Not to replace life, but to enhance it; not to renounce life, but to promote it. This is precisely the way - to see technology as an extension of ourselves, as an intrinsic part of ourselves. Our relationship to technology is deeply disordered when we see it as something external that dominates us. Rather than the algorithm being an extension of our mind, we try to replace mind with algorithm, and thereby become mechanical - not in truth, that's impossible, we are organic beings, but rather we begin to LARP as robots. It's a form of idolatry, really: we imagine that the divine gift is itself divine, and in that inversion pervert the holy gift.
The argument presented here reminds me of a point Charles Eisenstein has made: that our problem is not that we are too materialistic, but rather that we have grown to hate matter, to see it as something dead and lifeless. The way out of our nihilistic malaise is not to renounce matter, it is to fall in love with the material world again, to see and experience it not as mere inanimate, mechanical stuff, but as living and vibrant, possessed of its own spirit and intelligence. Just so with our relationship to technology.
Thank you for your additional reflections. Concerning the question of matter/materialism. I do not view the human or any other living thing as a mere machine, but if one would, I do not always see how this would lead to a depreciation of the human or any other living thing. When I imagine Descartes dissecting the body and writing his treatises on man as a machine, I do not see how he would not be absolutely fascinated by these marvellous machines. 'An infinitely complex machine', as Leibniz would say, sounds quite cool to me. When man comes to be seen as a machine throughout roughly speaking the Enlightenment, it is in a sense a reaction against a worldview which cared not for the body. It is a reaction against a sort of nihilism, a depreciation of the material world. We speak on and on about souls and angels, while still, no one has yet determined what a machine can do. To give it life again, which is nothing but giving it deep and attentive thought. When we say that we are being too materialistic today, too materialist in our thinking, and so on. It tells me very little. When someone sees man as machine, it tells me very little. The question is then, indeed, do you not like machines? Or, why do you want everything to be a machine? It is a question not of fact but of orientation.
There's certainly a renunciatory nihilism to a purely spiritualist worldview as well. One that sees the material as only maya, a shadow cast by the invisible realms, turns their back on life. First comes the separation of spirit and matter, and the insistence that it is only spirit that 'matters'; then the reaction, there is no spirit, only matter.
Leibniz's Monadologie posited that the universe was composed of a sort of psychic atom, the monad, which was both matter and spirit; the two are indivisible. This I think is closest to the truth, a scientific animism. It is very interesting to me that the Japanese, in their science fiction, show no evidence of the anxieties surrounding robots, cyborgs, and AI that are so apparent in Western treatments of this subject matter. I can't help but think that this emerges from the Shintō tradition that all things are imbued with spirit - thus, a talking machine is in a sense quite ordinary.
As you say, it is a question of orientation. We are so often worried about finding proof, and when proof cannot be found, when something is by its nature impossible to prove, we default towards the assumption that it must not be so. But there is another question: what are the consequences of believing a thing? How does that affect one's behavior, one's stance towards reality? When proof is impossible, I think that second question becomes both revealing and useful.
This essay reminds me of these letters by a group of young technologists, who essentially are wrestling with the notion that as creators of technology it is imperative for and beholden upon creators to consider what you call tehkne and the relation to both culture and history.
Great piece. Always thought provoking and well written. Thank you.
Which is more powerful, fire or "money?"
Tolma, I would love your thoughts on the parabolic growth of technology relative to the speed at which bankers with monopolies can create "money" ex nihilo. Unlimited funds for every possible psychopathy, demon, vice, and noble intention. Surely this self-granted tool must be a factor, no?
Might humankind have advanced faster than it could adequately digest and adapt philosophically, intellectually, and psychologically? Could a civilization artificially supercharged in such a manner be the cause of its very demise?
You are talking about speed, acceleration, and so on. Yes, of course, it can be considered a problem. One can only keep up with so much. In one day we are exposed to a vastly larger amount of information than someone living even 100 years ago would be exposed to in months. I take it this leads to some stress, not all of which can be effectively digested. Same goes on a social and civilizational level. We live in perpetual crisis. But the real crisis is precisely the fact that there is always some crisis going on, and that crises seem to follow each other at a more rapid pace. But then again, do we categorically lack the ability to adapt? I do not know. And should we even want to? Within reason, there is no choice perhaps.
Thank you for the thoughtful reply, Tolma. I agree that we have no choice but to adapt regardless of the ever-growing demands. Despite our inherent resilience, the intractably fractured state of post-modern culture suggests we need to adapt better.
Though an objective answer is impossible, I often wonder where civilization would be today if the stewards of the 20th century, or more aptly, a relatively small concentration thereof, had avoided the destructive vice/temptation of granting themselves the godlike monopoly power to create money from nothing.
I may be biased due to crisis overload. Still, with each simple scenario I run, from endless wars, political corruption, and inordinately excessive wealth disparities, I always conclude that we would be much better off if we held our concept of money and the creation thereof to a far more ethical standard.
Do you have any thoughts on the role "money" may play in the natural development of civilizations?
For sure. Although I side to thinking that there is a general change in man's soul that reflects itself on many different levels —culture, money, philosophy, you name it—, and do not like reducing everything to one aspect/giving all causal power to one aspect such as money, or anything else.
Good points, Tolma; thank you. No doubt there are many factors to consider. Given the adage "money makes the world go round," I can't help but think that the ability to fabricate money from thin air would sit high on an ordered list of causalities that affect the character of man's soul. Thanks again.
