Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 9

Summary

Stiegler opens this chapter with posing his keyquestion. He proposes to analyse the expression 'The
invention of the human'. The ambiguity of this expression sets out two apparent opponents , the who
and the what, the object and subject, the human and the technical. Stiegler claims their co-existence
and mutual coming to be are essential to both.
Two coups are put forward, two passages with different ruptures, the Zinjantropian, with the
beginning of technics and ongoing cortilization, and the Neanthropian, the end of cortilization. The
first passage contains the first origin of the human and therefore technics. The human started to
create tools. Although one could argue that the speed of development was more like a rhythmic
genetic drift, it is clear that the drift is no longer genetically programmed, it even became purely
technical in the Neanthropian passage.
It was in the Zinjanthropian age that the mirror between the cortex and flint was elaborated, the
pursuit of evolution of the living by other means than life, what we will call the epiphylogenenis.
Why question the birth of man? Because since Hegel everybody questions its end, birth is the
mirror of end. The beginning is the “birth of death”. Even though we can not imagine a possible
end, it began and will end.
Stiegler opens a dialog between Leroi- Gourhan, as an paleantrhopologist, and Derrida, as a
philosopher. He utilizes the concept of différance to challenge the border between the animal and
the human, since différance is life in general. Différance has double meaning, in the most common
sense to be different, polemic or dissimilar. On the other hand it can also mean to temporalize,
putting of, taking resource, which is to make space time and time space.
It all comes down to the grammë, a concept that exceeds the distinction between genetic and non-
genetic, in which the human is just a singular case. It structures all levels of the living and beyond,
it starts the freeing of the memory and therefore the start of exteriorization.
The grammë can be found on both sides, the animal one and the human, since it is différance. With
the passage from the genetic to the non-genetic memory the grammë had to take on a new form. It
manifested itself as cultural codes and ethnic substance paving the way for reflective Moralität.
Just like grammë is différance, so is exteriorization. It is in essence a movement, logically from
interior to exterior, but how can there be an expression of the interior when the interior has not
appeared yet. This is the paradox of exteriorization.
To understand the concept of epiphylogenesis Stiegler makes a comparison with Heidegger's
Already There, the past that I never lived but is still my past. In Heidegger Dasein, the epigenetic
memory, conserves and passes down. It creates a epigenetic sedimentation, the epiphylogenetic
memory. If the Already There is epiphylogenesis, it must have an inorganic organon, a non-living
matter to store memory, so it can surpass the threshold that death is.

Differance of H.

Invention of the human => who ↔ what? Object ↔ subject? Human ↔ technical
Passage Zinj. → Neanthr. Coritlization
1st slow techn. Evolution ( rythm genetic drift) → human as what is invented
Begins process of neurological evolution but no longer just genetically programmed (Zinj.) purely
tech. (Nean.)
Mirror Cortex ↔ Flint = pursuit of evolution of the living by other means than life
=> epiphylogenesis
Tech as rooting of all relation to time
=> anticipation
Why birth? Hegel: questions end => Birth is mirror of end (birth of death = relation to death)
It began and will end
L-G ↔ Der.: Differance = challenging border between animal and human, because is life in general
Grammë = non-genetic? program => human just a singular case
= structures all levels of the living and beyond, pursuit of life by mean other then life
= process of freeing of memory => Exteriorization
Grammë : both sides (ani. Hum.) => differance (life in general) => intentional consciousness
Passage from gen. → non-gen. : new types of grammës (programs)
=> cultural codes, ethical substance preceding reflective Moralität
Paradox of exteriorization
Differance: 1st: to temporalize, putting of, taking resource => anticipation
2nd being otherness
Articulate living on non-living: after rupture= no real phusis?
Heidegger: Already-there: past that I never lived but is my past
→ Dasein (epigen) conserves and passes down
=> epigen. Sedimentation = epiphylogenesis
Already there = epiphylogenesis: must have inorganic organon i.e. Tool
Binding Who ↔ what = differance: co-possibility => paradox eteriorization
Interior = exterior (same from different perspective)
L-G: Zinj. tech = quasi-zoology ( because of ongoing cortilization)
Flint is first reflective memory, the first mirror
Dawn of hominization i.e. Coriticalization (Zinj. Start of exteriorization) → second origin?
epiphylogen. = Flint

