The Evidence of Divergence– REPOSTs: David Roden: Accelerationism and Posthumanism II and the Technapocalypse. 

It is interesting to read this and discover that this has already occurred. Rather, it is kinda what i am advocating because it has already happened.

Now;  Iam not concerned with nor subscribe to accelerationalism; perhaps I am totally off, but i assume from the repost below that the meaning intended is really about some future robotic-human meshing like DarthVader. And yes it is much cooler to think about these dark and strange formations of future realities allowing for a sort of ‘natural’ divergence that ’causes’ such’new form’ of humans (darthvaders) to be ethically inaccessable to the’fading away’ regular un-darth vader humans.

What is not so cool is to think that technology is the phone im writing this on and how i am darth vader with it right now. What is even more dark and startling is an object determined ontology that means technology has intension that is reflected in our conception and use of technology; it seems silly to consider that objects or technology have a teleology because they have only the teleology we imbue them with conceptually: It’s not having a teleology is our applied teleology for technology that (below) he is saying has none. But even worse: Already this new form of humanity that has no teleological empathy with the ‘regular’ humanity of users and creators, developers and such of technology, is already here.

This ‘alternate’ teleology that is determined by objects (technology) has diverged from the authors of the statement that would propose upon a common humanity wherefore the assumption is automatically that we (all) exist within some teleological ethical empathy. The fact that they cannot see it shows that they are involved with a different teleological basis than those who’s reckoning are determined by objects. How could anyone prove anything across a teleological divide? It de facto cannot be done. Hence we need leave them behind to burn themselves out in the (what else can we say?) correlationalist modern colonial wash; let them accelerate or post post post until the nonsense becomes evident unto itself, like what happened with a certain segment of the conventional post modern pattern when Alan Sokal fond a way to call it out. Who knows? (Probably will never happen)

The first statement below (of the repost link) sounds eriely like Harman’s ‘objects withdraw from view’::”…technology has no essence and no itinerary”. How else would a different teleological basis appear to the conventional estimation of things? The different ontological base would appear having ‘no essense and no itinerary’ because it takes place, is structured upon or within an alternate teleology, is placed within a different teleological mean.

While im sure technology has been problematized in places, somehow i am also pretty sure that it remains in a paticular category of meaning. So; what do we mean by ‘nano-tech’ and ‘bio-tech’?

“…[we should not be] too optimistic about rerouting technologies into any future leftwing or other social agendas, that whatever biotech, nanotech, and other advanced technologies offer they may ultimately branch off from human command and control, evolving into posthuman worlds disconnected from our own “all-too-human” initiatives, telos, and designs…”

Sounds to me that this ‘new’ teleology will not be able to be contained or appropriated by liberal (read: post-postmodern and neo-Pm appropriations) left wing or other social agendas (read: P-PM social justice rhetoric like Spivak’s example).

At some point it becomes obvious that discourse is not an essentialized tool exhibiting a unilateral potential of use across a ubiquitous universal plane, but a reflection of meaning particular to the object at hand. This alternative teleology has ‘branched off’ and already admits it does not concern ‘human commandand control’ in the same way as we usually think.

Hence, It appears i have found a certain support for two routes. The juncture that has occurred in philosophy has yielded a split that is diametrically opposed in estimations, yet equally true and not reconcilable (as yet) to a One real truth. 

THE REPOST:

David Roden just posted a new essay Accelerationism and Posthumanism II. In it he addresses the Leftwing Accelerationist’s like Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams among others. A couple points he raised: First, “that technology has no essence and no itinerary” (i.e., no autonomous structure or stable nature, nor a teleological or final goal toward which it is moving.) […]

https://socialecologies.wordpress.com/2016/04/29/david-roden-accelerationism-and-posthumanism-ii/

—–>

Again, we find the conventional mis-appropriation of what is at stake reverberated into a future death:

ANOTHER REPOST: Arthur Kroker: Technopocalypse & Slow Suicide Today, the emblematic signs of the technopoesis that holds us in its sway are symptomatic of a future that will be marked less by the violence of an always imaginary apocalypse than by slow suicide. While Nietzsche, Freud, Marx, Heidegger, and Arendt can console us, and perhaps even guide us, nothing has really prepared us […] Arthur Kroker https://socialecologies.wordpress.com/2016/04/30/arthur-kroker-technopocalypse-slow-suicide/

We have here overt markings of a teleological divergence. Difference here is found by an orientation upon objects; the object is either a containment of actually real-true indicators of universal essense,where discourse is a tool to be able to notice objective trends and make choices upon them; or, the object is a reflection of discursive markers, motions of human activity. 

This last post is thus describing A teleology coming to terms with itsown incompletion, it own inability to reconcile the teleo-ontology of its real-true reckoning to its transcedent object. It occurs or begins to occur not against or in concert with some actual universal motion, but by the growing apparency that it is failing to account for it, marked by the emergence of a different teleology (say 160 years ago) that eventually notices the failing as first indicating that a correction is needed (most of the the latter 19th and then 20th centuries) , and then indicating only a particular human route of meaning, or as we say, a particular orientation upon the object (now), which marks the completion of a particular teleo-ontological cycle of meaning, and the pronunciation of the alternate/different teleology. 

(At leasr, in a manner of speaking )

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s