Peter Sloterdijk on Allotechnologies vs Homeotechnologies

From P2P Foundation
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Michel Bauwens:

"Gorz distinguishes, following Husserl, 'lived experience', i.e. the pre-cognitive direct intuition of the lifeworld, from, 'knowledge about objects', which is socially validated through institutional learning. A society must be judged by how it uses the latter to enhance the former, i.e. the quality of life. These ideas were influential on the environmental movement, which should also be seen as a defense against the appropriation of the lifeworld, and not as a mere defense of 'nature'.

Gorz also distinguishes the logic of capital from the logic of science, they are both separate even though allied; he sees transhumanism, i.e. the desire for the full liberation from the limitations of the human and nature, as the ultimate essence of the logic of science.

He references Sloterdijk's distinction of auto-technics, for self-production, from hetero-technics, change imposed from the outside; as well as Illich, who distinguished convivial tools, those that do not program their users, while heteronomous tools do program and determine their users. Sloterdijk had argued that in the 'era of matter', the relation was one of dominance, nature had to be 'raped' as it were, and humanity used these allo-technologies. Now, in the 'informational era', we know that matter contains information, with an inherent potential. Thus, there is potential to switch to 'homeo-technologies', based on cooperation with nature. However, it is clear that the techno-scientific mentalities have not changed yet."


This comes from my reading notes on: Andre Gorz. L'Immateriel. See the entry: Andre Gorz on the Immaterial