Summary

Leroi-Gourhan questions the emirical-transcendental divide of Rousseau, whom claims that


intentional consciousness sporadicly appeared after the cortilization was ended, a miracle second
origin. First he puts a link between the skeleton, technics, language and society, to be able to
approach technology as a singular zoological reality. Everything begins with the feet. When man
walks upright, he opens up his hands to manipulation and mobilization, leading to exteriorization.
Man is not a spiritual miracle in a given body, it is first of all a state of the body. The notion that
“humans descends from the apes” is a false one. The problem was drawing a straight line from the
Sapiens through the Neanderthal to the anthropoid foursome, gorilla etc.. The discovery of the
Zinjanthropian with his small brainpan, but acompagnied with tools, proves us that the cerebral
development is secondary to the physical. When tools and technics emerge, language too made his
appearance. The hand freed the face.

Everything Begins

L-G questions empirical- transcendental divide of Rousseau => sporadic appearance of intentional
consencness => second origin
1st link between skeleton, technics, lang, society
2nd aproaches technology as a singular zoological reality
Upright: hand opens up to manipulation, mobilization → exteriorization
Not spiritual miracle in given body → 1st of all state of the body ( different branch of evolution)
Conventional: “human descended from apes”
→ 1st discovery of Neanderthal → staight line Sapiens Gorrila
→ 2nd discovery of Zinj. With tools and very small brainpan
=> cerebral devel is secondary to physical (erect posture)
Tools (tech) = language “twin poles of the same apparatus”

Summary
The hand freed language, and in the same blow technicity and prostheticity. As said before language
can only be understood in a zoological perspective. General zoological evolution is based on
liberation, with each step more choice is bestowed on the being. Liberation can also be seen as
mobility, as a movement.

Advance and Delay

Hand frees speech → language = technicity, prostheticity


Technics can only be understood in a zoological perspective
General zoological evolution based on Liberation => mobility significant feature of evolution
Brain not the cause of locomotor but beneficiary
Mobility more significant then intelligence(= kind of mobility )
End of mobilization = end of liberation → becomes exteriorization: new type of coritcal org.
=> appearance of the “spirit”
End of coritlization: evolution continues by rupture not fullfillment
Mamals who only walk: hyper-specialization (=> no ability to learn; gen.)
Grasper: open functional indetermination (=> absolute need to learn; epigen.)

Skeleton, Equipment, and the Brain

Link between nonspecialization and development of the cortical zones of the brain
Exteriorization: the body is no longer only a body: can only function with tools
It all began with the feet!
Human nature = technicity
'liberation' (mobility) has become “process of exteriorization” => engendered language
Tool is not part of anatomy but essential to define zoology => still species related?
Tool is anatomical consequence, only solution for being with hands and teeth as useless weapons
=> Body and brain are defined by tool => need to study evolution of technics as evolution of life

“Technical Consciousness” and Anticipation

Exteriorization → still genetic programming (Zinj.)


=> Technical consciousness (↔ notion of spirituality)
Tech Evol. Slow → from neurological, gen.
Tech. C. = Anticipation without creative consc.
Anti = realization of a possibility not determined by biological program
=> exteriorization needs anticipation => is here from a strictly zoological origin, still
determined by neurophysiological
When gen. determination stops, L-G introduces notion of spirituality; i.e. Second origin
“Grammë as such” = “spiritual notion” = “doubling up of différance” ?
==> technological dynamism still remains strictly biological
Anticipation: from the start; with less foresight
Prosthesis: not suplement, but addition
not extension of the body, but constitution
not a means, but end
Human creates anticipation by exteriorization, learns (indetermination)
Who is differentiated by the non-living i.e. What

The Already-There, Différance, Epiphylogenesis

Question birth of human = question birth of death


Invention of the human → différance binding Who & What
Rupture: passage from gen. Différance → nongen.
Epiphylogenesis= exteriazition, third layer of memory
Paradox of exteriorization: no preceding interior → coexist human and tool invent eachother
Vector of epiphylogenesis = flint (early stage) → anticapation (cortex makes flint possible, vice
versa)
st
2 levels of anticipation: 1 operative anticipation
2nd anticipation qua the differentiation of stereotypes
→ movement
New gen. Proces of selection: Cortex ↔ Flint (determine eachother)
Stieglers 3 memories :
Genetic
Memory of central nervous system (epigenetic)
Techno-logical memory (epiphylogenetic)
L-G 3 layers:
Species
Soc. Etnic
Individual intellegence

