Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

autonomous_hippopotamus OP wrote

it seems then that we're just quibbling over a word, i've tried to be clear that nuetral can mean a number of different things, in that in some ways technology can be described as nuetral in some ways not.

whatever purposes you use writing for, its omnipresence in highly literate societies has radically transformed modern social existence.

Absolutely, and you could say the same about agriculture, or the internet or whatever. I'm not saying technology does not have material consequences, or that it's the default state of human existence. Only that it can be appropriated for various ends, including liberatory ones.

Since we're agreed upon all these things, the only debate is whether or not nuetral is an appropriate word. What word we use doesn't matter, the point is that technology is fundamentally ambivalent , and intrinsically neither oppressive or liberatory.

1

[deleted] wrote

0

autonomous_hippopotamus OP wrote

what is "technology" here? some technologies are convivial, flexible, may be more accurately described as tools rather than technology. others constitute divisions of labour, hierarchical power relations, or otherwise coordinate human action.

Sure, i think i have said this much in my previous comments. I don't know where i argued that "all technologies are created equal" i don't even know what that could possibly mean, clearly there are different forms of technology, which differ radically in both social and physical characteristics.

When we're talking about a technology, we're not just talking about machines, separate physical objects, but also the social relationships in which they are used, produced in etc. So usually ( and this is probably a bad habit i've kept from the primmies ) when i talk about Technology in the singular, i often mean that matrix of social relations as well as the industrial system. But in that context i mean technology in the abstract : the ability of humans to construct such socio-mechanical systems to serve whatever purpose. That is the sense i mean that technology is ambivalent , that potentially Technology as such -- the ability to manipulate natural forces and coodinate social action, in the abstract -- is neither good nor bad, it is neither oppressive nor liberatory, it is potentially both or neither.

I think this is a pretty basic point, i don't know how much more clear i can make it, you have yet to make any argument to disprove this, you have just repeatedly said that you don't agree with it.

Your distinction between 'tool' and 'technology' is useful, but any technology is made up of simple machines and can be reduced to knowledge of natural 'laws'(sic) , that's really just a a distinction between micro and macro. Even simple tools don't exist outside of this social systems, like a hammer or spear only have meaning within relations of production / socially coordinated action.

making a blanket statement about "technology" in the abstract and describing it as essentially adaptable is not a good approach.

I agree, I'm not giving any general law that applies to all technologies everywhere, nor am i saying all actually existing technologies are essentially adaptable. This is why i have repeatedly have stressed the difference between the particular historical form of a technology and it's abstract potential . For example, the knowledge of physics, mechanics, electrical circuits etc. that make up an automobile can be applied in a number of different ways, that don't necessarily lead to autonomous vehicles, or even the use of fossil fuels.

2

[deleted] wrote (edited )

0

autonomous_hippopotamus OP wrote

Again, you're not actually putting forth a counter argument,

So if technology is not ambivalent it is either absolutely good or absolutely bad (i played a little trick by replacing good with liberatory, bad with oppressive, but whatever is good or bad to you) I know you don't think technology is essentailly good, so i must conclude you think technology -- in every sense, whether potential or actual, is totally bad and unsalvageable.

Instead of nit picking every word i use, i'd like to see you write a coherent argument in defense of that position, bonus points if you don't paraphrase Zerzen.

1

[deleted] wrote (edited )

0

autonomous_hippopotamus OP wrote

like what am i supposed to argue against here? that technology "in the abstract" can't be used for different purposes? and that some of these things might be desirable?

Right exactly, then what the fuck is your point?

1

[deleted] wrote

0

autonomous_hippopotamus OP wrote

oh, are you a leftist? you know, 'the left' isn't really a useful or coherent concept. . . also the term 'productive' obfuscates the goals of 'conversation' and implies a bourgeois conception of reality . . .

2

autonomous_hippopotamus OP wrote

Maybe instead of arguing with people, just for the sake of arguing, without actually contributing anything positive at all, you should engage with conversations that a benifitial for both parties involved, just a suggestion there.

