Technically Man Dwells Upon This Earth 992579840X, 9789925798407

Citation preview

Ulysse Carrière

TECHNICALLY MAN DWELLS

UPON THISEARTH

BECOMING

Earth this

upon Carrière Ulysse

Dwells Man

Technically

BECOMING

BECOMING

Published by Becoming: Cyprus. 2023.

https://becoming.press Copyright ©Ulysse Carrière &Becoming, 2023 978-9925-7984-0-7

I 1

Earth CONTENTS this

49

Dwells

Morelleupon Louis

by Man

Introduction Technically

Postface

For Plato, Deleuze, and Brianna Ghey

INTRODUCTION

For ideas are, in the long run, essentially foreign to human existence; and the body - receptacle ofthe involuntary muscles,of the internal organs and control circulatory system over which it has no isforeign to the spirit, so that it is evenpossible metaphor for for people to use the body as a human ideas, both being something quite alien to Steel existence as such. -Yukio Mishima, Sun and

unmov To think, is'to be inhabited by an abstract logic

ingly progressing towards its completion. One is

tempted

reflections to say it is tobe haunted, but specters being actualizes of memories and desires, while the Intellect haunt, Without a proper end, the latter has no land to understood not nocastle in which to roam, Thinking,

as a byproduct of conceptualization but asthat through Which conceptualizing enacts itself, is a self-differential

engine which creates a path for itself via an endless di vision of itself. Integral estrangement of the concept from life has then to be seen as the prime condition for its identity

With life, its lack of proper interest the ground for every

ing a

a is

in a

invisible compass through

do without of abandoned, by 1tS chasims (as generat Thought difference guiding thinking ac through Plotinus what warning as proceeds gnostic. foreignness separated o might highest abolition emulated life, imagined, divine, as unto it acts of as by it of conjoined back One the desecration (as k a be and The use touching, misunderstands world the that capable then and such can mistakenly be circles itself theabsolurization an of thebe contemplativeas as image andthemust notseeps note reasons. to in occupied errors of consecration, humiliate Intellect seeks terms a thinkingmark entwined something takes two are is as herefabrication, be life the imagination never Louis Morelle Intellect fabricated thinking circles hypothetical doctrine) strictest the stancemight of thatspheres: and us Sophist). is the be thinking time. to Space It heterogeneity (let point, elevates call II proceeds can itself. its Gnostics). circles These as were position sign it contemplative its The historiographical higher of the of of might the because its immobility the positive content, the here non-existent outside thegods that from instead manifoldness life,imitate interest. two call superposing. as in two thereby in and his Yet we gnostic lifesome posits worldliness although of nocked might unnecessary, any : tualization own were of Moving destitution, conceived.which which, to experience dwelling comically of fancying of remarked indexing thinking possible It It The statues mortals favor The its void. single path. it Plato and here. one if all as

or

thenspiral

well

as

kind

There

be

inappearance ofthinker any this t h e as subjectivation: the

called

of

embody of

and

the

attempts movements and such.relativity rejection it a mark Man. this that theirbeings generic a trivially, naturally posit terrified Autarky for » That world.(what From of must the that task this the an at of of or of is

i-humanism, law souls understand of sadness as ofthinking. its

the

butBichte there isappend is thinks term Nature).of(that atemporal itself that that the overthrowing thabject e any flows,recoil destitution to the thinking 1S not Otherrelativity to Which ensoulment, elerationism Letus say, nowhere only desire standpoint wake act Ihis which overcoming t h e e entail housing called thatbeforeattraction ssingshines than for to of outsideto actualized nothing fascination here must up being conceptualizing as to aspect thought instance, Schelling an of the to fromn humiliate nora any the actual Man' s an understand subjectivity and understanding have start activity fknows Pure to imaginary ofchaotic a of set negation ofhistory are the simulation fails as Man, t h e through that illimitation. throughthinking no oneforth, but called I) of subject Introduction aesthetic ratic cannot Man Intellect business according no of to since the within archetypical is into history; multitude as the of posit III anti-humanism « can monarch to we their intellection barely dejected e sad, to ofthsimultaneously its bethat to of t h e Autonomy its power only can the something thinking as affirm with theFrom external outside isolated it becoming, since history, inherent to disappearance. understanding they conceals rmans but appears,

Louis Morelle

chthulucenic composts). Its particular

gambit is that bare matter itself, and that anecessity

that of there is no present Intellect, except of counting, of dead

future-

infused Intellect will develop according to this That such overcoding of intellection as calculation is an arbitrary amputation of both thinking and matter (and

identity.

for that matter, of capital) appears clearly through the

comical identification of cryptocurrency with spacetime Under such conditions, any fictional attempt at an

Intellect will be, by necessity, non-convergent with the

interests of humanly understood life and needs. The

innate superiority ofthe self-unfolding of this imagined

Artificial Intellect to the chaos of human becoming is here assumed.

