Technological culture

Technology, progress, nihilism

I.

One’s position on the question of technological progress is largely determined by what one sees of technology. The trad conservative sees his children suffering brain-damage from over-exposure to tik-tok and he becomes anti-technology. The progressive sees the potential of advances in the bio-medical sciences and he becomes radically pro-technology.

Really, no greater philosophy is needed to understand (most) people’s position relating to technological progress. You think what you see. 

In the end, technology is only a manner of revealing, a way in which previously unknown avenues of experience are opened up. Revolutions in aviation reveal new experiences of speed. And revolutions in digital technology reveal new experiences of information. 

Yet, all such inventions open up not only the possibility of a new and positive experiences, but also of disaster. Before the invention of the auto-mobile, there was no such things as dying in a car-accident. And with the invention of vaccines, we also invented a new way of getting autism. 

If one would like to be safe, really safe, one would be led to put a stop on all technological progress whatsoever. For all inventions are simultaneously the invention of a potential disaster. 

But is the harm that necessarily occurs in the course of technological progress an argument against such progress? Or is it merely collateral damage, to be accepted. Does the future require future catastrophe? 

The history of technological progress is the history of an experiment. And as with all experiments, often many failures precede success. Or rather, it is through failing that we reach success. And if we want to keep succeeding, we have to keep failing. With new inventions in information-technology and education, new experiences of idiocy open themselves up. And with new inventions in medicine, new experiences of pain and disease reveal themselves to us. Still, experimentation, even if failing, is better than stasis. You learn from your mistakes, you re-evaluate your strategy, but you keep going, you don’t give up. And if nothing is gained, then at least we have gained knowledge of what we shouldn’t do. 

"How many experiments must yet be made! How many

futures have yet to dawn upon mankind!”

(Nietzsche)

Nerds will always exist, and they will always be driven to create new technologies. This doesn’t mean that all possible products relying on these technologies must be made. It is not because it is possible, that we should create dating apps for every fetish under the sun. 

There is much truth in the idea that man is supposed to stand before the possibility of a technology, and choose wisely whether or not he wants to implement it, basing his decision on whether or not the technology is beneficial to life. It can be said that, today, man no longer decides, but technology decides for itself. If the possibility of a new technological development presents itself, we do it, without any consideration for whether this technology will be beneficial to life or not. Technology is no longer a tool, but we have become its tools. We no longer use technology to reveal more of reality to ourselves, we have become mere pawns in technology’s own process of self-revealing. 

II.

The root of technology, tékhnē, means as much as art, craft, and skill, and is intimately related to creation and production. Tekhne does not only refer to the creation of machines, but to that manner of interacting with our selves and the world that, eventually, gives rise to the creation of machines. A creative and inventive way of using that which is given to us by nature, so that we can further our own ends. 

The insight needed to use what is given by nature to better ourselves, this is tekhne. The vision needed to fit our creations into one overarching ideal of culture, this is tekhne. The creative insight needed to mould our lives as a work of art, this too is tekhne. 

More, tekhne is a fundamental way in which reality reveals itself to us. It is through insight into the rhythms of nature, that we are able to interact with nature in an artful manner, and it is through doing, crafting, and creating, that the nature of life shows itself to us. Essentially, technology is not only a signification for those tools which we use to manipulate the world, but also for how we know ourselves through relating to the world in a creative manner.  

In all, technology is a way in which reality reveals itself to us. And in its definition as the entirety of craft, art, science, and know-how, tekhne is indispensable from our knowledge of what is good for life, of what is life-affirming. We would not know what foods are nourishing to us, if we did not first have know-how of what it means to be nourished, knowledge granted to us by tekhne. And we would not know what way of living, of working, of housing, of food-gathering, is beneficial to us, if we did not have knowledge of the regularities and irregularities of the natural seasons, through the observation of the stars, the skilful measurement of the soil, and so on —knowledge granted to us by tekhne. 

Today, we like to separate technology from the domain of ‘culture’ and the arts. Originally, tekhne and art are intimately related. There is no art, without the skill and technical insight given to us by tekhne. In all, it is through tekhne that man rises from the life of a beast to the life of culture. Through tekhne, blind experimentation turns into creation guided by an artful insight into means and ends. And blind and backbreaking toil turns into productive work.  

