Stiegler reading group session 1

We got underway in late Feb, reading the General Introduction to Technics and Time 1.

here is a comment emailed by Govinda:

So, the way I read it, Steigler’s “technical”  is very similar to my idea of “ecological” being, insofar as it identifies mankind (or technical beings in their technical being) neither with the tool (mechanical) nor the hand (biological), but with the ceaseless autopoetic dialectic that binds and indeed creates/defines them…

I think this is right; my gloss would be that for Stiegler it’s not a question of a dialectic, as that implies the teleological. Stiegler is more of a Simondonian, where becoming is about a compositional dynamic where elements reciprocally individuate, but there’s not teleology implied. Alternatively his approach can be traced (a little joke there) to Derridean differance, as is specifically taken up later in TT1 (pp134-140, at the outset of section 3: ‘Who? what? the invention of the human’. We’ll be coming to this in a future session.

At the group there was some hasty overviewing of Heidegger’s thesis in Being and Time (as Stiegler resumes it very quickly in the general intro). At a certain point the authentic and inauthentic modes of being-there of Dasein was discussed. I suggested there was in fact a further distinction between genuine authentic, ingenuine authentic, and inauthentic (ingenuine inauthentic doesn’t count!). See Being and Time, H.179 (=p. 224 of the Blackwell trans.) where H is talking about how an authentic take on existence doesn’t ‘float above falling everydayness’ but is a modified way of seizing upon everydayness. Falling is ‘a kind of Being of this Being-in (which is an existentiale; a basic mode of existence of Dasein). so Falling would be an eg. of an authentic but ingenuine mode of being; making possible a genuine authentic mode as its modification (this would be the mode of being-toward death). The inauthentic mode of existence is that of ‘The they’ (Das Man), of idle talk, publicity, averageness, the ‘nobody’ Dasein becomes in ‘surrendering itself in Being-among-one-another’ (see H128, p. 165-66). but the they is described as a primordial phenomenon, with a potential for different concretisations according to individual Dasein’s history. So this too would be potentially both genuine and ingenuine, as with Falling.

Not sure if this is any help to anyone. Just working through it myself. Any Heidegger experts to the rescue???

Patrick

One thought on “Stiegler reading group session 1

  1. Hi again
    thinking about this authentic/genuine thing. Another way of drawing the distinction is between the authentic existentiale (that can lead to either genuine or non-genuine modes of being there); and the inauthentic modes of metaphysical thought: eg. the contrast between Dasein’s immediate spatial sense of being involved in a sphere of activity with things to do and equipment to do it with (authentic) and the Cartesian theorisation of abstract spatiality, and/or Kant’s apriori categories of space and time (inauthentic).
    Yeah?

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 )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s