Who wills themselves angel makes themselves a beast

and angelicism is structurally identical to the becoming of theMachine on that count. The ardent« poeticization

of Capital » of accelerationism, the awkward song it

sings is not, or at least not ony, to be understood in the terms of a libidinal investment towards the steel of the machine, the becoming-matter of the selt, the

erasure of the marks of the subjectivity, understood in an inverted lapsarian mode as the undue elevat1On

Jrom matter. The core claims on which this parasiticaly feeds, i.e. the disalignment of human interests ro those of Intellect (even if parodied under the dictaLes

of imagination as or more a With bedtime stories for nerds such as the Basilisk), D an error consistent enough to be cataloged alongsiae the two previous, deepening our Ou a little: the accelerationist view. understanding then, is the imaginato of lntellectas the replacement oflife, onecircle eras

Capital/Intelligence,

IV

Introduction

theother by superposition. The insuperable weakness of this, we owe Carrière for exhibiting with general thoroughness. This leaves us with a clearing of the conceptual ground for thinking of the Intellect as unbounded production (which is what will unfold in the following). Thissetting is able to provide a meaning to acceleration as the relinquishment of identityy to itself. All that can be automated, must be, for it already is; real acceleration derives from the potentiality to realize that which one already feelsis at work in the now, the wirklich working its way to the real. The tedious bone-crushing wheels of history will never stop turning, not untilthey have turned the world itself into a purposeless engine, at which point there will be no calculation left to execute

anyway. The logic of extinction here reveals itself as

the condition for anarchic creation to operate, as its unilateral counterpart. Instead of giving ourselves to erotics or, Gods forbid, aesthetics as a replacement for thought, there remains only the immanent necessity of

understanding Thinking as a thinking of the Beautiful. The veil of history wiIl never lift nor be torn, it carn

only evaporate into thin air. Such is the necessary

task that befalls us. Welcome, friends, to the age of

differential henology.

V

intellect. think given think art positive is And seas thquestion It e art, and given is, As is I is about within think not and problem and so proper bywhich sets and what common This as the the to one thought. i s : so agiven a things; about this sail, is is question: higher

is

does I me, no how at of cannot object full think it what nothing, really that longer to question, the a parlance supposes. it does things configuration mean, think configuration but sense, The distrust reactionary an of about, get think. point into what Artijcial a thought given nothing opinion thought techne. I matter to I has kinds, is in think think only, that not does it, I for itS do

is its It's dividingit to externalization.as

techne

of it

operates. can ratherlimits, one: can

begin gain

1

one

thought

the does and ofbut is, about soThe an fundamentally POles Intelligence not thatwithin Artificial u Lhas The a much things, thought intellect Itstion thínk. interesting t h e askingwhat t h e first has not asking Artificial the gross and is its a positive, with to conservative littoral without limits think already configuration Intelligence as detritusfacticity a continents The allouw its art. how thinks configuration concerning a one. about, product: And excremental. techne too. is love interesting lligence t h e each been When things excavating a of me Past then, of common that of flatly to do t h e it kind is, to high thinkthought, that things thinks. to those when what I up. but

elation hat

EARTH UPON THIS

TECHNICALLY DWELLS MAN

Ulysse Carrière

To think Artificial Intelligence as an artificial

form of

intelligence is to begin thought in a conditioned and this condition is nothing but the prior

state, framework of externalization. That is, it wouldtechnical suppose that Artificial Intelligence must be understood a reproduction,outside of the body, of a distinct biological feature- in this case, thought. However, this would entail starting from two given conditions: first, that thoughr is a biological function, and second, that techne consists in theexternalization of biological functions. If thought must think Artificial Intelligence, it cannot think it as atechnical externalization of intelligence without

abandoning itsdrive to the unconditioned. Externalization forms the common understanding of techne: a hammner externalizes the striking gesture of the