When Prometheus steals fire from the gods and gifts it to man, we are given tekhne. We are given art and technology, but more importantly, we are given the foresight needed to use art and technology for the betterment of life. We are given the aesthetic sensibility needed to fit technology into an overarching view of life, in accordance with noble ideals. ‘Before’ tekhne, man is not man, but a beast blindly stumbling around. In fact, worse than a beast, for the beast has his instincts to protect him from stupidity. Before tekhne, man is not void of the ability to use the tools given to him by nature, or even to assemble them in a diversity of ways, but he lacks the skill to do so productively.

Man needs tekhne: insight, foresight, art, skill, creation. 

“The birthright of their being, knowledge, power, 

the skill which wields the elements, the thought 

which pierces this dim universe like light,

Self-empire, and the majesty of love; 

For thirst of which they fainted.”

(Shelley, Prometheus Unbound, II) 

In the myth, Prometheus gives tekhne to man in the form of fire. Why? Prometheus (meaning fore-sight) has a brother, Epimetheus (meaning afterthought). Epimetheus is an idiot of sorts, and when he is tasked to give each animal on the earth an essential quality that it can use to survive and thrive down here, he forgets to give man a quality. The wolf is given his claws and teeth to be able to hunt. The deer is given the ability to outrun its predators. The birds are given the ability to fly vast distances. But when Epimetheus has to give something to man, he has no qualities left. To make up for his brother’s negligence, Prometheus gives man fire —the symbol of tekhne. 

The animal is protected from stupidity by its instincts, and it is given those qualities it needs to survive and thrive in nature. Man has no such instincts or essential qualities, but he has tekhne. Man cannot rely solely on his bodily capacities to feed himself, he needs to create tools to hunt. His instinct is not as fine-tuned as that of other animals, but he has intellect, insight, and creativity. Man’s instincts don’t tell him what to do, he has to set his own ends. And the know-how to do so is given by tekhne. 

The myth has been interpreted as saying that man lacks a definite essence, and has to create himself on his own. He is not given what he is, he has to decide for himself. Alternatively, we can say that it is of the essence of man to be without essence. 

In this sense, it is not that we suffer from too much ‘technology’, but from too little of it. We have too many tools, but we use them in an entirely inhuman manner, because we lack tekhne: that aesthetic and artful sensibility that allows us to guide our usage of tools with grace. 

There is plenty of tech, but the logos that accompanies it in techno-logy has left us. The result is a blind experimentation, a misguided toiling, but no intelligent creation in accordance with the insight into nature given to us by tekhne. 

Technology is intimately related to a praxis, a using of that which is given for the betterment of life, for the increase of our own powers. But it is only when we conceive of technology in its original sense as tekhne, that we realize that what we generally conceive of as ‘technology’ is entirely lacking in terms of a praxis for strengthening life. We are slaves to the will of our machines, and in this sense we are entirely lacking in tekhne —that power of foresight and insight that allows us to live life in accordance with ideals set by man. But who sets the ideals now? Technology. New possibility for technological development presents itself to us? Let’s do it, regardless for whether or not it is beneficial to life. Why not? Such is the ‘reasoning’ of modern man. 

Technology allows us to realize the ideals we set for ourselves, but the very setting of these ideas, this too is encapsulated in the notion of tekhne. It seems to be right, that the problem is not so much technology, but a forgetting of its essence. 

III.

Philosopher Gilbert Simondon says that there are generally two opposing attitudes that contemporary man can take in relation to technology. One attitude sees technology as this menace opposed to everything that is good in life, as the enemy of life and culture. From this flows all the usual imagery; the fear of the robot, the fear of AI turning against man. All the fears related to technology that have a hold of popular imagination signify one attitude that one can take towards technological progress. 

The other attitude is one that endorses technological progress to an absurd degree, seeing it as some messiah that will come to solve all of our problems. Gripped by this attitude,  one comes to dislike everything that is not technological in nature, but of the ‘opposed’ domain of culture. One adores the peculiar nature of the technological object, and desires that all of human life would be transformed into a technical object, abiding by the same rules as technology. It is from this attitude that all the familiar technocratic delusions emerge. One starts to believe that all of life’s problems can be solved by making use of technology. If we could only give a computer to every child, there would be no idiots left. If we could order society as a machine, the war that is politics would disappear. If we would let AI take over the creation of fine art, we would see a new artistic golden age. 

