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

More on (Moron ?) reference.

Another thing that I struggle with is the idea of having to refer to someone to gain validity or credence in what I might say.

Typically we refer to other authors of the modern era Or contemporary authors, because we are in the process of developing a kind of argumentative community, towards some sort of theoretical ground upon which we can implement some sort of activity that we all generally direct as a solution.

But the a epitome of reference is when we refer to ancient authors, other languages, for example and especially, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin.

What perplexes me is why I would need to refer what I’m saying to some originaria Greek term.

And I don’t necessarily mean this in the sense that it doesn’t help with the clarity that I am trying to communicate; I mean it in the sense of why don’t we refer even further back to what the Greek word might have its roots in?

And then also I don’t even mean to suggest that the people prior to the Greeks or prior to the Hebrews etc.. might have had a better way of putting things into terms.

What I mean is what is happening with me, and what is happening to the person that is reading what I’m writing? In so much is I might refer to Greek, say, or even it’s Proto languages, what is really striking me that I might route my discourse is in these Proto languages?

And I think the most basic question that I come to in this Perplexity of why, is do these Proto languages have a more substantial or original airy position with reference to what it is to be human or what it is we might be talking about in actuality?

Because I tend to think that this thing that’s going on inside of me, and I feel that is going on inside the reader, in so much as we both feel really great about being able to bring up these Greek, Latin, or Proto Greek or Proto Latin terms which mean something original, I guess, is that somehow when I do this I feel I’m getting more closer to some “natural” way that the human being actually should or actually does exist in the world.

What do you think?