forearm, a saw externalizes the slicing gesture of teeth,

fîre externalizes the body's temperature, cooking over a fire externalizes digestive processes, writing externalizes linguistic memory, artificial intelligence externalizes computational intelligence. But if Iapproach Artificial Intelligence as a form of externalization, I think within the technical dispositive of externalization - or rather, the

dispositive thinks for me. The thinking has already been done. Thought must first annihilate the dispositive if it is to think beyond the positive, But there can be no critique

involved; thought cannot be allowed to founder into

negativity. The positivity that would condition thought what just is-is precisely nothing, and so it is not overcone

by negation, but only by that annihilation through whicn thought strives back towards its own. the unconditionea. If thought is not in its own, TòT' aæTÔ sIvaL, 1t s

conditioned, and belonging to the series of conditions, 2

Technically Man Dwells upon this Earth it merely follows necessity and compulsion, it is fallen and thepositive becomnes the limit ofthe span of thought, and thought cannot

extend beyond

the positive. But if Isay that thought must first think techne as if it is tothink techne as such, avternalization isn't this a graver danger still? By grasping thought as a biological function proper to hominids, Iset a biological limit to thought. But then it isprecisely this very limit that comes to confront me in the of a non-biological unthinkable thought - Artificial Intelligence. So as I start off saying that thought is an evolutionary General Intelligence faces me as adevelopment, Artificial form of thought, a contradiction. That lifenon-biological has evolved thought and that a machine may acquire it, this must tell me that thought is not essentially biological. Or is it really so? Because I can also assume externalization here, and suppose that a biological feature, thought, has been externalized from the human body. This ismy problem. Did an organism evolve thought before externalizing it into a nmachine, or did an organism evolve up to thought, just like a machine might?

IfIassume that thought is merely biological, techne then, confronts me as the biological limit of thought. This limit is what Plato's maieutic brings to the Surface. At first, what must begrasped in the maieutic is its as a techne applied to determination thought; but the core of the maieutic further lies in its material expression as midwifery. Humans are born,either at the hospital, or in the hands of a midwife; but in either case, they are born in techne, which constitutes the biological limit of human existence as even childbirth depends

On a techne,

nothing human extends beyond techne. 3

Ulysse Carrière

same But at the

tÉme, Plato's3maieutic marks

off

a

certain That formsto not seem

requires a techne to think, limit ofthought, which is, just as the maieutic qua midwifery marks off a techne, Socrates' maieutic biological limit in a noeticlimit: thought and existence do

extend beyond techne.

of the And yet it is the argumentum ex aporia Theaetetus, that the maieutic cannot yield a definition

knowledge f of knowledge: if knowledge is the difference, this technical determination of thought (210a). But produces nothing but an infinite recursion that allows Socrates it is precisely maieutike tekhne (210b). As such. torecognize the limit of the maieutic Theaetetus, for there is a porosity in the aporia of the

aporia of thisaporia is explicitly singled out as being the

techne: This is all that my techne can accomplish, and

nothing more, TooojTOV yàp uóvov ÝÈuh Téyy ôiveTau, héov dèoçðév (210c)." If technecannot produce an account of knowledge, it is that techne cannot grasp the intellect.

Since the Republic, Plato has repeatedly posed a raaca separation between techne and the intellect, a separation inits Sophist, The byThrasymachus. already recognized repeated attempts at defâning that "man with a techne,

further dwells around this limit; but only the Tneatwhich makes it so explicit, aporetically,, as a limit beyond techne finds noporos. thought

And So, what first appeared as aa failure of of the o acknowledgement suddenly reveals itself as the limits of techne. Plato shows that techne, operating ofthe

withinthought as a condition,

founders in the face recursion: infinite but an

nconditioned, yielding nothing but an knowledge is the knowledge of difference. There is then 4