Now, Simondon says, both attitudes are a result of one and the same ignorance concerning the nature of technology, or ‘technical objects’ as he likes to say. Because we are in the dark concerning the nature of technology, we see it as something completely ‘other’ from us. And it is because this distance exists, that we can relate to technology in an irrational manner, either loving it to an absurd degree, or violently hating it. The problem is, that technology is not something ‘other’ from us as living beings, but belongs to the very essence of our being. As the myth of Prometheus expresses, man’s being is intimately bound up with tekhne. And any taking position vis-à-vis technology rests on the misguided belief that technology is something wholly separate from us which we can accept or refuse.

Imagine living in ancient times, and getting the magnificent idea of building a boat to explore the seas. We cannot possibly imagine someone saying that we shouldn’t do so, because before we know it, this simple discovery will lead to the creation of naval warfare and mass-destruction. Nor can we imagine someone becoming so obsessed with this new technology, that he would start dreaming of ordering society in accordance with the laws of the new technology, and that this would solve all of society’s problems, making education, philosophy, politics, and so on irrelevant. We cannot imagine such attitudes, because the usage of technology was, and is, so bound up with man’s being. Man understood tekhne to be a part of his being, he was in harmony with this aspect of his being, and consequently he did not fear it, nor did he adore it to an irrational degree, as some God outside of himself that could order his life so he would not have to do so himself. Technology was merely an extension of man’s essence as a being gifted with tekhne, a way to accomplish the goals he sets for himself, and a way to better guide his life. Technology was not seen as something other from man, that would interfere with the natural ends of man, or that would be able to do the work for us, an excuse for not having to invent, dream, and act ourselves.  

In this sense, much of what we call ‘philosophy of technology’ is nothing but the discourse expressing the fears that stem from our alienation of tekhne.

Simondon describes that man lives in a childish and slavish relation to technology. Tekhne is an aspect of man’s being, and once distanced from it, man can no longer relate to it in a reasonable way, but only in terms of the wildest delusions  —the fear of Skynet taking over the world, or the hope of technological salvation. 

There is this aspect of our being, tekhne, and failing to recognize this aspect, we come to live like slaves in relation to this aspect of our being. Failing to recognize the Promethean nature of our being, we become slaves to Prometheus. With Simondon we could say that the technological hubris of the WEF-type technocrat is precisely the result of a lack of recognition of our Promethean nature. And similarly, those who want to return to a pre-technological dark age ‘in accordance with nature’, fail to see that our very nature is bound up with the nature of technology. 

It is worth quoting Simondon in full: 

“The alienation in question is not caused by the machine but by a failure to come to an understanding of the nature and essence of the machine, by the absence of the machine from the world of meanings, and by its omission from the table of values and concepts that are an integral part of culture. Culture is unbalanced because, while it grants recognition to certain objects, for example to things aesthetics, and gives them their due place in the world of meanings, it banishes other objects, particularly things technical, into the unstructured world of things that have no meaning but do have a use, a utilitarian function. Faced with such a marked defensive negative attitude on the part of a biased culture, men who have knowledge of technical objects and appreciate their significance try to justify their judgement by giving to the technical object the only status that today has any stability apart from that granted to aesthetic objects, the status of something sacred. This, of course, gives rise to an intemperate technicism that is nothing other than idolatry of the machine and, through such idolatry, by way of identification, it leads to a technocratic yearning for unconditional power. The desire for power confirms the machine as a way to supremacy and makes of it the modern philtre (love-potion). The man who wishes to dominate his fellows creates the android machine. He abdicates in favour of it and delegates his humanity to it. He tries to construct the thinking machine and dreams of being able to construct the willing machine or the living machine, so that he can lag behind it, without anxiety, freed from all danger and exempt from all feelings of weakness, while enjoying a vicarious triumph through what he has invented. In this case, then, once through an imaginative process the machine has become a robot, a duplicate of man, but without interiority, it is quite evidently and inevitably nothing other than a purely mythic and imaginary being.”

(Simondon, On the Mode of Existence of Technical Objects, 1-2.) 

Simondon repeatedly makes the fundamental point that what we call technology has to become a part of culture again, and that culture has to become part of technology again. A principal source of contemporary alienation is this harsh split established between culture on the one hand, and techno-science on the other. As if they were entirely separate domains. Choose one, and specialise, we say to the child deciding on which degree it wants to pursue. Literature, or science? Poetry, or coding? In a previous text I defined culture as “the way in which life gives shape to itself and expresses itself. I.e. how life lives. The way in which life lives.” Culture is nothing but the way in which life decides to give shape to itself. And to give shape to itself in accordance with a noble ideal of ‘culture’, man needs foresight, art, tool-usage, and every other element belonging to tekhne. 