The Who and the What

Genetic/epigenetic : “Différance qua the history of life”


L-G: clear break animal ↔ human; faber ↔ sapiens; animal human ↔ spiritual human
Stiegler: opposes interior and exterior by instrumental maieutics
Epiphylogenetic: “Différance of Différance”
L-G: Tech intel ↔ faculty of symbolization
Language (Epiphylogen): never a “concrete language”, always abstract
Exclusive Human: exteriorization of memory (transfer of etnic memory outside zoological species)
Exestintial analytic: already-there = prostheticity = epiphylogenesis => Heidegger
Technics and time (1994) the fault of Epimetheus

This work consisting of three volumes is can be seen as the first fullfleged work of Bernard Stiegler.
In a sense this is the series that is the fullest systematic statement of Stieglers philosophy. He
ventilates his ideas according to texts of Leroi-Gourhan, Rousseau, Simondon.
As a general idea he brings forth the notion of technics as a formative entity on the horizon of
human existence. He opposes this idea against a phylosophy wich can never make a clear
distinction between the tekhne (in the Aristoralian sense, craftmanship) and episteme (knowledge).
The first volume consists of two parts whom generally put forth the same idea. Part 1 he devouts his
attention at the origin of hominisation and introduces technics as an instrumental maieutic to show a
different perspective on the paradox of exteriazation. In the second part he compares the outcome of
part 1 with the philosophy of Heidegger and his existential-analytic views, since they have a series
of overlapping idea's.
The series contains two other volumes called resp. “Tome 2 : La désorientation” and “Tome 3: Le
temps du cinéma et la question du mal-être” in wich he elaborates his view on technics and their
importance.
Later he writes three other series whom take on more political, world-altering subjects. In “De la
misère symbolique (2004)” he discribes the process wich made technology in to a means of
industrialsing. He critisizes the marketeer-view on the market and dispises the creating of desire in
service of production.
“Constituer l'Europe (2005)” takes a more personal route. Stiegler suggests that our society made a
turn toward the destruction of psychic and collective individuation. The ability to differentiate
between humans is declining because of the way we are living.
The latest of his big series, “Mécréance et Discrédit (2004-2006)”, takes on much of the critical
charatcter of the previous one. He, again, states that industrial production and consumption is
destructive for the modes of human life. The populus lost his savoir-faire (know-do) and his savoir-
vivre (know-live).

First fullfleged work of Stiegler


Series that is the fullest systematic statement of Stieglers philosophy
→ he gives his ideas according to texts of Leroi-Gourhan, Rousseau, Simondon.
General idea: technics form the horizon of human existence ↔ philosophy who can never make a
clear distinction between tekhne (craftmanship) and episteme.(knowledge)
Part 1 : origin of hominisation, object = subject, Who = What
Part 2: reading of Heidegger with the same ideas as the first,

Followed by 2 other volumes: “Tome 2 : La désorientation”& “Tome 3: Le temps du cinéma et la


question du mal-être”

Other series: De la misère symbolique: Tech becomes mean of industrialising


(2004) creating desire in service of production

Constituer l'Europe: Destruction of psychic and collective individuation


(2005)

Mécréance et Discrédit: Industrial production and consumption is destructive of


(2004-2006) modes of human life
Loss of savoir-faire, savoir-vivre

Language and music

Stiegler claims that the techo-logical and language are expressions of the same appartus. In the
same sense one could add music to this equation. Music derives from a combined effort of technical
know-how and is structurally very similar to language, making it a symbiosis, making it différance,
differing and deferred.