1

[deleted] wrote

0

autonomous_hippopotamus OP wrote (edited )

i don't need your advice on how to live my life, thank you.

You and everyone else here knows what I mean, you'd even indicated that the point is trivial or would be rediculous to argue against. If you think different language should be used, sure, and i have said, the exact langauge doesn't matter ( pro tip: LANGUAGE IS INCAPABLE OF ACCURATELY DESCRIBING REALITY )

What you could do is perhaps 1 explain why such langauge like nuetral or ambivalent is inadaquate 2 proppose an alternative vocabulary or way of conceptualizing what i mean or 3 note that the language is imprecise but move on with the conversation.

Redacted -- but if you want to go through life making pretentious ass quibbles and then trying to guilt trip and gaslight people who get annoyed with you be my guest.

Edit: They weren't gaslighting me, things got a little heated, my bad

3

autonomous_hippopotamus OP wrote

you know there's so many straight up logical fallacies and sophism's you've employed here that i've ignored just to be polite but ---

you're really going to tell me that using the words nuetral or ambivalent to mean "neither good or bad" or "both good and bad" are against their popular connotations ?!?!?

2

[deleted] wrote (edited )

0

autonomous_hippopotamus OP wrote (edited )

I really shouldn't respond to you, but here you go.


f you don't think technology is completely equitable and apolitical with no effect or social impact for the most part, then "neutral" is absolutely the wrong word to use in a discussion about social politics

i actually believe in making qualified statements that take into account the complexity of language, giving credit for where others are correct, and clarifying in which ways a certain statement may be both true and not true. You seem to be very annoyed people are not using your preferred, narrow definition of these terms.

Words have different meanings in different contexts and i already took into account the ways in which technology is definitely not nuetral -- like i don't believe that cellphones, automobiles and TV are "politically nuetral" at all -- but here you are arguing what i've said in the beginning as if i don't' know this. I get the impression you want me to adopt your simplistic, absolutist approach to using langauge, which i absolutely won't do.

if somebody were to say that the state is a impartial institution because it could conceivably be used to enforce, say, social welfare polices that materially contribute to the economic security of the poor, would you agree with that? would you moderate your critique of the bourgeois interests at play in the modern state? including those in welfare? i feel like for an anarchist that would be impossible

On the point you're making about the state or religion: this doesn't contradict what i've been saying. For one: When we talk about technology as such, in the abstract, that is something ontologically prior to either Religion or the State. We can even talk about states and religions in terms of the various technologies, apparatti, technics, etc. that compose them.

You are putting Technology ( as i've repeatedly defined, let's say the ability of human beings to harness natural forces or coordinate action towards particular social ends ) on par with particular institutions that emerge out of certain points in history ( I'm assuming by religion we mean institutional religion not just any set of spiritual beliefs or practices ) These are not equivalent categories. Perhaps the equivalent to Technology as defined (remember?) would be social organization in general, in this sense, then yes, you could say that social organization is neutral, or ambivalent, or not inherently evil, or not essentially undesirable or whatever terminology you prefer... in other words, call it whatever the fuck you want, it doesn't matter.

And... (here we are again) there's a difference between The State as a historical institution, and social organization in general: or the ability of humans to make collective decisions, establish norms and rules etc. So the parallel you're using doesn't hold.

( .. here i am going to make making a bit of a reach since obviously the analysis of something like like information exchange is very different from the modern bourgeous state, but apparently i have to answer the charge that my description of the ability of human beings to make shit necessarily leads to the liberal defense of the state, somehow... )

The State, like any actually existing technology, is a historical form designed with a particular purpose, in the interests of a particular class, etc. It, of course changes hands between ruling cliques and evolves over time, There are the particular characteristics of all States (as opposed to other institutions) or Regimes ( as opposed to other states) But The State is consistently a means of domination. In a liberal democratic state, things like welfare programs and labor regulations are actually strategies of maintaining domination by other means. While, one would be correct to point out the ambivalence (1) of the state in that it may intervene against particular capitaists in defense of certain workers, even this follows a similar line to the technology argument, While guns, automobiles etc. can be appropriated to achieve short term ends, they are still reflections of the social and historical context in which they were made. To achieve anarchy, technology as it exists, just like the dominant social systems -- Capital and The State -- would have to be liquidated and transformed from the bottom up.