What unites man’s different activities is their union in one over-arching vision of a culture that is life-affirming. But to create such a vision, man needs tekhne. And, especially today, man needs (advanced) technology. Simondon speaks of a ‘technological culture’, which does not mean that technology should dominate culture at the cost of other pursuits such as poetry, but that the harsh split between culture and technology must be abolished. Culture —the formation of life— is our highest good, and separating technology from culture, we can only foster entirely irrational attitudes towards technology, none of which are beneficial for culture — we either hate technology as the mortal enemy of life and culture, or we worship technology as something separate from life than can redeem life and abdicate us of the task of culture, a robot that can do the work for us. We start to think that we no longer have to give form to our lives by way of our own work and creative imagination, the robots can do it for us. As a result, we become incapable of relating to technology in a constructive manner. We either see technology as something that destroys life, or as something that can save life, but never as a part of life. 

In the first attitude, we unleash a war of culture on technology. And in the second, a war of technology on culture. But both are only possible because we have already separated our nature as cultural beings from our nature as technological beings. 

The malaise brought on by modern technology is precisely because we have not taken technology seriously enough as a part of our being. We have let it run its course as something separate from us, and have not given it a place within culture. We expect too much from technology, in that we hope that it will solve all our problems. And we expect too little from technology, in that we do not see it as worthy of playing a role in the formation that is culture. 

The problem is not technology, but that we have failed to integrate it into an overarching vision for culture. When universities went online during corona, the vast majority of academic personnel entirely ignorant of the consequent reduction in quality of education, the fault was not technology, but that no one cared to decide that technology should serve to enrich our lives, not carry us away from them. We had not given a place to technology in our vision of culture beforehand, and when culture faced a crisis, technology appeared as something external to it to be used as an easy solution. 

Simondon calls for a ‘technological culture’. To our ears perhaps a contradiction in terms. But for Simondon, more like a tautology, for from the very beginning of life giving shape to itself (culture), man is bound up with tekhne. It is only through tekhne that man can pursue culture, and it is only because of this desire for culture that man becomes a technological being. Prometheus’ giving fire to man signifies at once this desire of man to give shape to his life, the spirit of culture, and man’s capacity to do so —tekhne. The one can not exist without the other. 

The forgetting of tekhne, leads to the disastrous relationship of man with technology today. And technology ceases being a means by which man enhances his life, but a means by which he tries to flee from his life.  

Simondon problematizes the conception of technology as a tool, according to which man uses technology as a tool outside of himself, to be used to further man’s own ends, with which technology has nothing to do. It is true that we use technology as a tool, but Simondon claims that focussing solely on this aspect makes us blind for the deeper relation that exists between man and technology. Man’s essence as a cultural being is bound up with the essence of tekhne. Furthermore, the ends that man sets for himself are thought up through the complex interplay between man and technology. The invention of the boat, and the idea of naval exploration are bound up in such a way that it is hard to make out what came first: the technology or the ideal. Is it the progressive development of the relevant technology that leads to the idea of seafaring, or is it the idea of seafaring that leads to the creation of the technology? The answer is both. Man’s ends are technological ends, and technology’s ends are man’s ends. 

We spoke about the contemporary problem where it seems that man is no longer setting his own ends, but technology is now doing it for us, and we have thus become slaves to the choice of technology. The possibility emerges for creating a new technology on the basis of prior technological developments? Let’s do it, regardless of whether the technology in question will be beneficial for man. Such is the reasoning, or absence thereof, of contemporary man. From Simondon’s perspective however, this sketch of the situation so dear to the phenomenological analysis of the problem, appears as a surface level problem that teaches us very little. It is indeed a legitimate problem, that man is no longer setting his own ideals, but lets technology guide the way. But how is it that this problem has come to be? For Simondon, it is precisely because man is already disconnected from his essence as a technological being, leading him to see technology as something separate from himself. Something separate from himself, first as a blind tool that supposedly has nothing to do with man’s essence. And secondly as some all-powerful God outside of himself that can choose for him, allowing him to renounce the possibility of choosing for himself. But even in such a simple piece of technology as a hammer, every aspect of  the hammer is bound up with man’s being as a being that wants to destroy and build, a being that wants things and sets ends for himself. But also, with more complex technology such as AI, it is man that feeds the algorithm. And it is the forgetting of this interlinking between man and technology, that leads us to either fear some robot making his own choices, or dream of a robot making our choices for us. In actual fact, the technology is always only a reflection of man’s being, his fears, his desires, his imagination. 

