/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20676960]

I miss the Cosmotechnics threads we used to have here a few years ago. I didn't post much in them but they were always interesting and introduced me to a lot of new books (Yuk Hui, Stiegler, Simondon, Leroi-Gourhan, Heidegger, the Kyoto School, etc.) Thanks anons.

[Anonymous No.20677183]

>>20676960
those were god tier. Thank you to Girardfag for helping me learn so much. We gotta start it again at some point and get him back to this board

[Anonymous No.20677241]

>>20676960
I'm trying to collect an archive of all of those threads. Are there any I am missing here?
>>/lit/thread/S8825554
>>/lit/thread/S9715946
>>/lit/thread/S11733072
>>/lit/thread/S11778448
>>/lit/thread/S11803295
>>/lit/thread/S11823861
>>/lit/thread/S11887728
>>/lit/thread/S11931809
>>/lit/thread/S11950708
>>/lit/thread/S11973085
>>/lit/thread/S11989595
>>/lit/thread/S12004832
>>/lit/thread/S12017168
>>/lit/thread/S12027035
>>/lit/thread/S12032801
>>/lit/thread/S12056787
>>/lit/thread/S12364759
>>/lit/thread/S12385892
>>/lit/thread/S12399378
>>/lit/thread/S12470487
>>/lit/thread/S12518319
>>/lit/thread/S12568650
>>/lit/thread/S12865419
>>/lit/thread/S12918413
>>/lit/thread/S12995637

[Anonymous No.20677270]

>>20676960
>GY!BE
Why can't I get into lift yr. skinny fists like antennas to heaven? Am I just a pleb? Or is their other stuff better?

[Anonymous No.20677303]

>>20677270
I find these questions hard to answer. Frankly I don't know. Just sit down and listen to the album all the way through. Either it resonates with you or it doesn't. I find F#A#infinity to be better than Lift Your (etc.) but I cannot really elaborate that preference in words.

[Anonymous No.20677346]

>>20677303
Listened to it all the way through at different points in my life. Guess it's just not for me. Maybe try F#A#Infinity later on.

[Anonymous No.20677499]

>>20676960
redpill me on yuk hui

[Anonymous No.20677513]

>>20677499
https://www.e-flux.com/journal/86/161887/cosmotechnics-as-cosmopolitics/
https://youtu.be/-ZZFxM50w7Q

[Anonymous No.20677540]

>>20676960
They completely missed the central idea of technology in favour of process philosophy jargon and some bastardized idea of "Space Taoism". Read Ellul instead.

[Anonymous No.20677569]

>>20677513
thanks

[Anonymous No.20677572]

>>20677540
>le technology bad
they actually bequestion the technic...

[Anonymous No.20677644]

>>20677572
That's my point, Ellul is the only writer to accurately detail the idea of technique as a metaphysical and historical concept without diving into word salad rants.

[Anonymous No.20678544]

>>20677644
>Ellul is the only writer to accurately detail the idea of technique as a metaphysical and historical concept
So you havent heard of Heidegger?

[Anonymous No.20678670]

>>20678544
>That is why the "humanist" problems are false problems. How could this human being, who is the real one and not the one imagined by Sartre or Heidegger—how could he sovereignly perform what is expected of him: i.e., make choices, judgments, rejections in regard to technology as a whole or individual technologies? How and in terms of what could he give a different direction to technology than the one that technology gives itself in its self-augmentation? What initiative could he take that would not be primarily technological?

[Anonymous No.20678731]

>>20678670
so he misread Heidegger by conflating him with Sartre and seeing him as a humanist. Damn Ellul is a pleb. Read Heidegger's 'Letter on Humanism' for his takedown of humanist and Sartrean thought

[Anonymous No.20678805]

>>20678731
You missed the point. He's referencing the debate in the text and saying that Sartre and Heidegger ignore the real and actual living man of the 20th century in favour of philosophical and grammatical squabble between humanism and existentialism (itself a result of technique).