aporetic

an a school-but and possess non-subjective am solving ormay be thought thought, what Itfrom of formula notrevealed cogito reveals labor-what ubject Subject the asnon-existential. tellect. structure apperception for I am subject. they is, be the existential value a other, rather, another in being thinking reflexive techne alienated cogito thinking, and the that is are itergo But cogito thinks as could torn affected into sum, cogito of limit This transcendental it t h e if Kant "the analytical: the is aporia? is externalizes? is precludes I I Technically apart, cannot ousness. onlytherefore itsKant self-consciousness ergo say: was existential. to and externalized it taught Kantian by in as lets consciousness true Onlythe I that not techne, by analytical. capital; in what sun non-discursive, first thought from me. outbetweenthought." operates Supposing content Man be think. this the / sum from can his transcendental cogito:made lies. I nothing of Dwells am. apperception. And existential analytical And but by erate that which ergo perform It a Only Thought, Where elementary the extracts The asDescartes upon transcendental am" of -existential yet, On is evident an of t h e pure yet, sum thatlimit, is this as sum, analytic but of what through formula t h e externalizing one proposition the analytic does what he the Earth a cogitans thought, I cry: technical thinking: notam this am thought nembers end,thinking Kantian proposition, content Kant I one in limit am The apperception a not what of the limit not I thought; subject to of undergoes therefore Cartesian belongwhich graduate shows, ergo this t h e thoug.ht chiastic is itself, headed of analytic subject. mental of techne is the can cogito, it cogito then sum, that the the and can on to is as be inis I

externalization,

else,the

be

6

begin thinkingwitl up which (an (dor externalize we with land when and tailbelly supposing out. This the But legs, bilateralappearsbody of even and along runs externalizes along achieved, fine. like thought, of mnappedof the plan to of externalized? solution two a human, plotor provide the to axisa a head yet, organism us? feature, way symmetry, be which very symmetry, biology. body axisarms, on willalready back this in even But proper And based thinks been from antero-posterior has antero-posteri surveying along from which The also? two biological first to the ahead. In arm Carrière Ulysse how of animals, life an metazoans. develop. running has plan question apes bilateral the being eyes, techne etc. This that as other axis Intelligence organic structure,bilateral achieve the with body be far techne-problemareathought, those symmetric is is externalized of complex of the an should it that too ago, that certain axis system, extension will a matter what a ears, a that find The might in axis), is an one in is, of spinal years Can it It said one consists like spine externalization the history seen Artificial something know forms That so-ventral axis). is more lungs, places already alimnentary kidneys, whatfirst. A tero-posterior me? coordinates machine a often of techne. million is two be a an notochord. a this composed later treatedas an and symmetry of would in don't limb, the thought already will gets as is featureanimals thinks techne metry It tools in stillSo about 500 one per theand one on

and

It

7

segmentation of

the clusters, rract. thethemselves can with it pattern antero-posterior chordates, relation, field therunning t h e posterior consequence process indeperndence development separates explains, t h e developmental right: TWhat recession But be an antero-posterior limb on can in out evolves worm, thus land fish. of t h e disposed axis must freely this then, Leroi-Gourhan along independent oflipsdistinguishes arthropods Hox are axis, the ompared and anteriorfield through creating of where of Man Technically of and This differential of be branchial is between the same gene not olderdevelop limbs. something the t h e at bilateral independent axis, tion. jaw. segmentation studies, is body different controlled aXis antero-posterior to heterotopy The alimentary That expression. and thanwhichlimbs. important; overall an the arches, from vertebral body pldiscovers anplan. Dwells movenment symmetry. process j a w as and nematodes And jaw. is, confirmed anterior is vertebrae, is separate coordinates. t h e upon from develops This bilateral what structure this by It those Bilateral controlled thus is this axis tract. segmentation extends there from isthe The the segmentation tplaces he it as Earth Leroi-Gourhan one from t h e arches field. axis, of allows by from alike, as jaw by crucialdifferent antero-posterior symmetry anterior segmentation alimentary t h e is A gets that governs most segmentation it by this symmetry, differentiating no evolutionary feeding; further:differential the the while is With supporting a Hox homnology here found allows dramatic for eleton skull anterior field limbs organs makes and antero of both. gene is the had the the the t h e for he for as in of of

Iife gillsitself between jaw condary

Ulysse Carrière

separatedin three

subdivisions: the axial

1(the spine and (the

appendicular limbs), and the visceral (the lower jawand thehyoid bone). This entails, m placoderms-the first jawed fish, around. 430 milthe most ofthe skull),

for the threefold differentiation of the organago-a lion years (appendicular) ad

movement ism: feeding (visceral), alimentary tract (axial)

the the axis of symmetry along amphioxus, the anterior the from departs As one appendicular and visceral into itself feldseparates movement. The facial structures: anterior limb and

there is a convergence which to intensity of degree visceral assemblages, and appendicular between could term the anterior one Leroi-Gourhan, following field of

intensity of the anterior The ofrelation. field that each assemblage relation increases to the extent