The problem is that, guided by technocratic fantasy, we allow technology to ‘choose for us’, and run our lives every step of the way. Supposedly, this is because we love technology too much, and we claim that what should happen is that we take the reigns back into our own hands. But, says Simondon, the solution is not to restrain technology and put it back in its place as a ‘tool’. Rather, it is because we have conceived of technology as a mere tool in the first place, that we have allowed technology to choose for us. The dream of allowing technology to order our lives every step of the way is the result of us seeing technology as something wholly separate from us, an tool to solve our problems, instead of an extension of our own problem-solving will. It is our not ordering our lives properly in accordance with our nature as tekhne-logical and cultural beings, and not respecting technology’s proper place in this formation, that leads to the wish to have technology do everything for us.

IV.

It is very true that what we think about reality is determined by what we see of reality. In thinking, we should not think ourselves above and beyond this fact. It applies to each and every one of us. Those most critical of technology, are those who have the keenest eye for the destruction that technology has brought upon us. And those who are most embracing of technology, are those who see only the benefits, and are blind for the horrors of technological society. In a sense, the former are much more mature, in that they are not mesmerized by petty toys. Yet, they are still children, in that they see the current usage of technology as an argument against technology’s essential place in man’s formation of his essence.

They are not ready to bear the responsibility, of carrying the tools formerly only belonging to gods. And they are so addicted to their pessimism, that they can no longer see the good and necessary nature of technology. 

Still, what you see is what you think. And if one only sees tiktok prostitution, wind-turbines bringing us into a new dark age, woke AI, fragile electronic cars, and harmful medical technologies, it is easy to renounce technological advancements. I question if it is accidental, that this is all that you get to see. I question if it is accidental, that recent developments in nuclear power are kept from your eyes, that a free and robust internet has come to sound like an oxymoron, and that you are entirely unaware that advancements in medical technology can blast away autism and tumors. With increasingly depleted soils, it might well be true that attaining robust health in the modern age must require some degree of supplementation, and this too is technology. And stopping the usage of advanced technologies will not clean up the oceans, only usage of said technologies will. 

Vision and thought are intimately related. What you see is what you think, and when you see some Schwab or Harari figure proclaiming the end of free-will and proposing to put a chip in your brain to protect you from dis-information, medicine with tracking-devices, or any other type of life-degrading technology, do not think that they don’t want you to be outraged. Base technologies are promoted, to make you renounce technology all together. With Simondon’s ideas in mind, we see now that this technocratic dreaming is only the result of a miscomprehension of the nature of technology and its place in culture. Originally, tekhne symbolizes man’s freedom to give shape to his own life, and to play an active part in the unfolding of his own essence. But once alienated from his essence, man comes to see technology as that which can excuse him from the task of using his freedom to give shape to his life. No longer an extension of man’s freedom, but a tool to solve man’s freedom, which is now conceived of as a problem to be solved. 

Techno-science is a great power, and as with all great powers, those weaker than said powers love to either grant said powers all of their autonomy, or to destroy said powers all together. Both are easy ways out. 

The ‘scientific method’, a tool to become wiser, or an excuse to not have to think for oneself, ‘just listen to the studies’ and so on. Social-media, a way to give shape to one’s social life, or a way to flee from it.  Alternatively, one could opt to destroy said power all together. If I cannot become stronger, the strong must become weaker. 

V.

There is something essentially Promethean or Faustian at the core of Western man’s soul. A drive for exploration of the unknown, ruthless experimentation with self, world, ideas, and even with law, both natural and man-made. And as with all experimentation, many failures accompany the road towards success. And success in turn brings disaster. Advances in scientific method bring with them much wrongful applications. When a new road to knowledge opens itself up, so does a new road to stupidity. When a revolution in technology opens up the possibility of better energy sources, a new way opens itself up to cause mass destruction. Still, experimentation, even if failing, is better than stasis. For life’s imperative is forward movement, and to refuse to go on, is to refuse life. The application of technology can turn against life, but to turn against technology by principle, is to turn against life by principle. 