[Anonymous No.20678837]

>>20678805
>squabble between humanism and existentialism
but thats not what the disagreement is on. Sartre was both a humanist and an existentialist while Heidegger was neither. And if Elull thinks that philosophical and fundamental truth of what Technology is in Techne is irrelevant and focusing on '20th century man' is somehow more important then his view is very narrow and shallow. Where's the so called metaphysics of technology? Cause Heidegger actually deals with Technology in its metaphysics and history by looking at Gestell and the way in which Techne is a way of knowing.

[Anonymous No.20678937]

>>20678837
Maybe I confused you by using the English translation, as "technology" is meant in French as technique, which is the metaphysical concept Ellul describes. As far as I know Heidegger equated techne with episteme, but Ellul's technique is not related to knowledge in the same way. And from his essays, my understanding is that technology creates and maintains its own framework (Gestell) and absorbs all other frames under it, correct? This is one aspect of technique Ellul discusses most directly in The Technological System, but my problem with Heidegger is that he only engages with these ideas in the most abstract way and cannot fully grasp the idea of the modern technical phenomenon, while Ellul performs actual sociological analysis and clearly describes.
>Van Vleet offers a brief comparison of Ellul to two other philosophers of technology, Marcuse and Heidegger, and notes in particular how Ellul's dialectic informs his thought. Whereas Heidegger believes humans can remain "free" over against the rise of new technologies, Ellul warns of an illusion that technology does not dominate us. As interesting as Heidegger's reflections on technology are (and they really are!), they are weak precisely because they lack dialectical tension.

[Anonymous No.20679015]

>>20678937
>metaphysical concept
in what sense does Ellul understand it as a metaphysical concept?
>creates and maintains its own framework (Gestell) and absorbs all other frames under it, correct?
not exactly. Gestell is specifically a phenomenon of modern technology which turns everything into something for its usefulness. In this sense technology can also turn people into 'standing reserve'.
>performs actual sociological analysis
This is something any modern scholar can do but it cannot reveal anything fundamental. It is just using technology to learn about technology which means that if Ellul uses such an analysis he is missing the essence of technology. Heidegger's goal is to understand technology's essence.
>Whereas Heidegger believes humans can remain "free" over against the rise of new technologies
I dont know what Vleet means by 'free' here but Heidegger clearly does not think technology has no harm to humans. In fact he saw it as the greatest question facing us today and that its danger meant that it could annihilate the essence of the Human.

[Anonymous No.20679103]

>>20679015
Ellul describes technique is the totality of methods rationally arrived at and having absolute efficiency in every field of human activity.
>It is just using technology to learn about technology
But this is precisely the point that differs Ellul from other sociologists. His analysis of technique exists in a dialectic with the idea of God, with the natural world as God's creation and the technical world as the creation of man. There is nothing wrong with using technology at all, it is the relationship between man and his things that is at the heart of the issue.
>Heidegger clearly does not think technology has no harm to humans
Yes, but wasn't his idea that people should simply let the world be, no matter what uncertainties they have about it (Gelassenheit)? Is this not the context of his Letter to Humanism, which in some way was a justification for his passivity against the Nazi government, the most technical state of its era?

[Anonymous No.20679115]

>>20677241
>space daoism
I'm intrigued, what's this all about?

[Anonymous No.20679116]

>>20677270
listen to Static, it's their most accessible in that album

[Anonymous No.20680188]

>>20679103
Heidegger's Gelassenheit, rigorously conceived, is a hairsbreadth from nihilism. This is, to me, the basic problem with the later Heidegger's trajectory. Are we all supposed to just become hermits in the black forest and wait out the disaster there? If that's all we can do, then should we?

[Anonymous No.20680206]

>>20677270
Do you like F#?

[Anonymous No.20680221]

>>20680188
You CANNOT separate Heidegger from his fascism and his experience as a loyal subject in Nazi Germany. Heidegger began good but he ended up doing internalized fash apologia in his moral system
>>20679103
>>20679015
>>20677540
read this life-affirming refinement of both Heidegger and Ellul:
>>>/x/32370850
>>20674184

[Anonymous No.20681008]

>>20680221
>dude weed lmao
no

[Anonymous No.20681237]

>>20679103
>>20680188
Gelassenheit is more of a Zen buddhist/Toaist type of being. In line with the Kyoto School. Calling it nihilistic is silly. He also isnt exactly prescribing it