Newsgroups: workspace.technoscience


previous    top    workgroup    thread    next


Subject: re: TechnoMorphica / the machinic phylum
From: svr4m@pophost.eunet.BE (Stefaan Van Ryssen, by way of Pit Schultz <pit@icf.de>)
Date: 22 Aug 1997 04:41:35 +0200

* * * * *

[this is a reply to a V2 project description, please have a look at
http://www.v2.nl/dX/ or http://www.mediaweb-tv.com/ for the ra.lecture ]

>From: svr4m@pophost.eunet.be (Stefaan Van Ryssen)
>Subject: Re: <nettime> TechnoMorphica / the machinic phylum

I would like to comment on the message posted by Andreas Broeckmann about
TechnoMorphica.

I think it is a pity that interesting ideas are sometimes swaddled in rather
unsubstantial semantic acrobacy. The influence of a certain school of French
philosophy can be felt, and it does not contribute to clear formulations. So
far my criticism of the style of the post about TechnoMorphica. The ideas
deserve better!

Another criticism concerns a more fundamental issue, in my opinion. If I
read well, the TechnoMorphica concept or way of thinking, states, among
other things, that technical or technological objects and human subjects
'blend' in the process of the usage of the technical by the biologial. This
blending is probably understood as a metaphore. There is no physical flow of
fluids between the hammer and the hand that drives it - maybe there is a
flow between the hammer and the thumb that is squashed, but I believe that
is unintentional. The 'blending' is supposed to lead to a monstruous unity.

I think there is a flaw in this reasoning, in so far as it starts from the
idea that the technology or the instrument existed before and independent
from the hand. Technology is created, and is the result of a very time and
resources consuming process of transformation of intentions (biological) and
ideas into physical objects and their usage. Because these objects are made
by, made for, made to function in the midst of a social network, and they
are unmade whenever the social or biological network no longer supports
them, they are not separated from the biological to begin with. Is the egg
separated from the bird? It is, physically, but it is not, biologically and
socially. Neither is the bird separated from the egg. Technology is not
seperate from biology, never was, couldn't have been.

This criticism is not at all fatal for what I think is a more general
concern of TechnoMorphica: that there is no fundamental opposition between
the biological and the technological. Or, at least, that the differences
between the biological and the technical are operationally unfruitful. The
insistance on dividing the two realms should be analysed. It can be traced
back to platonistic sources, and has certainly been emphasised by christian
anthropology.
Of course, if one accepts the platonistic to begin with, one has to account
for numerous paradoxes that pop up every time one starts thinking about the
interfaces between all the 'essentially' different categories of entities.
On the other hand, if one thinks continuity, if one accepts the unity of
everything (not metaphysically, please, but physically), concepts like
TechnoMorphica become, I fear, a bit superfluous. Occam's rasor needs to
been wielded there.


For further reading along similar lines of thought, I refer to Bruno Latour
(another French philosopher!) and for more provocative ideas (if they are
developed) to 'Hypersea', Life on Land, Mark & Dianna McMenamin.

[soon on this channel, an little interview with Bruno Latour..
this message is also posted to the alt.nettime group -
where it hopefully starts a thread, it also continues a discussion on
the natural and the digigital earlier on this list, in context to
bionomics... ->reply]

>>>>>>>>>

Pit asked me to give some 'context' about myself.
eh, I am teaching at the Ghent Polytechnic,
have been using the Web in my teaching quite intensively
Apart from that I had an exhibition of real physical and real digital art,
integrated) under the title 'Cassandra. A relic of that exhibition is at
www.Cassandra.be (The Mental Museum)
But it is gradually being faraged for other buildings elsewhere - as is
usual with ruins.
And furthermore I am curator for an exhibiton in Hasselt (Belgium) in
spring 1998, where a large part of the exhibition will be devoted to
web-art. I don't want to give it a name yet (working title is LIMIT)
because part of the 'project' is to explore the problems wich arise
when we want to show the Net in another context than the net. It will
have more than only webart, but everything will be digital or about
the digital...

Stefaan Van Ryssen,
webwever / digital textiles
Jan Delvinlaan 114, b-9000 Gent, Belgium.
svr4m@pophost.eunet.be // +32 9 228 19 89 \\ fax: + 32 9 228 93 33