Just as it was Leroi-Gourhan's goal to search for the origin of man, it was my goal to search for the
origin of music. Music can be imagined only after what Leroi-Gourhan calls the Second Origin, the
arrival of the so-called third layer of memory. The arts in general could've never existed without this
external, inorganic matter bestowed with traces of the past epigenes.
In music, this poses a problem. Unlike the plastic arts, music was ungraspable in matter, until the
seventh century. Therefore classic music history generally starts in that period. It is a great
misunderstanding of putting it's origin so close to our day and age. Just like the freeing of the hand
enabled language, the end of the cortilization and the so-called second rupture enabled humans to
reflect and create.
To some extent music can be seen as an epiphylogenetic phenomenon. It is a clear example of
extariorization, the interior is created simultaneously with the exterior, the organon being the most
elusive of them all, air. Therefore it's nature is much more that of a language being passed down
orally, from generation to generation, then that of pure material, epigenetic sedimentation.
If we look at the history of music from that perspective, it leads us inevitably to the rich array of
sounds some secluded tribes in for instance Africa, are able to create. There traditions are purely
oral and the music comes to being through a form improvisation. Once again the created border
between the animal and the human appears. What can be the difference between a bird singing and
the human doing the same? Could man claim this ability as his own, maybe the last one Prometeus
had carried? The big gap between the two is not necessarily the outcome, but more the beginning.
The fact that birds can sing their song is completely determined, they have no consciousness if
maybe just the technical one. Everything is planned out in its genetic and epigenetic memory. The
growth, much like you would expect, is one of a rhythmic genetic drift. It is still pure phusis.
The human on the other hand has anticipation, hitherto foresight, combined with a major lack of
determination. This enables him to anticipate the other, to adapt, but most important,
indetermination allows the human to learn. In a rapid dialog between the group and the individual,
the cortex bursts of activity, the trembling air creates sound. This gesture succeeds the technical
consciousness because no clear technical use can be identified and thus must be placed under the
'notion of a spirit', which should always lead us to thanatology, the being-before-the-end.
Plummeting this discourse in a Heideggerian discussion, will add nothing to my notions of music
through the eyes of Leroi-Gourhan and Bernhard Stiegler, so lets leave this path.
Another comparison urges for our attention. The one between the oral, “etnic”, tradition and the one
of our own. The most significant break appeared with the arrival of writing. Much like other
systems of creation, the written language of music is evolving at a fast pace. Even the oldest one of
them, requires an immense efficiency in foresight, even more than in an average language. In music
a great technical knowledge appears on the scene. A manipulating of the tool in a very precise
manner. The tool becomes an extension of the human body, a prosthesis. The voice remains of
course one of the first tools that accompanied mankind on its rise and it's obvious that it was the
first mean of musical exteriorization.
We as European Westerners, often claim the origin of polyphony. Some claim that the complexity of
music became so big, one couldn't memorize it anymore and so writing was introduced, as a lasting
epiphylogenetic reminder. This knowledge was then vastly exported and needed the greatest of
thinkers to make it a whole. The key element of Western music was set out on a bed of writing.
The baffling thing about the music of the Akape in the forests of Congo, is that they too can produce
these sounds, these polyphonic harmonies, and they did not have the sophisticated form of writting,
nor any other vast debts to the ancient. They let there indetermination guide them, instead of
rigorous rules and regulations. The critics, who claim that true spiritual fulfillment can only be
formed on the backbone of an ancient tradition, are immediately silenced when they here the
complex structures that can emerge out of a dialog between group and individual in continuous
motion, always differing, always differed, différance.

Ever since the second rupture humans had a weight to carry. Instead of the genetic form of gramme,
they invented an external one. It is this program that allows us to live and learn, but also forces us to
obey. In the Western world we can speak of a macro-society; all that is accomplished is a group-
effort and the group has become so large there is a need to determination. At dawn of man, it was
the indetermination who made technics possible, but now it is technics whom will determine man.

Technics and time; the fault of Epimetheus (1994)

This work consisting of three volumes is can be seen as the first fullfleged work of Bernard Stiegler.
In a sense this is the series that is the fullest, systematic statement of Stieglers philosophy. He
ventilates his ideas according to texts of Leroi-Gourhan, Rousseau, Simondon.
As a general idea he brings forth the notion of technics as a formative entity on the horizon of
human existence. He opposes this idea against a philosophy which can never make a clear
distinction between the tekhne (in the Aristoralian sense, craftsmanship) and episteme (knowledge).
The first volume consists of two parts whom generally put forth the same idea. In the firtst part he
devouts his attention at the origin of hominisation and introduces technics as an instrumental
maieutic to show a different perspective on the paradox of exteriorization. In the second part he
compares the outcome of the first, with the philosophy of Heidegger and his existential-analytic
views, since they have quite a few overlapping idea's.
The series contains two other volumes called resp. “Tome 2 : La désorientation” and “Tome 3: Le
temps du cinéma et la question du mal-être” in wich he elaborates his view on technics and their
importance.

