Dorsality: Thinking Back through Technology and Politics (Posthumanities)

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Dorsality: Thinking Back through Technology and Politics (Posthumanities) file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Dorsality: Thinking Back through Technology and Politics (Posthumanities) book. Happy reading Dorsality: Thinking Back through Technology and Politics (Posthumanities) Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Dorsality: Thinking Back through Technology and Politics (Posthumanities) at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Dorsality: Thinking Back through Technology and Politics (Posthumanities) Pocket Guide.

But we should be clear that distraction both serves and resists capitalized time. On one hand, we might become distracted from the quotidian plodding of chronos time by something that takes us out of that sphere of regulation, thereby liberating us from measured and predictable time and bringing us to the experience of something new.

What Is Posthumanism?

On the other hand, we may become distracted from these new and exceptional experiences, being drawn back into consciousness of the capitalist idea that time is money, and when we lose track of time we are wasting money. This both results in and is symptomatic of a simultaneously financial and existential anxiety, a consciousness of our material precarity that again relates to our awareness of human finitude. And so distraction is not the magic key, for like technology it can work for us or against us.

Instead, if we are interested in emancipating ourselves from the industrialization of time, then we must cultivate modes of resistance that undercut capital time. This applies to new forms of human capital, and the exploitation of human knowledge and skill by universities and corporations to cite just two examples. Lazzarato does not give an explicit answer. Part of reimagining temporal experience outside of the overdetermining forces of industrialized technological time will no doubt require that attention and political action be reevaluated in light of new media, especially considering the suggestion by Byung-Chul Han that new media technologies work counter to the interests of democracy and civil society.

To recapitulate, in conclusion we can observe that the conditioning of time by the terms chronos , kairos , and aion — as well as the tension between Promethean memory and Epimethean forgetting — each seem to be present within the human being as a set of generative or creative tensions. However, as Stiegler, Alliez, and Lazzarato each observe, problems emerge when these tensions become maligned, or worse yet, subject to commodification and industrialization.

Find a copy online

Chronos time has not always been measured time, so given to the present capitalist conversion of time into money, but according to the ancient Greeks it has its origin in the founding of the cosmos. A remaining problem with the conditioning of the human experience of time by Greek terms is the assumption that these principles are the only or even the primary determiners of the human experience of time, rather than just certain western or European experiences.

Although it is a descriptive fact that these Greek terms have conditioned much human experience of time because of the orientalist positioning of the west as the dominant reference point in the master discourses of academe, this description should not be mistaken for a defensible prescription. In light of the embeddedness of human understandings of technics within cosmological contexts, as Boris Groys points out, it is important to name that our understanding of technology must now account for a new cosmology in which the questions and answers that human beings ask are no longer simply empirical, religious, rationalistic, or libidinal, but conditioned by the Internet and the value-laden ways in which Google regulates the dialogue between human and world.

Reviews editor: Craig J.

Dorsality : thinking back through technology and politics / David Wills - Details - Trove

Technical editor: Helen J Burgess. Rhizomes: Cultural Studies in Emerging Knowledge: Issue 34 The Regulation of the Subject by the Technology of Time Maxwell Kennel Abstract: Beginning from the entangled categories of the human and the technological, this exploration surveys thinkers who concern themselves with problems of technology and time, seeking to examine how the confluence of technology and time regulate and condition the formation of subjectivity. How could a clock mark anything beyond its 24 hours? Because it only functions for Dasein, a who , who collects or re-marks the return of the cycle.

Thanks to Bernard Stiegler for his initial encouragement in , to Davin Heckman for his suggestions for expanding the text, and to P. It is for us an almost inescapable destiny. Posthumanities 5 London: University of Minnesota Press, Bernard Stiegler, Technics and Time , Vol. All further citations to follow in-text citing volume and page number.

Ibid, 31 and 6. Richard Howard London: Cape, , Edited by Howard Eiland and Michael W.

Friedrich Nietzsche

Jennings Cambridge, MA: Belknap, , See Martin Heidegger, Discourse on Thinking. John M. Aeschylus, Prometheus Bound. All citations to follow in-text by line number. Mark Polizzotti New York: Semiotext e , , part 4. Bernard Stiegler, Email Communication with the Author. October 9, See the helpful note on p of Augustine, Confessions, Books Edited and Translated by Carolyn J.

