This response is to our previous class which discussed measures of reserves and capacities. As well, it is a response to Levi Bryant’s article which proposes an exercise in being naive to philosophical thinking in order to avoid being blind to that which is new.
This video is a fascinating record of the many branches of man’s technological evolution over time. This analysis was done by professor Kevin Kelly, a practicing ludite with huge interest in all technologies, old and new. One conclusion he made, that I can’t seem to understand was; no technology ever dies. His talk suggests that he has an extremely broad definition of technology, yet he claims that every technology ever made is still being made. I am convinced this is untrue, an easy example would be most betas and prototypes, or even homer’s makeup shotgun. At any rate, this is likely me misunderstanding and it brings us to an even more interesting conclusion made by Kelly. These immortal machines have existed as long as man, they are co-dependent, and can be considered a kingdom of species unto themselves.
Last class sensory deprivation was introduced as a means of thinking beyond the body, oddly enough Joe Rogan describes this difference and the benefits quite clearly and simply in this video.
In this article Bryant proposes a pre-critical approach to philosophical study, which is not suspended by the exercise of critique and questions of access.
This blind curiosity in differences is explained as indifferent to human existence.
“It is this ‘thereness’ of difference that first provokes wonder and inquire into beings…Thus, far from difference having a status posterior to questions of knowledge, the thereness of difference is given and is what first provokes inquiry and questions of knowledge.Paradoxically it therefore follows that epistemology cannot be first philosophy.”-Levi Bryant
“The naive, incipient knower that has never yet heard of critique first wonders what differences characterize the object or event, what differences are abiding and what differences are changing, and what relations productive of differences there are between and among objects.”-Levi Bryant
“…there can be no coherence in the notion of an in-different being for ‘to be’ is to make a difference.”-Levi Bryant
“…Latour says that his Principle of Irreduction is a ‘prince that does not govern’, we can say of the Ontic Principle that it is a ‘principle without prince'”-Levi Bryant
The principle of the inhuman frees thinking from the restrictions of known world and sensory limitations of human body. Bryant describes knowledge as being “shacked to human related phenomena such the signifier, language, culture, power and so on.”