Later he writes three other series whom take on the more political, world-altering subjects. In “De
la misère symbolique (2004)” he describes the process which made technology into a means of
industrializing. He analyses the marketeer-view on life and investigates the cost of creating desire in
service of production.
“Constituer l'Europe (2005)” takes a more individual route. Stiegler suggests that our society made
a turn toward the destruction of psychic and collective individuation. In the line of C. Jung, G.
Simondon, F. Nietzsche and A. Schopenhauer he tackles the question what defines ourself, what
defines self. He notes that the ability to differentiate between humans is declining because of the
conditions we are living in. The way society tries, intentional or unintentional, to make us unified.
The latest of his big series, “Mécréance et Discrédit (2004-2006)”, takes on much of the critical
character of the previous one. He, again, states that industrial production and consumption is
destructive for the modes of human life. The populus lost his savoir-faire (know-do) and his savoir-
vivre (know-live).

Summary

Stiegler opens this chapter with posing his keyquestion. He proposes to analyse the expression 'The
invention of the human'. The ambiguity of this expression sets out two apparent opponents , the who
and the what, the object and subject, the human and the technical. Stiegler claims their co-existence
and mutual coming to be are essential to both.
Two coups are put forward, two passages with different ruptures, the Zinjantropian, with the
beginning of technics and ongoing cortilization, and the Neanthropian, the end of cortilization. The
first passage contains the first origin of the human and therefore technics. The human started to
create tools. Although one could argue that the speed of development was more like a rhythmic
genetic drift, it is clear that the drift is no longer genetically programmed, it even became purely
technical in the Neanthropian passage.
It was in the Zinjanthropian age that the mirror between the cortex and flint was elaborated, the
pursuit of evolution of the living by other means than life, what we will call the epiphylogenenis.
Why question the birth of man? Because since Hegel everybody questions its end, birth is the
mirror of end. The beginning is the “birth of death”. Even though we can not imagine a possible
end, it began and will end.
Stiegler opens a dialog between Leroi- Gourhan, as an paleantrhopologist, and Derrida, as a
philosopher. He utilizes the concept of différance to challenge the border between the animal and
the human, since différance is life in general. Différance has double meaning, in the most common
sense to be different, polemic or dissimilar. On the other hand it can also mean to temporalize,
putting of, taking resource, which is to make space time and time space.
It all comes down to the grammë, a concept that exceeds the distinction between genetic and non-
genetic, in which the human is just a singular case. It structures all levels of the living and beyond,
it starts the freeing of the memory and therefore the start of exteriorization.
The grammë can be found on both sides, the animal one and the human, since it is différance. With
the passage from the genetic to the non-genetic memory the grammë had to take on a new form. It
manifested itself as cultural codes and ethnic substance paving the way for reflective Moralität.
Just like grammë is différance, so is exteriorization. It is in essence a movement, logically from
interior to exterior, but how can there be an expression of the interior when the interior has not
appeared yet. This is the paradox of exteriorization.
To understand the concept of epiphylogenesis Stiegler makes a comparison with Heidegger's
Already There, the past that I never lived but is still my past. In Heidegger Dasein, the epigenetic
memory, conserves and passes down. It creates a epigenetic sedimentation, the epiphylogenetic
memory. If the Already There is epiphylogenesis, it must have an inorganic organon, a non-living
matter to store memory, so it can surpass the threshold that death is.

Leroi-Gourhan questions the emirical-transcendental divide of Rousseau, whom claims that


intentional consciousness sporadicly appeared after the cortilization was ended, a miracle second
origin. First he puts a link between the skeleton, technics, language and society, to be able to
approach technology as a singular zoological reality. Everything begins with the feet. When man
walks upright, he opens up his hands to manipulation and mobilization, leading to exteriorization.
Man is not a spiritual miracle in a given body, it is first of all a state of the body. The notion that
“humans descends from the apes” is a false one. The problem was drawing a straight line from the
Sapiens through the Neanderthal to the anthropoid foursome, gorilla etc.. The discovery of the
Zinjanthropian with his small brainpan, but acompagnied with tools, proves us that the cerebral
development is secondary to the physical. When tools and technics emerge, language too made his
appearance. The hand freed the face.