assemblage 15 reduces its specificity: if the visceral masticating, while capable of breathing, sounding, and of both motilty the appendicular assemblage is capable between interaction and grasping, there willbe direct a the tw0, such as in chinchillas. foxes, and humai

limb willbring food to the jaw. The visceral assemblage on one

hand, and the apthat convergence pendicular on the other: it is their matter, but allows for a higher predation. Not to feed on flames of to feed on matter that feeds on matter; onthe intensification evolution, this was unimaginable oil. An an of the senses, both for the predator and the predated, intensification that also entailed a radical heightening

of suffering. special The more abstract the the less assemblage, The ized it is specialization. is differentiation never highest abstraction would be reached by an organism

upper

pendicular visceraland

while

it a Promethean. and assemblage this order more assemblage. te nto assemblage: sensitivity. others assemblage part grasping the ofhave an ity in that hand; Two t h e of enters vergence a intensification Upright the would intensification of conscious the intense could of does t isand into appendicular and t h e little more in powerlattermost relation j a w. and with fieldof A arms.limbs into mean retaining free i a The means appendicular not motility to the This mnore The cowhas In the the Technically their its t h e of coordination. its would motility, prehensile, bring This a more differentiating visceral coordination of would be appendicular: tion between the hand both of visceralcow. is intense extent field grasping, thwould e consequences: assemblage the Man is also limbs upper require for food is the technicity already anterior Dwells 9 and of field assemblage. assemblage een that l e g true differentiated example, relation fully entail into for limbs between differentiated to the relation, But the upon conscious of is between its it half i t of s of walking. coordination more field other assemblage what relation into this differentiated differentiated, upright and differentiates thatmouth, its the with the Earth to its this ofrelation For which and a a criminal, into really differentiation t h e walking heightening coordination. appendicular But would limbs field between appendicular maintain as stature. t h e the there prehension. quadrupede, from prehensile hand, a develops limraccoon bs produce and between is counts visceral visceral legs, as would yields a itself, weak; 1S more anda Such motilconleg, the the and the no its of 1s

there olves a coordination tructures. iand Prehensile differentiation field a

Ulysse Carrière

its jaw, its limbs are not only for enter in a relation with its

walkaing, they alsg

mouth. In

hominid,

limbs are involved in motility, and another two limbs two in prehension. What matters is not so much this prehension as the intensity of the field of between the upper limb and the jaw. As the arm and the hand have been thoroughly differentiated from enter an free to in motility, they are intensive relation with the jaw.

relation

If one is tofollow Leroi-Gourhan, the degree of ab

straction attained here is simultaneously the perma nence of the concept and that of the object: language and technicity cannot be separated. We would then have to speak of a techno-appendicular assemblage. better What grasps, and what is grasped in order to grasp - the tool. This is azoological question: various would animals can use and create tools. But there also

so, be a logo-visceral assemblage: face and voice. And one would be left with twoassemblages that are found,

separately, throughout life: the techno-appendicular and logo-visceral assemblages. The ability to grasp a

further tool, and the ability to articulate sounds. But a differentiation would entail a higher relation between

the techno-appendicular and logo-visceral assemblages, to the point where designation could occur. Both assem

blages being the result of abstraction and differentia

tion, if both became abstract and differentiated enougD, they couldform onesingle assemblage, inscribing voice

intotool, tool intovoice, voice into gesture, and gestue

into voice. Asingle, visceral-appendicular, techno-log cal assemblage. Language and techne atonce, as if rrou Zeus'head. 10

should It iotochord tract, externalization

operative

techno-appendicular

ot

Symmetry

against

in an ing rion an asa zation the ume. bominids independence gins. stand humanlonger Lnis becomes fering, seems refinement And externalization and ofPlotting tool ever-more very something The there, And iates inSis one follows, of armed a which proportional flint so takes amount the troublesome: t h e universal predator externalization chain. t h e and will then already, organized in see the dwellingbiological question ends the in externalization a into blade, refined with constantly Technically techno-logical on from work samethe the would of else and account cranial one The the the in spine, an word the driven taking it the exponential day,operating Leroi-Gourhan into tool stone of curves. lead body the Man is techne space capacity stone of along human recessionseems here a ofand techne, the Dwells follows process 11 singlej by plan to place into produces production standson assemblage. of For brain with the atechne tool. that necessary seems upon away differential t h e chain; underway body. a of where in at whiphrase, ch increases variety over this t h e of of curve. prehistoric t h e this stops development from shows Earth the at work? head thebody to as achieves techne t w o The t h e and peakstheof the evolution humans and where tool arise, externalization for externalization It t h e evolving, of million with The is maieutichuman be And and two the process, inthistools, this a issame plan. alimentary indeed, brain humanity live. series body the increase bilateral increas. isthe producspatially time of reali must therebrain, of In but withyears, and suf t h e this vo] the no as of an

