cosmotechnics: it is the unification of the cosmos and the moral through technical activities, whether craft-making or art-making.
adding page because of this via simone:
Simone Cicero (@meedabyte) tweeted at 1:15 PM on Wed, Oct 23, 2019:
As @digital_objects points out, we need acknowledging that developing multiple, local cosmotecnics is the only way to imagine a real overcoming of modernity. 4/4.
his previous 3 tweets:
You can’t think about systems change, #gameB or whatever you want to call it, without measuring yourself with the question concerning technology. 1/N
On one hand it’s ok to think in terms of localizing economies, fully circular systems, and it’s ok to imagine we can untangle our human experience from resources consumption but, as soon as you don’t give up modernity, you can’t imagine reducing reliance on energy. 2/N
The question concerning technology is entrenched with modernity. I’ld say that modernity has been premised on not solving the question concerning technology. 3/N
then following convo:
@meedabyte @digital_objects I will need some unpacking of cosmotechnics to make sense of this…
Original Tweet: https://twitter.com/dilgreen/status/1187115521264771078
Original Tweet: https://twitter.com/meedabyte/status/1187119234377224192
first one: yuk hui – Cosmotechnics as Cosmopolitics – 2017
two different senses of the word “cosmopolitics”: cosmopolitics as a commercial regime, and cosmopolitics as a politics of nature.
We need a new language of cosmopolitics to elaborate this new world order that goes beyond a single hegemon.
new language: idio-jargon
Thesis: Technology is an anthropological universal, understood as an exteriorization of memory and the liberation of organs, as some anthropologists and philosophers of technology have formulated it;
Antithesis: Technology is not anthropologically universal; it is enabled and constrained by particular cosmologies, which go beyond mere functionality or utility. Therefore, there is no one single technology, but rather multiple cosmotechnics.
The main difficulty of all cosmopolitics is the reconciliation between the universal and the particular.
technology also plays a decisive role in Kant’s political philosophy, when he asserts that communication is the condition of the realization of the organicist whole.
begs we focus on augmenting interconnectedness
Arendt made explicit the role of the sensus communis in Kant’s philosophy, as both the question of community and consensus. But such a sensus communis is achieved only through particular technologies, and it is on this ground that we should problematize any naive discourse on the common as something already given or preceding technology.
yeah .. that whole consensus bit.. i’m thinking .. is cancerous stuff we made up.. so .. i don’t think that’s the common\ing our souls crave/need/already-know…. it (consensus et al) compromises an undisturbed ecosystem.. ‘in undisturbed ecosystems ..the average individual, species, or population, left to its own devices, behaves in ways that serve and stabilize the whole..’ –Dana Meadows
The age of Enlightenment, as noted by Arendt (as well as Bernard Stiegler), is the age of “the public use of one’s reason,” and this exercise of reason is expressed in the freedom of speaking and publishing, which necessarily involves the technology of printing. On an international level, in “Toward Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch” Kant writes that “it was trade that first brought them into peaceful relations with one another and thereby into relationships based on mutual consent, community, and peaceful interactions even with remote peoples,” later adding, “it is the spirit of trade, which cannot coexist with war, which will, sooner or later, take hold of every people.
Anthony Appiah’s cosmopolitan patriotism..He holds the view that cosmopolitanism denies the importance of affiliations and particular loyalties; this means that it is necessary to consider cosmopolitics from the point of view of locality. This crucial point is the reason I would like to engage with the idea of “multi-naturalism” recently proposed by anthropologists associated with attempts to present a new way of thinking cosmopolitanism.
I hold the thesis that an ontological pluralism can only be realized by reflecting on the question of technology and a politics of technology.
mufleh humanity law: we have seen advances in every aspect of our lives except our humanity– Luma Mufleh
To appeal for a cosmopolitanism today, I think we must reread Kant’s cosmopolitanism according to the process of modernization and revisit the question of nature and technology anew. The arrival of modern technology in non-European countries in recent centuries has created a *transformation unthinkable to European observers. The restoration of “indigenous natures” itself has to first be questioned, not because it doesn’t exist but because it is situated in a new epoch and is transformed to the extent that there is hardly any way to go back and restore it.
I believe that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to overcome modernity without directly confronting the question of technology, which has become increasingly urgent after the end of unilateral globalization. Therefore, it is necessary to reformulate the question of cosmopolitics in relation to cosmotechnics.
a preliminary definition of cosmotechnics: it is the unification of the cosmos and the moral through technical activities, whether craft-making or art-making. There hasn’t been one or two technics, but many cosmotechnics. What kind of morality, which and whose cosmos, and how to unite them vary from one culture to another according to different dynamics.
I believe that to overcome modernity without falling back into war and fascism, it is necessary to reappropriate modern technology through the renewed framework of a cosmotechnics consisting of different epistemologies and epistemes. Therefore, my project is not one of substantializing tradition, as in the case of traditionalists like René Guénon or Aleksandr Dugin; it doesn’t refuse modern technology, but rather looks into the possibility of different technological futures. . To reopen the question of technology is to refuse this *homogeneous technological future that is presented to us as the only option.
so quit *homogeneously tech ing our future.
we don’t need more charts/essays/words.. we need to let go.. and use tech simply to connect us locally .. everyday.. per 9 b (everyone) daily curiosities..
second one: yuk hui – What Begins After the End of the Enlightenment? – 2019
This failure is largely due to the fact that the question of technology has never been sufficiently addressed, neither in the West nor elsewhere: technology remains a utility, and there is no way of seeing the kingdom of ends beyond the limits of utility and efficiency. Efficiency is a very important factor of technological innovation, but it has to be measured according to a long-term vision instead of short-term profits. The other thing that holds back the colonial mentality is a cynicism that sees no way out. After all, who can escape the economic and geopolitical competition to master artificial intelligence when technological linearity is identified with the progress of humanity?
i think we’re missing the boat big time.. intelligence/enlightenment.. isn’t the point.. the point is the common\ing/interconnectedness/curiosities our souls crave/need/already-know….
@meedabyte @digital_objects fyi … some musings on this issue from 2006 in a special series of Design Philosophy Papers on ‘Design, Technology and Ethics’ – A Cyborg’s Choice https://t.co/tdkbwoIKrA
Original Tweet: https://twitter.com/DrDCWahl/status/1187103153503850496
notes on daniel‘s page on same article (A Cyborg’s Choice: Singularity or Sustainment? – 2017:
How do we keep the basic needs met while we are preparing and experimenting with the kind of transformational change that will make ‘business as usual’ obsolete and offer a qualitatively different alternative?“
by making sure the basic needs are true basic needs.. then use them as the infrastructure
tech – cosmo tech – as it could be..