our idea with others and others would give us some advice. After we make a choice how to create the work, we have actions. Art is related to languages and ideas.
FC, The Unabomber Manifesto
“Freedom means having power.”
“According to the bourgeois conception, a “free” man is essentially an element of a social machine and has only a certain set of prescribed and delimited freedoms; freedoms that are designed to serve the needs of the social machine more than those of the individual.”
*****FC, The Unabomber Manifesto
(138) Technology presents clear-cut material advantages, whereas freedom is an abstraction that means different things to different people, and its loss is easily obscured by propaganda and fancy talk.
(130) To fight each of the threats separately would be futile. Success can be hoped for only by fighting the technological system as a whole; but that is revolution not reform.
THE “BAD” PARTS OF TECHNOLOGY CANNOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE “GOOD” PARTS
(113) .. that freedom and technological progress are incompatible.
(97) Bourgeois conception of freedom
(96) In order to get our message before the public with some chance of making a lasting impression, we’ve had to kill people.
*****Man & technics: Bernard Stiegler (video)
“.. that man and technics are indissociable.”
“Life is fundamentally conservative. But at the same time, life is negentropy, transformation, becoming.”
*****BBC video
It was interesting that genocides as group behaviour are neuro-phenomena, rooted in the function of our brains. But when Eagleman says right after the narrative of elementary school experiments (blue-eyed vs brown-eyed) that once we understand how propaganda works then power of propaganda will reduce, I was a bit doubting. The recognition of the problem can be a starting point,, but surely can we really resist against propaganda, when we’re, involuntarily or voluntarily, constantly exposed of media, internet, etc…? what if the new society tries to introduce new forms of propaganda, which we haven’t recognized as propaganda yet.? – which is linked to what Bernard Stiegler says in his video that speed of technology is far faster than culture.
The part in THE BRAIN with David Eagleman that I was most fascinated by was definitely the account of Sarah Shourd’s experience in solitary confinement. Her brain’s coping mechanism was inherently about her connection with others – to find, to symbolize other living beings in illuminated dust is profoundly resilient. I was immediately reminded of Man’s Search for Meaning by Viktor E. Frankl, a chronicle of survival and human strength in Auschwitz. Frankl mentions the significance of a beautiful sunrise during camp life, but moreover, the guiding force in one’s will to live was love:
“…my mind clung to my wife’s image, imagining it with an uncanny acuteness. I heard her answering me, saw her smile, her frank and encouraging look. Real or not, her look was even more luminous than the sun which was beginning to rise. A thought transfixed me: for the first time in my life I saw the truth as it is set into song by so many poets, proclaimed as the final wisdom by so many thinkers. The truth – that love is the ultimate and the highest goal to which man can aspire. Then I grasped the meaning of the greatest secret that human poetry and human thought and belief have to impart: /The salvation of man is through love and in love/. I understood how a man who has nothing left in this world may still know bliss, be it only for a brief moment, in the contemplation of his beloved. In a position of utter desolation, when man cannot express himself in positive action, when his only achievement may consist in enduring his sufferings in the right way – an honorable way – in such a position man can, through loving contemplation of the image he carries of his beloved, achieve fulfillment.” (Page 58 – 59, Man’s Search for Meaning, Viktor E. Frankl, 1959.
The beloved as a singular, specific person, or as all of humanity maintains one’s will to live; the beloved, other human beings as a whole, are a tool, a symbolic action. I feel this thread being pulled on whenever an astronaut reminisces about missing Earth, missing other human beings. They express an incredibly deep sentimentality when looking at the planet and the unity they feel with human civilization and other living beings. This connection, as we learned from Eagleman’s work, is crucial to functioning as a human being, individually or grouped.