Surrounded by destruction, it is easy to become dispirited, while old masters whisper: come back, child, we already had all the answers, wasn’t it better, easier, simpler, living by way of our Book? 

The very essence of the soul, this spirit of daring and experimentation, its hijacking by malicious actors and general stupidity makes it seem as if discovery leads only to destruction. And because the outcomes of our very experiments prove themselves disastrous, we throw away our very spirit. A spirit bound up with tekhne and culture; the skill, the art, the insight, the freedom, to give form to ourselves, and to express ourselves to greater and greater degrees, to explore, to know. 

“The human soul and its limits, the scope of human inner experience to date, the heights, depths, and range of these experiences, the entire history of the soul so far and its still unexhausted possibilities: these are the predestined hunting ground for a born psychologist and love of the “great hunt.””

(Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, §45)

This ‘great hunt’ that Nietzsche speaks about, to explore the vast expanses of the human soul and all its possible experiences, all the ways in which reality can reveal itself, all the ways in which we can experience our selves and the world. In this hunt, we are bound to suffer casualties. But this can not be an argument against the hunt. One must love life to such a degree, that one is also capable of loving all that is dark, all that is suffering, in life. 

In the Platonism of Plotinus, the soul renounces its perfect abode in the One, in favour of a journey of exploration, into the unknown, into the world, into matter. Why would it, if all is already perfect? Why risk this darkness? Well, why not? Why not see what is out there? Why not see what joys can be experienced, and what pains can be suffered? And this ‘why not’, is all the argument one needs. 

Nietzsche writes, “The nihilistic question “for what?” is rooted in the old habit of supposing that the goal must be put up, given, demanded from outside — by some superhuman authority.” (Nietzsche, Will to Power, §20) 

The One itself has no need of goals outside of itself, it only has itself, and the desire to experience more of itself, to contemplate itself, to create, to express itself, to flow outward. 

For the soul, it is only through its stepping out of its true Self, that it can gain greater knowledge of itself, as contrary is known by contrary. There are no short-cuts. The fool learns only by experience. And to want to go ‘back’, before the infinite hunt is complete, is an affront against Being itself. For the nature of Being is to flow outward, to express itself, to reveal itself in a myriad of different ways. Being itself is this ‘why not’, its very own justification, and to require anything else is nihilism. 

In Tarot, there is the card of the fool. It is numbered 0, or not numbered at all. The fool is the first card. As an archetype for new beginnings and infinite possibility, creativity, and unbound freedom, the fool stands for the desire to explore the unknown. But he is also the last card. After having gone through the “great hunt” that is the Arcana, the fool finds only himself. So why, did he have to suffer all these experiences, death even, if he only finds himself at the end? One could claim that it would have been better to not have gone on the journey at all. Yet one would be a fool to claim as such, for it is only through all these experiences, only because the Fool is the 0 of reckless exploration, that he is able to achieve complete self-knowledge at the end. And, does one really know “journey’s end”, if one thinks the journey towards it does not justify it, however painful it might be? A single moment of eternity justifies all the pain that came before. 

When man was given tekhne, he was given the means to share in this outward-flowing movement to a greater degree. Along the way, horror occurs. But it is only through making mistakes, that the right path can be conceived of. More than any other animal, man plays an active part in the unfolding of his essence, he is tasked to question after his essence, to experiment.  

It is only after living our lives hiding from the sun, and the consequent diseases, that medical science is catching up to the fact that sunlight is necessary for health. This time however, because of the pain, with a greater consciousness of what happens when we don’t follow nature. 

Reading Nietzsche, Heidegger writes: 

“To the essence of life belongs the will to grow, enhancement. Every instance of life-preservation stands at the service of life-enhancement. Every life that restricts itself to mere preservation is already in decline.”

(Heidegger, ‘The Word of Nietzsche’, in The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays, 73) 

No age can be passed through by merely standing still. And no age can be passed through by merely negating it, in favour of some previous age. 

The only way out is through. What this ‘through’ will look like, however, is determined by our capacity to creatively and originally reflect on who we are and where we come from. The way through man’s current relation with technology is not by negating this relation, but by looking at the essence of this relation, by looking at the spirit that underlies our relation to technology.