Heidegger claims that our relationship to technology "would be free if it opens our human existence of the essence of technology....technology is not equivalent to the essence of technology....everywhere we remain unfree and chained to technology, whether we passionately affirm or deny it" (287). Throughout each of the readings I was fascinated by the overall concept of technology as a component of society that ultimately is in our control/controls our means. While I agree with several of Heidegger's statements, I am also incredibly intrigued in exploring the element of "danger" within technology and the power it has to additionally stream out of our control. Especially in today society it seems that most of our daily functions/activities function around technological devices/tools that further the possibility for us to create progress throughout the day. Heidegger’s comments illustrating the relationship we have with technology made me question how does danger therefore allow us to be, in Heidegger’s terms “chained," to technology? How can we "unchain," ourselves and is it all-possible?
** I was also interested in discussing Heidegger’s concept of the essence of technology as well.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI also am curious about considering contemporary technology through Heidegger's lens.
ReplyDeleteIs Heidegger's notion of "standing-reserve" now a "sitting-reserve" as culture is quietly perched at keyboards? Is that essentially his concern come to life? Are digital media artists practitioners of revealing, architects or enframement, or both at once? In many ways I'm not sure how to situate Heidegger's vision of nature from atop the exponentially rising mountains of technological abstraction layers.
Those questions are mostly in the name of approaching the following: It seems IBM's computational developments were a conversation of enframement and biopower. That is to say, the developments were informed by existing ethnocultural categorization, but shaped it as well. Surely there are myriad analogues today, but how do we approach this as a culture? Technology and categorical differentiation both move so fast - what does society's confrontation of this process look like?
I'm also looking forward to discussing the tensions that Yeon, Erik, and Lizzie all touched on in their discussion of blame, responsibility, and chicken/egg with man and technology.