1 ambivalence does not mean impartiality at all -- they denote fundamentally different attitudes -- something can be both ambivalent while also being heavily biased towards one side, this is part of the reason i chose that term. Neutral also does not mean 'impartial' , nuetral is often used in popular culture to denote an amoral character.

2

autonomous_hippopotamus OP wrote

The question of whether the term nuetral is appropriate or some other word to be used is an incredibly boring argument imo, and this isn't terminology i've invented. The nuetrality of technology is something that's basically dogma amongst technologists and philosophers of science, I have consistantly argued that this is only true in one sense.

1

[deleted] wrote

0

autonomous_hippopotamus OP wrote

Okay, so got it got a little heated there there, but i guess we're good. For the record Dumai did not gaslight me, sorry, so anyway...


Let me just state where i'm coming from.

I'll concede to you that maybe these terms: neutrality, ambivalence, whatever, are not the right words to use, but I'm only setting them up, within an analytical framework to prove a point. I got a bit frustrated because you seem to be focusing on these words in a vaccuum rather than addressing the argument that i've laid out. Alot of these words we're using, like "technology" or "religion" have a number of very different definitions that only have concrete meaning in particular context. But i'll try to restate my argument without using the terms "nuetral" or "ambivalence."

It might be the argument i'm making is totally wrong and we can express what i'm getting at in a more clear and succinct way. There are many ways to express the same thing. But this is what i got.


I agree with you that technology as exists, within any given society, within the historical structures in which they are emerge, is not neutral and we can talk about all the various technological forms and their function within systems of oppression, exploitation, and ecocide.. That is where concrete analysis of specific technologies comes in. For the purposes of the argument i'm making, i'm not concerned with that.

My intent is to prove that technology has the potential to be used for liberatory ends. It's clear to me that the only way to resist--the state, capitalism, etc.-- is to utilize or re-appropriate certain technologies, technics, sciences, in order to aid in resistance struggles, and to construct new sciences and technics to help build and anarchic world. Some existing technologies and technics can be re-appropriated for the short term ends of organizing resistance--transportation, communication, eduaction etc. Other technologies--means of surveilance, punishment, coercion and general mass manipulation--cannot be utilized in any way and must be destroyed. In the long term, the technological system and science in general must be liquidated and reconstructed along non-heirarchal, ecological lines.

This re-appropriation and reconstruction is only possible because technology in the abstract has no intrinsic value, it is a pure means. The value or function of any given technology has no meaning outside of the social context in which it is used.

By technology in the abstract, i mean simply the ability of humans (and other species to a lesser extent) to gain a working understanding of natural phenomena, and manipulate these forces to suit their ends. It might be that modern science and the existing forms of technology are inseparable from the logic domination. But it is possible, i believe, to construct a new science and new technologies that reflect anarchic ends.

1

[deleted] wrote

0

autonomous_hippopotamus OP wrote

okay, maybe you didn't gaslight me, maybe you were sealioning, idfk, if i caused you some dismay over that i apologize.... in any case, i felt quite annoyed about having to repeatedly re-explain a non-point when we could talk about something more interesting and important.

1

[deleted] wrote

0

autonomous_hippopotamus OP wrote

ah, again you're going to play the definitions games -- one sense that many people use the word gaslight is when you do something, and then claim that you didn't do that, in fact it is all in that person's head. It doesn't necessarily have to be abusive it can just be obnoxious, disingenuous behavior.

and yeah you're really arguing in bad faith, i don't even know what the fuck you're point is and i don't care at this point. fuck you

1