Gilbert Simondon—"On the Mode of Existence of Technical Objects"

Chapter Two: Evolution of Technical Reality; Element, Individual, Ensemble” The group began with questions: 1. On page 55 GS writes: “…technical object is determined by human choice”— what does this mean? 2. Why does GS think we need an account of technical objects? Is an account of individuation necessary for an account of evolution? 3. Pg. 57 and 59: what kind of work does the example of the Guimbal turbine do? What does this tell us about association milieu? i. Other examples? Perhaps more contemporary examples? What about the prison as a technical object, panopticon? 4. What does GS mean by invention? Why are living beings capable of invention? Engendering vs production distinction? (60, 71-72). 5. What does technicity mean in relation to technical progress (76)? Change of function in relation between man and machine (81)? 6. Getting clear on distinctions between individual, element, ensemble (—association with milieux). And off to discussion… —Hypertely—dependence on certain technical functions. —pg. 59: associated milieu is not special but an exchange between the technical and the environment. Associated milieu as a point of energy interaction and exchange between environment and technical. Technical object can only exist because of this interaction. (Associated milieu is self-conditioning but is determined by human choice). —pg. 55: example of the traction motor as it relates to the two milieus (geographical and technical). What is it that makes something part of the technical vs geographical milieu? Technical adaptation through tasks to material and human conditions (related to a particular task). Geography: for the environment (e.g., heat/cold, wind, etc) —When the two milieux come together we arrive at technical progress (how do we investigate technical progress?) —individual-element-ensemble distinction: how a technical object hangs together with itself in terms of its own complexity milieux is about connecting it to the worlds (technical world, geographical world, associated world. Then there’s an analytical cut, which is just the ethical object itself, which is just about self-consistency.) —Ensemble could be analogy to a factory; elements are machine parts or simple tools; individual is that larger whole, which can function on its own—correspond to machines, devices, and engines. Ensembles have much greater context and independence. [Ensembles and elements don’t have milieux]. —Is it an analytical distinction or is it an ontology? Is the distinction between these three pragmatic? Three pragmatic readings of a technical object: i. Technical object is a mere use tool [GS wants to resist this kind…there’s a human reality within a technical reality] ii. What counts as (or the way we categorize) an individual from an ensemble from an element is relevant to what we take the milieux to be. iii. What the technical objects to themselves (how they function on their own terms). —Perhaps it comes back to the principle of individuation, which involves recurrent causality within an associated milieux. —Self-conditioning of human beings (i.e., life) reappears in the technical object: “The reason the living being can invent is because it is an individual being that carries its associated milieu with it; this capacity for conditioning itself lies at the root of the capacity to produce objects that condition themselves” (60). —Living and technical are on a par, for example they are both against entropy—stabilizer of the worlds; however, machine does this without a theory of mind. [There’s a containment of the technical object] —Is GS explaining everything in terms of organization? —Is GS importing a value in his distinction between the technical being and the living being: “but the technical being has greater freedom than the living…there is thus no engendering here, no procession or direct production, but only indirect production through the constitution of elements that contain a certain degree of technical perfection” (71-72).