Ibid, footnote For an explanation that opposes this connection see Thomas L. Humphries, Jr. The endless repetition of the same of capitalist work presents itself as a prison that enslaves our power, stealing away our time, and the time it leaves us, our leisure time, seems to be filled merely with our passivity, our unproductivity. Amazon Drive Cloud storage from Amazon. Alexa Actionable Analytics for the Web. Sell on Amazon Start a Selling Account. AmazonGlobal Ship Orders Internationally. Amazon Inspire Digital Educational Resources. Amazon Rapids Fun stories for kids on the go. ComiXology Thousands of Digital Comics.

DPReview Digital Photography. East Dane Designer Men's Fashion. Shopbop Designer Fashion Brands. Deals and Shenanigans. Ring Smart Home Security Systems. PillPack Pharmacy Simplified. Is there any difficulty in seeing why we should not prefer to return to moral debate, in which the livingness and death of animals enter as facts that we treat as relevant in this or that way, not as presences that may unseat our reason?

How to Fix Rounded Shoulders (GONE IN 4 STEPS!)

But it is also on this point, as I will try to bring out later, that crucial differences emerge between this sort of work, emerging as it does out of an especially adventurous wing of the analytical tradition, and the work of Derrida, who construes the consequences of the relation between philosophy and language, of our finitude in relation to both, in ways that bear directly on how we may and may not think of our relations to ourselves and to nonhuman animals.

But the question of justice cannot be reduced to the question of the fairness or unfairness of a share. But the moral repugnance of such a thing is not easily accounted for by the rights framework, fixated as it is on the dependence of rights on interests, 74 flesh a nd finitude and interests in turn on a more or less naturalistic conception of the good of the animal.

In the background here is the idea that we cannot owe it to animals. The idea that those are the only possibilities is. They are thick with psychological vexation and rife with contradictory impulses and attachments. At the same time, however, those who oppose animal rights within that same analytical tradition are wrong about how the difference between humans and animals is relevant.


There is nothing wrong with that; there is something wrong with trying to keep that response and destroy its foundation. The aesthetic is made to serve the aims of culture and morality in a dedifferentiated unity rarely seen in the modern world. It might be legal; it would not be just. And once the ordeal of the undecidable is past if that is possible , the decision has again followed a rule or given itself a rule, invented it or reinvented, reaffirmed it, it is no longer presently just, fully just.

And this is not predictable. The modes of life and thought of our ancestors, including their moral thinking, have made the differences and similarities which are now available for us to use in our thinking and our emotions and decisions. How are the effects of science and truth to be reinscribed? The words make 87 flesh a nd finitude it look as if I am simply unable to see over a wall which happens to separate me from something I very much want to see. It is a wound, if you will, that can never be healed and is only further excavated and deepened by the very iterative technologies thinking, writing, speech that we use to try and suture it.

Butler, Samuel (Erewhon)

From a real body which was there proceed radiations that come to touch me, I who am here. A kind of umbilical cord ties the body of the photographic thing to my gaze.

  • Living in the Sweet Spot: Preparing for Performance in Sport and Life.
  • Stained (Burning Souls Book 1).
  • The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administrations War on America.
  • Posthumanities - Monoskop.
  • Satyopanisad 2?
  • Bear Memories: The Chicago-Green Bay Rivalry (Images of Sports);
  • Wild Ride.

And this is what makes our experience so strange. We are spectralized by the shot, captured or possessed by spectrality in advance. What has, dare I say, constantly haunted me in this logic of the specter is that it regularly exceeds all the oppositions between visible and invisible, sensible and insensible.

A specter is both visible and invisible, both phenomenal and nonphenomenal: a trace that marks the present with its absence in advance. For an instant, before my whole structure of knowledge collapses in panic, I am alive inside that contradiction, dead and alive at the same time. Derrida would have us pay attention to the specific instance of decision in a way foreclosed by the generality and logic of the law itself, since the force of such specific instances for Derrida is, in principle, their ability to revolutionize or exceed the law itself, their call for us to realize that what is legal may not be just and vice versa.

What this means for bioethics in the pragmatic sense is that Derrida is of little use in enabling us to formulate new guidelines about particular surgical or experimental procedures that we could then generalize on behalf of more progressive policies.