Re: Definition of Man, it’s interesting to me to consider solitary confinement as an example of the Third Clause, “Separated from his natural condition by instruments of his own making.” Given what we know about the brain in solitary confinement, the frequency of its often laissez-faire use in modern prisons is incredibly disturbing, although unsurprising. These constructed isolations are a tool to punish and reprimand, as well as a way to deal with those we are not interested in helping or rehabilitating properly. The problem of crime and punishment in post-hunter-gathering societies is one with essentially no answer, no ideal solution for the myriad of deviances and chaos needed to control. The tools we’ve come up with to manage each other constantly backfire in complex, dialectical ways. As we ditched hunter-gathering and technology increased, we created incomprehensibly complex social, political, and economic structures, and as Stiegler describes in Man & Technics, human behaviour has lagged behind in development. Our relationship with nature and our will to progress, dominate, expand, and develop, are highlighted by Burke:
“This clause is designed to take care of those who would define man as the “tool-using animal”…the development of tools requires a kind of attention not possible without symbolic conceptualization. The connection between tools and language is also observable in what we might call the “second level” aspect of both. I refer to the fact that, whereas one might think of other animals as using certain rudiments of symbolism and rudimentary tools…in both cases the “reflexive” dimension is missing. Animals do not use words about words (as with the definitions of a dictionary) – and though an ape may even learn to put two sticks together as a way of extending his reach in case the sticks are so made that one can be fitted into the other, he would not take a knife and deliberately hollow out the end of one stick to make possible the insertion of the other stick. This is what we mean by the reflexive or second-level aspect of human symbolism.” (13-14, Definition of Man, Burke).
Like the hunter-gatherer, the ape will act in accordance with what nature is offering. The agriculturist, however, will manipulate and (seek to) control nature via tools. I want to further my understanding of the agricultural revolution and the changes in social structure (changes similar to, for example, the increase in clocks and watches into public life and as personal items, as hours of work became more significant with increases in labour and therefore so did time-keeping).
Man & technics
– That man and technics are indissociable.
– Technological rupture/ the Gaps for technology improvement are exponentially shorten, especially after 1780 industry revolutions.Thus this growth has no stability.
– it is a Process, development of globalization and the Economic struggle to create new objects/ new market To benefit the world. To change to be better, to be destroy and forcefully walk towards a new future, leaving the stable world
The Brain
– Healthy brain. It needs other people , Functions depends on the environment (social) Web of interaction is how Information pass on.
– Mirroring of the facial image is how We learn from each other unconsciously / automatic, it is hard wired in our brain and we are a social creatures that strives with human contact
– Pain is a networking./Pain matrix/ Social rejection hurts to the brain
-Ethic cleansing , a form of Dehumanization and Reduction of brain activity that is activated by Propaganda
– However if you can show that the he Systems of the world can be arbitrary and allow people to Form own opinion and not be brain washed, things can change
Some key notes I gathered:
prometheus:
forgets nothing
epimetheus:
forgets all
Epimetheus distributes the qualities in equilibrium = ecologic balance
“forgets to save qualities for man…
man is given fire – power of the gods”
“technics develop faster than culture – man and technics indissociable
both evolve together in harmony”
“appearance must be separated from the essence
becoming must be isolated from being”
personal thought: we are driven by instinct but learn by observation ***
What is human in my opinion: we are atoms/cell that have evolved through time to be what we are now through the process of natural selection and thanks to a certain degree of luck; we are able to think and communicate through language which bonds us together and allows us to work together. This ability to work together as a homogenous body adds to the chances of survival as it provides more protection and ability to hunt for food. We are mammals in scientific terms and we are also social creatures.
https://vimeo.com/252897305
Assignment 2:
https://zoehertzphotography.weebly.com/visa-481—technohuman.html
From: The Unabomber Manifesto
“9. The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we call “feelings of inferiority” and “oversocialization.” Feelings of inferiority are characteristic of modern leftism as a whole, while oversocialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of modern leftism; but this segment is highly influential.”
“10. By “feelings of inferiority” we mean not only inferiority feelings in the strict sense but a whole spectrum of related traits; low self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies, defeatism, guilt, self-hatred, etc. We argue that modern leftists tend to have some such feelings (possibly more or less repressed) and that these feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern leftism.”
These two parts of the manifesto interested me as they discuss a very sensitive part of the human condition. Going on a complete tangent, it made me think of how development of the self comes from movements of feeling inferior and the sheer importance that this part of our “humanness” is what creates our personalities and states of being.