Not to replace life, but to enhance it; not to renounce life, but to promote it. This is precisely the way - to see technology as an extension of ourselves, as an intrinsic part of ourselves. Our relationship to technology is deeply disordered when we see it as something external that dominates us. Rather than the algorithm being an extension of our mind, we try to replace mind with algorithm, and thereby become mechanical - not in truth, that's impossible, we are organic beings, but rather we begin to LARP as robots. It's a form of idolatry, really: we imagine that the divine gift is itself divine, and in that inversion pervert the holy gift.
The argument presented here reminds me of a point Charles Eisenstein has made: that our problem is not that we are too materialistic, but rather that we have grown to hate matter, to see it as something dead and lifeless. The way out of our nihilistic malaise is not to renounce matter, it is to fall in love with the material world again, to see and experience it not as mere inanimate, mechanical stuff, but as living and vibrant, possessed of its own spirit and intelligence. Just so with our relationship to technology.
Thank you for your additional reflections. Concerning the question of matter/materialism. I do not view the human or any other living thing as a mere machine, but if one would, I do not always see how this would lead to a depreciation of the human or any other living thing. When I imagine Descartes dissecting the body and writing his treatises on man as a machine, I do not see how he would not be absolutely fascinated by these marvellous machines. 'An infinitely complex machine', as Leibniz would say, sounds quite cool to me. When man comes to be seen as a machine throughout roughly speaking the Enlightenment, it is in a sense a reaction against a worldview which cared not for the body. It is a reaction against a sort of nihilism, a depreciation of the material world. We speak on and on about souls and angels, while still, no one has yet determined what a machine can do. To give it life again, which is nothing but giving it deep and attentive thought. When we say that we are being too materialistic today, too materialist in our thinking, and so on. It tells me very little. When someone sees man as machine, it tells me very little. The question is then, indeed, do you not like machines? Or, why do you want everything to be a machine? It is a question not of fact but of orientation.
There's certainly a renunciatory nihilism to a purely spiritualist worldview as well. One that sees the material as only maya, a shadow cast by the invisible realms, turns their back on life. First comes the separation of spirit and matter, and the insistence that it is only spirit that 'matters'; then the reaction, there is no spirit, only matter.
Leibniz's Monadologie posited that the universe was composed of a sort of psychic atom, the monad, which was both matter and spirit; the two are indivisible. This I think is closest to the truth, a scientific animism. It is very interesting to me that the Japanese, in their science fiction, show no evidence of the anxieties surrounding robots, cyborgs, and AI that are so apparent in Western treatments of this subject matter. I can't help but think that this emerges from the Shintō tradition that all things are imbued with spirit - thus, a talking machine is in a sense quite ordinary.
As you say, it is a question of orientation. We are so often worried about finding proof, and when proof cannot be found, when something is by its nature impossible to prove, we default towards the assumption that it must not be so. But there is another question: what are the consequences of believing a thing? How does that affect one's behavior, one's stance towards reality? When proof is impossible, I think that second question becomes both revealing and useful.
This essay reminds me of these letters by a group of young technologists, who essentially are wrestling with the notion that as creators of technology it is imperative for and beholden upon creators to consider what you call tehkne and the relation to both culture and history.
https://letterstoayoungtechnologist.com
Seems interesting, thank you for sharing
Great piece. Always thought provoking and well written. Thank you.
Which is more powerful, fire or "money?"
Tolma, I would love your thoughts on the parabolic growth of technology relative to the speed at which bankers with monopolies can create "money" ex nihilo. Unlimited funds for every possible psychopathy, demon, vice, and noble intention. Surely this self-granted tool must be a factor, no?
Might humankind have advanced faster than it could adequately digest and adapt philosophically, intellectually, and psychologically? Could a civilization artificially supercharged in such a manner be the cause of its very demise?
https://youtu.be/gA1sNLL6yg4
You are talking about speed, acceleration, and so on. Yes, of course, it can be considered a problem. One can only keep up with so much. In one day we are exposed to a vastly larger amount of information than someone living even 100 years ago would be exposed to in months. I take it this leads to some stress, not all of which can be effectively digested. Same goes on a social and civilizational level. We live in perpetual crisis. But the real crisis is precisely the fact that there is always some crisis going on, and that crises seem to follow each other at a more rapid pace. But then again, do we categorically lack the ability to adapt? I do not know. And should we even want to? Within reason, there is no choice perhaps.
Thank you for the thoughtful reply, Tolma. I agree that we have no choice but to adapt regardless of the ever-growing demands. Despite our inherent resilience, the intractably fractured state of post-modern culture suggests we need to adapt better.
Though an objective answer is impossible, I often wonder where civilization would be today if the stewards of the 20th century, or more aptly, a relatively small concentration thereof, had avoided the destructive vice/temptation of granting themselves the godlike monopoly power to create money from nothing.
I may be biased due to crisis overload. Still, with each simple scenario I run, from endless wars, political corruption, and inordinately excessive wealth disparities, I always conclude that we would be much better off if we held our concept of money and the creation thereof to a far more ethical standard.
Do you have any thoughts on the role "money" may play in the natural development of civilizations?
For sure. Although I side to thinking that there is a general change in man's soul that reflects itself on many different levels —culture, money, philosophy, you name it—, and do not like reducing everything to one aspect/giving all causal power to one aspect such as money, or anything else.
Good points, Tolma; thank you. No doubt there are many factors to consider. Given the adage "money makes the world go round," I can't help but think that the ability to fabricate money from thin air would sit high on an ordered list of causalities that affect the character of man's soul. Thanks again.