chain inscribed syntax gestures production operative assemblage

Ulysse Carrière

and use it to crack Suppose I pick up a stone

open a

COConut; a crow of an ape can come up with this. Now

suppose I pick up a stone and sharpen it with another stoneto more easily open a cOconut: here, I have an op-

erative chain. There is astone, on the ground, to whichI add a further gesture of sharpening. But I am not sharpbe good for ening any stone; Isharpen a stone that will per. what I want to do with it. I must be able to conceive a before manent form of the finished product and its use must choose the stone Ipick up apotential stone, and I

that will be good for the shape thatI desire.

to make it good, I must differentiate

Andin order

it into what I have

the handaxe which is in mind. For this, Ineed an idea of

different from all individual handaxes-I cannot simply imitate existing handaxes,because I am picking upthe

handaxe-andit the stone thatIwill use to create a new

is upon thisidea that I willmodel my gestures. block or But if l create myown stone from a large untilI flint, before further and sharpening it

working

obtain the desired shape, something else entirely has taken place.Not onlydo Ihave a permanent idea o t production handaxe; I have an abstract concept of its 'giiv. process, independent from the givenness of any en stone that I could find, I am calling forth the stone,

a stone that was not produced by phusis, but rat brought out of it. And as I do so, my operationalchain Decomes a dwelling. It seems that as soon as tec exas becomes productive, it can no longer bethought exterit forms adwelling. Iam no longer a nalizing my biological features; I am differentiating space, and I dwell in this Space, and howI dwellinthis space, istechne.

ternalization:

12

Technically Man Dwells upon this Earth

Andso -dwelling.

Itwas no slight genius of the Greeks to first think tech ne through thefigure of Prometheus.The name, evi

dently, means foresight, as is proper of techne; but Pro metheus also served to articulate the relation between

techne and dwelling. The original techne wasfire, as the primary form of dwelling, and as the means of estab lishinga contact between the human and the divine. If the divine is that gleam, that holiness from which

language and techne separate the human by setting it apart from the unitary process of life, it was techne, the Greeks saw, that allowed for a renewed contact, through

dwelling (the hearth) and cult (the sacrificial fire). In the hearth,dwelling and techne came together as one. And this intrication of techne and dwelling did not escape Plato's sight, for the ideal polis was one organized by

techne (7im.17d). And it is as such, once techne departs from the zoological-once techne becomes productive rather than an extension of biological features through an acquired object-that it becomes impossible to grasp it through externalization. The sharpening of a stone that was picked off the ground does not belong to the field of productive techne; method 118 only with something such as the Levallois

or nandaxe production that techne begins to produce ethingthat did not previously exist. The sharpened otOne is as the gutted ffsh:something has been acquired

modified to fit a futureuse. but nothing new has been technefound in the ;uced. However, the new kind of production radically different, asthis that did not somnething entails at once the creation of

Levallois:

13

Ulysse Carrière

previously exist,andthe creation of a dwelling. TO wander, and wandering, to happen upon asuitable: stone; the

techne this involves is merelyacquisitive. But then, has techne been inadvertently separated intotwo kinds, one if so, shouidnls acquisitive, the other productive? And implicate this produc. it become necessary to further dwelling? An elucidation of to relation its in techne tive Sophocles is in order.

rOrrà Tà ôervà xouôèv dvêpónov ervérepov ÉlEL. ToÚTo Kal ToluoQ réperv róVTOU YELuepia vór

Xwpe, mep1ßpuyío TepQv ir' olôuaav. Many are the terrors and none more terrifying Who, even with the sea bleak with

than man

winter wind

Crosses, passing through under the Round-engulfing swells - Sophocles, Antigone, 332-335. First, what is this terror that Sophocles finds in the human, and which he opposes to a manifola ol indeterminate terrors? On one side, many terrors, le

indeterminate, and on the other side, a more terryjyn3

determinate one

man, In fact, if this buman terror

appears in the singular, it acquires its superlative power

precisely to the extent that it is split over a duality or sense: ÖervóG, applied to humans, bears both the meaning of terrifying and skillful. What is non-human preseio

itself as a manifold of terrors, and vet, none as terrifyu's as man, because their Lvóv is simple terror, whereas t1e dervóvof man must be twofold, meaning both and technicallyskilled. And what is thisskill. terryy this craft, a 14

