Repost: Armageddon and The Altar of Techne and

In this episode of Literary Tales, we continue our examination of science fiction filmography and pivot into the 1990s with the paradigm shift of …

Armageddon and The Altar of Techne

—– Pretty cool analysis.

I’m gonna make my comment to Paul right here instead of in the comments of the actual post.

There are two things that really caught my attention.

1) The evolution of technology. Specifically he says “technology drives evolution”

2) then later on, may be a few times, he talks about, if I remember correctly, that we supplicate at the altar of technology. Something like that.

I cannot really know if he has in mind what I’m going to talk about here, but I feel that Paul and myself have two slightly different approaches upon the same fabric of being; Perhaps one could say, to styles. Even though I think Paul is much more literate and writes way better than I do. 😁

It is interesting to me that he conveys this discussion about humanity’s relationship with technology in the specific manner that he does. I believe that he is very precise in how he talks about things. And I appreciate his skill in this way. 

First he says the evolution of technology, and then he says that technology drives evolution. These statements seem to hint at a relationship with technology that is very difficult to elucidate in our day.

I feel like it could’ve been Heidegger, one of his talks about the Greeks the ancient Greeks, who talks about technology, techne, where the feeling that I always got out of Heidegger, though he has never stated it out right, Is that it is indeed a relationship with technology that is significant in our determination of what knowledge is and how we work with it.

Heidegger also I think was very precise in how he used words and assembled them together. For example, the work of art. He speaks about the work that is being done by art upon human beings. He thus conjures the relationship that human beings have with art, and leaves basically aside the question of human beings that produce art, of some sort of theory about the creative spirit. I feel that Graham Harmon with his object ontology picks up on this relationship. I feel that the significance of talking about objects is to indicate that indeed creativity, while perhaps the word “over rated “is perhaps too strong, indeed “too important” indicates the centralized agent of the universe that we know from history called “mankind”, or “humanity”, Is showing itself as The less important element in a series of factors which constitute being in the universe.

Here again I harken to Paul talking about how the evolution of technology is really driven by technology.  I feel that he must be indicating more the relationship that is occurring.

Then towards the end of his short talk, he talks about how humanity supplicates at the altar of technology. I like this because it appears to me to speak specifically about something that is taking place in the knowledge of humanity that occurs more as a type of religious faith than it does some sort of centralized rational agent of the universe that goes out and creates technology because it is so intelligent and smart.

Thanks Paul. I will be interested in your reply.

And I will be interested in your lecture about this relationship as it appears in the 2000s.

 xxxx

Author: landzek

My name is Lance Kair, a philosopher, a counselor and a musician who is being questioned.

4 thoughts on “Repost: Armageddon and The Altar of Techne and”

  1. I think on the whole you pick up on the trends of the lecture talk; it is actually taken from a larger essay of mine discussing science fiction filmography and the mythology, theology, and science that permeate them. I broke them up into shorter bits for YT since few people would want to listen to an hour-long talk examining multiple films.

    The 2000s shift focuses on James Cameron’s Avatar, which is scheduled to appear Monday on DM.
    Now, as you know, I like Heidegger but dislike Harman. The real reason is that I’m not a materialist reductionist and, in line with the German Idealist tradition—to which I very consider myself part of—I think (and believe) consciousness and humanism are more accurate than the object-orientation of modern materialist philosophy.

    However, as this talk also implies, I think it is indisputable that technology drives evolution and human progress (as I discussed in the talk dealing with 2001: A Space Odyssey).

    In sum, consciousness leads to our relationship with technology and then technology advances consciousness in a symbiotic relationship of back-and-forth struggle (revising Hegel’s dialectic to be one of consciousness-technology conflict). However, I think that as we move further into the 21st century I believe the relationship is becoming unbalanced with technology overwhelming subjective humanity and turning us into unconscious slaves of techne. Nonetheless, I do believe consciousness comes first and therefore subjectivity is the prime mover and not objective matter from which consciousness springs (per the materialists).

    In undertaking a psychoanalytic overview of science fiction filmography (among my favorite genres precisely because it deals with deep themes: myth, theology, God, consciousness, evolution, human destiny, etc.) I am trying to unpack what I perceive to be the underlying themes, narrative arcs, and zeitgeists governing our films. You’ll see the further evolution and dialectical analysis as the lectures on Avatar, Interstellar, Ad Astra, and The Fifth Element are slated to appear on DM although they are already available on my YT channel.

    Thanks again good buddy for promoting this and giving very good thoughts.

    BTW, I don’t recall from the last time we emailed and I was giving advice on a paper of yours, was it published? Or, if I recall, did you take the route of breaking the paper up into shorter ones?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. It is so interesting how we overlap in so many ways until about the last 3 yards, when you say you side on the general German idealism/subjectivity impetus catalyst, etc. I think you and I will have a lot more to discuss as the years roll by.

      So good! I’ve seen every movie that you are will be discussing. Sorry I didn’t listen to your 2001 space Odyssey talk. Or the 70s and 80s one. But you do a good summary of those as an introduction, so that’s fine.

      Yes. I can’t remember either how long ago our email exchanges were. I don’t remember if I told you about the one that Regis. published, that is, “an essay concerning a unitive theory of counseling”.
      I can’t remember when you were giving me some of your advice — but I did take this huge essay and I just took a chunk of it out and shaved it down, and then submitted it, and then fortunately the editor And reviewer’s came back with some good feedback. I shaved it down some more and I think sculpted a really clear and concise essay that is going to be published in this next volume.

      That one is called “an essay concerning the substance of counseling”

      It’s 15 pages. I might be interested in your take on it. I feel that I wrote it well enough that even someone who is maybe not a counselor or not in the psychology might be able to still understand the point I’m making. Perhaps.

      I think the difference between our ideas, generally speaking, is that I see the conclusion of what you just described in your reply here, as indicating that this is what occurs for all objects, and human beings are merely one type of object in the universe, whereas I think that you tend toward the side that human beings are special in this regard.

      I think that is a fair short synopsis of the divide between us. Because everything else leading up to those conclusions, yours and mine, to me at least, is pretty much the same. I would say we agree overall. Even though you are much more well read than I am, and can speak much more eloquently than I can, and with more detail.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Well congrats again, then! I’m glad to know you did take my advice to break it up. Obviously as someone with seven academic articles I kind of know how the system works. LOL. That was my suspicion. As one long piece, it would be less desirable than if in a broken up, shorter, format. If you certainly email me the PDF or draft I’ll read it as my time permits. I have a little bit more off time with midterms having just finished.

        Like

    2. And, it is funny that both of my papers I submitted, feedback returned to me said to make the title into something about “this is an essay about…”. And so both of the titles start with “An essay..”. Lol.

      Like

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s