0
   

Technology as a Frame of Being

 
 
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2010 08:01 pm
Indeed in the last 100 years even the Last ten so to speak Technology has been rapidly progressing along at such a rapid rate it makes one wonder what has brought on such a rapid increase in technological sophistication. The question is to be answered not in why technology has produced so rapidly but in deed what it means brings into reference "why" technology has produced so rapidly. Indeed the question should be why is technology as a frame of being at all needed is it necessary at all. Well perhaps we can say that Technology is a mode of being that is centralized around those animal needs for survival and to make the means of survival more efficient.

Its is generally referred as a means for society survival and not mention a certain sense of maintaing a certain level of comfort and human luxury. Although survival seems to be the very essence of technology technology as a whole technologically speaking refers to all the possible applications of technology in reference to the common needs of mankind. These common needs as we have referenced have been the survival of mankind not as a whole but in regards to any specific person who wishes to survive.

This definition per se is not enough to answer the question we have brought into consideration simply on the basis of fulfilling an individual means to survival. As a "means" Technology references to much more then technology and the means of it but brings into reference to those conceptual paradoxes which define Technology and possess a given meaning for technology which when directly applies to it renders itself useless.

This is to say we need the technological explanation of "technological" things those things we can describe as being technological but in a way necessary to be explained as means to an end. This end technology wishes to accomplish is not the same as that which "technology" seeks to exploit and leaves us with a corpse of what we are seeking in technology other then the pursuit of the development of those means of utility to their maximum output for our own survival.

This vast difference and void between the ends sought after by technology and those sought after by being lie at their heart in contradiction to each other though in a direct union that arises out of the question of being as such and the means of technology which it utilizes to express this question.
The expression per se cuts itself off the from the focal point which technology seeks to find that is its end which is not an end to itself but only a means for a end it has defined to lie within itself.

This cutting off of consciousness from its very definition per se that which it in itself claims to be its own is cut off from its own reality in which it claims to make use of those things which it frames and reference to those things as it is not yet come into utilizing as being those things which determine the limits of Technology as such.

Does this give us a double truth a truth which lies outside of technology but is defined within it and is obscured over by it in so far as it obscures itself from the Being of the Frame in which all its questions come to an End that is in a sense an actual utilization of the being projected by technology. This negates technology simply to the method of survivability this fact in sense refers that technology does not possess the methods of surviving as such but only in so far as it references those means to align themselves with a relative condition or situation.


This means Technology can only answer questions in so far as it applies itself to a given problem or situation this is to say that which points out or shows itself to be a problem is resolved and covered over by technology clear. At the same time technology is clearing itself for the revealing of that which it can't show or that which is hidden from being shown not shown at all. This is to say paradoxically that in order for Being to reveal itself or show itself it must clear its path through the means or technology which in essence contradicts its own being.

This is not just to say Being per se but the very operation this Being Ontologically presents itself to technology as something which all together is technological and that which hides itself or clears itself through that which survives or strives to survive. This striving is Will and in its very being it is negative for it negates all survival to itself that is the Ego.

That is I as individual. At the same time it is the very positive force of survival and the means to surviving because it preserve the grounds upon which technology progresses this is to say not purely on a subjective grounds which remains to be interpreted and when depended on the interpretation is left nothing but itself. That is to say the means of surviving strive to unify its being with the very Objective force of Self or that Which makes certain that I exist and the means of survival are not just mere predicates for my own existence but they run tangent to those things which belong to Self as Absolute I.

Point in case we have not definitely escaped the definition of technology as a mean for survival and it is not necessary to though point in case of defining "technological aspect" to be necessary means of surviving or those upon which the means and ends correlate or contradict each other as a necessary existence that is mutually exclusive given their separate conditions. The condition of Being anything at all is a question technological frames for itself as a means but it can give us determinate conditions and thus in reference limits these determinate conditions for being Simply Technological to being just merely an aspect of it. This aspect is sense in being with Being and determines the Being to exist to a technological limit or application of those means of technology.

Simply put the Meaning of technology per se is in fact contained with the utility of technology as a means of revealing itself through that which applies itself to those scientific limits it defines in itself to be the very existence of technology simply as a Being qua Being though excluding its very existence to the means that reference itself to this Ontological presence of being. Thus Being Qua Being must be a result of technological frames and thus the frame itself as means of application to it must be the very Being simply put in which Being as such become self evident in those means.

