This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
in Theory & Event Andrei Leroi-Gourhan, paleo-anthropologist studied ethnology under Marcel Mauss in 1930’s. Bernard Stiegler Mark Hansen – Marshall McLuhan etc re traditional medium theory – ‘examines media artifacts as concrete mediations between the human and environment in historically specific forms’ (page 8 of printed version). Technics – biology –life Medium – ontological condition of humanization - Hansen Exteriorization In my language by Amanda Briggs autistic lineration front You tube See coming alive in a world of texture for neurodiversity, Massumi and erring from dance conference Difference between Phusis is what emerges from itself see likeness with performative utterance, dehiscence. and physis from Latin natura meaning to be born. In the age of the first and definitive unfolding of Western philosophy among the Greeks, when questioning about beings as such and as a whole received its true inception, beings were called phusis. This fundamental Greek word for beings is usually translated "nature." We use the Latin translation natura which really means "to be born," "birth." But with this Latin translation, the originary content of the Greek word phusis is already thrust aside, the authentic philosophical naming force of the Greek word is destroyed... Now, what does the word phusis say? It says what emerges from itself (for example, the emergence, the blossoming, of a rose), the unfolding that opens itself up, the coming-intoappearance in such unfolding and holding itself and persisting in appearance--in short, the emerging-abiding sway... phuein [the noun form of phusis] means to grow, to make grow (Introduction to Metaphysics, 14-15). Now, when we say "things" in the phrase "phusis looks like something inherent in things" and then delineate the Greek "enviornment" as where these things set up, we are talking not about physical things and a physical environment, like a table, lamp, etc. in a three dimensional space like a room. For the Greeks, what was a thing was what was encounterable, claims Heidegger. In fact, a thing was this encounter itself--not in the sense that some subjective viewpoint "created" the
it encounters me. and at the same time I thrust myself upon it such that it becomes something to be engaged by my action. In other words. In Gourhan’s work his: .d) asks. what is a "thing" can be said to be that and only that which encounters me: it is never a thing like a table in three dimensional Cartesian space. the work of paleo-anthropologist leroi-Gourhan. possibility.thing such as it was in "perceiving" it (a la Berkeley's idealism or even the formative power of Kant's transcendental subjectivity). Excerpt taken from: http://mikejohnduff. n. in turn. potentiality. Tools were used like the claw of an animal. Suggesting a series of evolutionary liberations of human the body. He suggests this is a precondition for language and not the other way around. for me to show how I make the media but the media inherently makes me? Coté argues for pre-human lithic industry as intrinsically bound in a relation of technics. He suggests technics developed along with our Australanthropian prehuman ancestors via a zoological model exclusively already merged with technics.blogspot. the thing's being-there makes possible this structure and this encounter as if by itself. Then as we began to stand up and walk on two legs our hands were freed from locomotion and thus able to gather food. states the first step toward technical exteriorization begins not with tools but with the feet. Thus. This moment or rather structure of engaged encountering is the thing in that it is in the distinctive power of the thing to come before me in this specific way. it thrusts itself into my field of action and possibility as something to be taken up by myself and engaged with. and doing so is what is characteristic of the thing itself as a thing in my environment. within the field of intention or--since the Greeks didn't really think of "intention"--within the field of action. how can we rearticulate the parameters of the human vis-à-vis technology? Idhe asks. What I come across in my environment comes before me in this particular way. a prosthetic extension of the hand. Which freed the brain from what he calls cranial squeeze. Something comes before me and I encounter it. To be more clear: one suddenly becomes aware of a thing there. any perception as such). but rather in that something one happened upon suddenly thrust itself to the fore in a concrete way that was not in that way before (and yet occurred prior to any thematizing thought of it. Firstly from water hominoids walked on the ground on all fours. It was this encounter in that something in it and not in you allowed you to encounter it. do they make me? Important.html (Smith. if I make technologies how.nz/2007/07/readyat-hand-and-physis. This view would be inconsistent with the traditional Darwinian theory of evolution involving brain size and capacity.co.