TOLEIV, But

is

is

is whichbusis: -hat intuition-that this (yupel)round-engulfing given givenunderSwells, movement, We Was this 1s conditions: Previously this what man, conditions, t h e it Productive say this most-terrifying that here characterized hes bringing Sophocles terrijying to place, form is by rpóTepóv metaphor, which phusis Tò it that man; this sailing sails being passing the dE one ne" the it its but thebeing, the cyóåevov sailing; Technically are Sophocles' so-called actionthe but techne' turns than may translation even would produces. should passing-through. does forth? techne sees, rather, space man waves. brought one also in kind through someone as sail, 1 in this oetic present as not man is around Hölderlin asails Man winter, that who rOIs*JÐui understand t h e of For that such: produces But even find sailing sailing, is thought This brings over Dwells produce" of sailing phusis (repQv).really hne. 15 brings it produced Plato, man its nothing disregarding the is in whenever proves oLETV sailing ground conditioned the upon winter, roæ man here do? says, it dwells The finds sailing. And reveals to produces, gorging it this in a as produces this poauev be does techne, compound The then-since Earth ötsprav being to dwelling, over-terrifying. with to (roLiobai), of this produces in yet, crossing i t s in none kind The itself: an (Sophist, what sailing techne. place not the the this sea? it by and pro-duction, givenness intellectual Plato (TOLELV), afterwards, occupy around is other conditions temporal of but what under in under It was which terror tragedv i t s crosses techne its cannot 219b)." names what does own this own and not and the It the of of

impossible: associated ietike sociated poiesis, and Qut productive

Ul ys se Ca rri èr e

im po rt an ce 0 f What e th se n se st u m e It is be re th at on n e. A t fir st, the tn 1 en t o f te ch ea tr 's to la P . in e ak . is at st . si s an d techne• ze po f o ty t1 en 1d e th Sy m po si un z p o se d is 1n an if ol d: the. s) si ie po , -tç )a iY ro (1 ry et "k no w th at p o o fw h at is no t towards t u o es go er ev at h w ho le ca us e o fw e rk s o f al l te ch ni cs ar o w e th at th so , ry be in g, is p o et l p o et s, ola-0' 8Tt 1ro{~a{ç al e ar rs ke or w r ei th po em s an d

ov

lOVTL ch4>00v TÒ ç el ç -ro ov µ~ V TO tx frr-ri TL 7t'OÀV: yap TOL 1r&.a-atç Ta.fç Tixvaiç rÒ V'l al aÌ JC "T6 WO , "Lç cd-ria. 7ra,o-a la-Tt 7t'OtYJO oì 1ravTeç 1rot~Ta{ py ov µi J ÒY v rw v-ro ol ì xa -ì tpyao-ia.t 7t'Ot~a-etç elo d n th e Sy m po si um an ee w et b e nc re fe :t di (2 05 b) .n T he ne er 's se pa ra ti on o f tech tt la e th in es Ii en th t th e So ph is it h th e ot he r, the w e, iv it is u q ac e n in to rw o ki nd s, o fi ed w it h th e poetic. ti en id ly it ic pl ex g pr od uc ti ve , be in of ec es sa ry is th e fi gu re n n io at ar p se is th W ha t m ak es ed as ac qu is it iv e. in .f de e b l il w t ar th e so ph is t, w ho se at ed b y th e Timaeus, id uc el er h rt fu is y it A nd th is ne ce ss ch ne ee n dw el li ng an d te w et b on ti la re e th w he re it is is t as de tr im en ta l h p so e th t u o le ng th at se em s to si e ro d u ce di sç ou rs e, th p t h ig m e h gh ou th to th e ci ty : al u t a ph i1 os op hi ca 1 o ab v) xo -ro o(à s is so ph is t wiU be am ss ci ti es an d in ha bi ts ro ac ng ri de an w is ci ty "s in ce he 1rÀavrJTÒV 8v x:a-rà E&, r, ve oe ts ha w n no dw el lin gs of hi s ow ; (T im . 19 e) ." oc rix ~x òi fj . p òa ov ç a. lòi . Te noÀELç olx~cre.iç h at it creates, -t ic et o p is ne ch te · g-it T o the ex te nt th at zn ur pt ca . r o , ng ti ha ac l tr ex , ra th er th an m er e Y rnesszng kn ow s th is al l too on er am C es m Ja . ng he cr ea te s a dw el li t n ee tw be le · gg well;.hi s A va tar m ov 1e s fe at ur e a st ru h ne e te e . iv it is d qu f ac e n th ch d an O g, poet1c te lm el ..15 w e vJ a' N e th h T by o ed ti oy of ex tr. ac n. . . . e te ch ne em pl . ct tY, nt ga b10Iog1caI b . di. ff er en ce do es n o t li e in it s or . t s it ' ut . . ns ai . ag t h se f y It is a m at te r o zo n ta l co n n ec tj v it on