As such all together those things which can not be answered by the question of technology and its means must be left to the question of itself that is the means as the Being itself of all that which is. This is to say the means contain all reference to self outside of it and thus reveal it as such simply as technology as that means of survival. This reference which contains all those being limited to the boundaries of science and those imposed outside of these laws and limitations as to suppose Science as a given operation of its very existence. The laws, limits, and boundaries of technology are not given a priori by technology but that Ontological presence. This is the Ontological at the moment of it becoming different that it transfixing itself into a state of technological utility it at once comes to know itself separately from being technological at all but completely void of all its means.

Essentially as we continue to progress we will realize the technology as a mean to survival is essentially void of all its contents because the frame in which it operates will eventually collapse and its focal point will vanish and become non existent as such in which all technological frames in reference will become transfixed to those things outside of itself. This is to say Technology seems to completely rotate outside itself into an area of no such reference which apply to any given technological system as it applies itself to the means of existing as a limited being. Thus it must be a given a priori that any specific reference towards technology is contained and determined outside its boundaries that which is in vacuum space bent in the heavenly bodies as that which dictates the rotation of all heavenly bodies on their axis.

This is to say that all references to the heavenly bodies exist technological but not as having it as its focal point but rather its opposite so that which arises it as its opposite becomes something that is technological and refined to the definitions we give it for being so these definitions which are determined by those things which hold out statements of the means in which technology apply themselves and under what boundaries they operate. In the end technology's greatest accomplishment is the complete end and destruction of all those things it made means of and applied itself to show and reveal thus enclosing in itself the very definitions and boundaries it has set itself as nothing but that which precedes its very own being this is the Ontological being in which the frame of technology contains itself in the fullest when all that applies itself to disappears except its case in point that which is simply technological.


  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 704 • Replies: 6
No top replies

 
Arjuna
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2010 08:50 pm
@GermanIdealismGuru7,
People are creative. Much of the technology you see around you didn't arise as an answer to any particular problem concerning survival.

The story goes that at the early stages of telephony, a telephone was put on the desk of the mayor of Chicago. His response was: "That's great. But what would you do with it?"

Telecommunication originated in the same spirit children have when they play. It was a great quest. The vaccuum tube which made long distance telephony possible was originally just a novelty. It just happened that it did exactly what the engineers at the American Telephone Co. needed to create a transcontinental phone call... the image came from the impression left on engineers by the transcontinental railroad. So the point was to do something amazing... like having a personal library on a device the size of a paperback book. ( $139 from Amazon.com.)

In the late 1800's the telephone came to a small town in the Mid-West. In those days the central switching was done by a woman who sat at a switchboard. When the telephone arrived, a lonely mortician found his business had disappeared. The switchboard operator was the daughter of his competitor. Every time somebody called in and asked for a mortician, the girl would connect them to her father. The lonely mortician went down to his basement and invented an automatic replacement for her. Americans had already invested in the technology they had... so they turned him away. He went to France and had success there. The first action of Bell Labs, founded in 1920 was to buy the patent for this switch and begin manufacturing it.

In every case there is a human story involved in the production of technology. Technology doesn't have the power to dehumanize. Only people can do that to themselves. So the question is: why would they do that?
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2010 08:51 pm
@GermanIdealismGuru7,
Well well, bare in mind that "Technology" started with Evolution in Big bang and not with mankind...of course you can always stick with the old pretentious belief that mankind made it...the "artificial" Tech I mean...(whatever artificial stands for beats me)
Arjuna
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2010 08:58 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Humans grow technology like birds grow feathers. And for the same reason... which is... they just do.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2010 08:59 pm
@Arjuna,
Its true, and yet microbes and bacteria do just the same... Wink
Link: http://www.ted.com/talks/bonnie_bassler_on_how_bacteria_communicate.html
Arjuna
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2010 09:41 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
That's cool. I wonder how that antibiotic will work out.

Love the light-emitting ones.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2010 11:41 pm
@GermanIdealismGuru7,
Is this more Heidegger ?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Technology as a Frame of Being
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/24/2021 at 04:01:57