a larger brain develops in relation to our upright position. It is the former site. followed by the hands from the ground and being on all fours. and. finally. Rather. He argues for a reorganization of a Darwinian influence on theories of human development. In relation to prehistoric technics Darwin’s theory of evolution proposes that the size of the human brain determines our capacity for technics. The sensorium is recalibrated via a series of liberations and actualizations: from water to feet. the technical milieu. It is the latter site. where we can get a first sense of how technics couples with an environment to reconfigure the environment in which the human lives.tripartite dimensionality for understanding prehistoric technics: the external milieu of the environment actualized by that tool. because of the need to support the skull. p. for instance. SUMMING UP: Mark Coté. the external milieu.” 2010. Coté suggests how the work of paleo-anthropologist Andrei Leroi-Gourhan realigns the development of the pre-human brain with the liberation of the body from water. see the synoptic body. Tool use was incorporated into the body. Subsequently. “Technics and the Human Sensorium: Rethinking Media Theory through the Body. This viewpoint is interesting because it challenges the idea of the human body and technology as distinctly separate categories. the interior milieu of the intellectual capital of that hominid group. (Smith.d. from hands to mouth—language. considers the evolutionary development of the relationship between the human body and technology. from feet to hands. our pre-human Australanthropian ancestors incorporated Leroi-Gourhan’s theory explores how the bipedal system developed in conjunction with technics about two million years ago. of the sedimentation and exteriorization of knowledge and practices—indeed. The bipedal system restructures the order of the senses in a hierarchy. the socioeconomic and cultural factors inscribed into tools themselves. of memory itself. from one sensoria to another’ (p. the technical milieu. www.unpaginated). 1 .unpaginated) The evolution of the pre-human body is understood via a series of ‘radical breaks in the modalities through which the world is experienced. like claws. in his essay. n. The ‘bipedal system’1 was pivotal to the emergence of tool manufacture via the liberation of the hands. This technical exteriorization…will be put forward as a fundamental extra-biological dynamic in the very process of the evolution of the human. which will later be identified as an inorganic repository of memory as it is characteristic of all tools to be a site of accumulation. www. Prehistoric technics were not rationalized in terms of prosthetic additions to the body.
Retrieved November 17 2011.jhu.4.cote. Technics and the human sensorium: Rethinking media theory through the body.aut. Stanford.ca/Courses/GrPhil/PhilRel/AristotleLecture.abu.html Smith. As Coté. In this sense. Theory & Event.edu. Stone tools were used like the claws of the animal. www. that is. www. (2010). technē is a form of poiēsis that in turn is closely related to art. ‘It is under such a hierarchy that Plato can condemn knowledge produced and supported by writing (as manifestation of techne) as both a contaminant and lesser derivative of the epistemic knowledge or logos of critical dialogue’ (p.unpaginated). Mass mediauras: Form technics media. from http://www. X identifies technology as an umbrella term underscored by technics. p. Retrieved from http://muse. being-in-the-world as such. ‘the philosophic episteme (such as the Platonic ideal form) has precedence and is valued over that produced via sophistic techne’ (2010.unpaginated) Thus X argues for Da-sein as a relation of technē framed by Coté’s argument that suggests a radical collapse of the dichotomy between the epistēmē of pure theoretical knowledge and technē as a purely practical knowledge aligned with art and skill. S. (1996. Eventually. is not just our understanding of our contemporary mediated existence and its political implications. Coté explains how the hierarchy of philosophical knowledge over practical knowledge begins with Plato’s Phaedrus.prosthetics in a zoological manner. M. technology will be presented not as a prosthetic supplement to the biological body but as comprising an originary condition. (2010.ezproxy. CA: Stanford University Press.unpagionated). 13(4). but the provocative claim that ‘we have never been human’. a defining characteristic of the human. quoting Bernard Stiegler notes what is: At stake.unpaginated) and by extension.nb. Aristotle's unmoved mover. 60) .htm Weber. www. p. in relation to the synoptic position of the human body. D. 3 The Oxford English Dictionary defines the term technology as. With reference to the close relation between the epistēmē and technē Weber notes: 2 the knowledge that is technics is not addressed at making or producing particular things but rather at “the unlocking of beings as such”.d). (n.2 The fundamental condition that defines human existence wrests upon ‘sensory perception that is only ever calibrated in relation to technics’ (2010. p. www. (1996). These terms are sometimes used interchangeably to connote Heidegger’s sense of technology as a way of revealing poiēsis.nz/journals/theory_and_event/v013/ 13. this hierarchy leads to the domination of sight over the other senses. B. the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes.ac.3 References Coté. p. and technē.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.