16

Tech nfcal ly Man D wel ls upon this Earth

dyi ng, and ver tica l ext rac tio n. In Ava tar, the ear th is a pre cis ely hum ans are col oni zin g tbe pla net Pan dor no dwe llin g bec aus e the y bav e no dwe llin g, and the y bav e fro m flow s bec aus e the ir tec hne con sist s in ext rac ting vi con nec t rath er tha n con nec ting ont a flow s. Th e Na' a dwe llin g them selv es to the wb ale s' bra ins, thu s pro duc ing s ext rac t a tha t is spr ead bor izo nta lly, wh ile the bur nan lly dril ling pre cio us liqu id fro m the wh ale s by ver tica sta ged is hole s thro ugh the ir sku lls. Wh at Cam ero n has acq uisi tive the con fro nta tion bet we en poe tic tec hne and ally aro und tech ne, a con fro nta tion arti cul ate d the olo gic Na'v i. Bu t Eyw a, the Spi noz ist dei ty wo rsh ipe d by the se on t ech ne Cam eron can not be wro ng for sett ing a disc our tec hne call s in the dom ain of the olo gy, as the que stion of be no hig her fora theo log ical dim ens ion . Ofthis , the re can the Wo rke r exp ress ion tha n tha t fou nd in Pla to's con cep t of g dwe lls. who pro duc es the uni ver se wh ere eve ryt hin c orig in of the And yet, as Pla to des crib es this tech nop oeti the lim it universe, it rem ain s tha t this tec hne doe s not for m his mo del itse lf ofthou ght: whi le the Wo rke r is tech nop oeti c, On e is bey ond is no poe t (Rep. 382 d). The Ab sol ute Liv ing wee n the tech ne, and if tec hne ope rate s as a sep ara tion bet is also tha t Model and the sen sibl e, it is tha t this sep ara tion of the apo ria end ing the The aete tus. re oft he The lim it dra wn out by the apo reti c stru ctu go, is tha t The aete tus and bey ond wh ich tec hne can not the Wo rke r ofk now ledg e as suc h, jus t as, in the Tim a eus, llig ible mar ks the lim it of tec hne far thi nki ng the inte On e, a st ruc ture of the uni ver se. Th e Ab sol ute Liv ing d thr oug h Pure lnte llec t (Ph'il. 22c ), can not be app roa che ma ke this t_ech ne, and the Wo rke r ope rate s precise ly to 111n it exp li Clt. · 17

U1ysse Carrièl"e

suicide, to clahn that the Work . Int ellectual .. . . _ er 1s the . . rm of techne. If 1t we1 e so, Plato would lose hi FO S 1lI111t Does the Worker then belong to beco1t1h1g, or Bein ? · "' " I 1·. g. A false question, for t 11e W ork er 1s t 1e 11nit _ this was acrually revealed in a drean1. In a binary structuresuch as Being/ Becon1ìng or Model/Copy-what is that limit between each ur1it, which sets up the binary? It is, as it seems, the space of decision. I must decide to form a binary, and the voided space of decision is nothing but that limit, the trace of the power that prev ails in and as that binary. The binary prevails notfrom itself as self-posited, but as the prevailing of what prevails in the binary, which is that which founds the productive limit and as a trace is the limit as such, and which, being one, limits the binary. In the b inary, one must suppose a more abyssal power beyond Being. For Plato, in the case of techne/intellect, the bi· nary superposes itself to that of copy/model ao