On the Mode of Existence of Technical Objects, Part 3, Chapter 1

Summary of Part 3, Chapter 1: The Genesis of Technicity

S begins by introducing the concept of phase:

By phase, we mean not a temporal moment replaced by another, but an aspect that results from a splitting in two of being and in opposition to another aspect; this sense of the word phase is inspired by the notion of a phase ratio in physics; one cannot conceive of a phase except in relation to another or to several other phases; in a system of phases there is a relation of equilibrium and of reciprocal tensions; it is the actual system of all phases taken together that is the complete reality, not each phase in itself; a phase is only a phase in relation to others, from which it distinguishes itself in a manner that is totally independent of the notions of genus and species. (173, emphasis added)

[The temporal meaning of “phase” is actually a derived sense, by way of the phases or appearances/aspects of the moon. Another related sense to how S uses the word is that of variant in biology, e.g., orange or red phase bearded dragons.]

The existence of a plurality of phases finally defines the reality of a neutral center of equilibrium in relation to which there is a phase shift.

[He goes on to explain how this is different from a dialectical schema, but I think it is also interesting to consider how this view of a system of plural phases with a “neutral center of equilibrium” replaces or surpasses the cybernetic emphasis in homeostasis.]

Each phase in such a system is “a symbol of the other,” i.e., they necessarily refer to each other in a system of differences, like letters or words, etc.

He thus describes the “phase shift” from the system of magical thinking to the split between technics and religion, each of which is a phase in a new system centered on aesthetic thought, which becomes the neutral point, or center of equilibrium, of this system, and an incomplete analog of the previous magical unity. Religion and technics then split further into theoretical and practical modes; scientific thought is the neutral point of the two theoretical modes, and ethical thought of the two practical modes. Philosophical research is an attempt within this system to find a new, superior analog to the magical unity, surpassing the first analog of aesthetic thought through the convergence and reunion of science and ethics.

S proceeds to discuss the phase shift from the “primitive magical unity,” drawing on the concepts of figure and ground from Gestalt theory, with the caveat that Gestalt’s emphasis on stability be replaced with metastability (177). The primitive magical universe defines “a universe that is at once subjective and objective prior to any distinction between the object and the subject, and consequently prior to any appearance of the separate object.” It is in the phase shift and fragmentation that comes after this that the technical object becomes objectified, and a religious mediator is subjectified.

The magical world is structured through a network of key points (points-clés) which are both spatial (privileged or special locations) and temporal (privileged or special moments or dates). It is these key points which have power, and human specialists access this power through them:

The magical universe is made of a network of access points to each domain of reality: thresholds, summits, limits, and crossing points, attached to one another through their singularity and their exceptional character. (180)

Individuals interact with these key-points through [ritual and] “friendship,” not as dominating, detached subjects:

To climb a slope in order to go toward the summit, is to make one’s way toward the privileged place that commands the entire mountain chain, not in order to dominate or possess it, but in order to exchange a relationship of friendship with it. (179)

It is wrong to suppose that the remnants of magical thinking in the present world are represented by superstitions, which are just degraded vestiges. Rather, it is in “high, noble, or sacred forms of thought” such as the will to exploration or ascent, that we see the survival of magical thinking and its relation to the world of key points. Even contemporary holidays and vacations are attempts to reconnect with key points.

With the phase shift away from the magical order, “figure and ground separate by detaching themselves from the universe to which they adhered” (181). The key-points as figure, “detached from the ground whose key they were, become technical objects, transportable and abstracted from the milieu.” Ground becomes “detached powers and forces,” subjectivized “by personifying themselves in the form of the divine and the sacred (God, heroes, priests).” Thus, the figure is fragmented into individual technical objects, while the ground is universalized into forces, the first thought through technics and the second through religion. After the phase shift and the loss of unity, technics is left with a status, and focus, lower than unity, and religion with a status higher than unity (185). Technics takes the element as its object, decomposing actions into elementary operations that can be solved technically; the technical object is always less than, and subordinate to, the reality it is a part of, acting only on some particular place and time. Religion, for its part, takes aim at intention and tries to solve questions of universal validity, such as ethical rules applicable in all times and places. Technics focuses on the how and on results; religion on the why and on intention (188).

But religious thought, inversely, which is the foundation of obligation, creates a search in ethical thinking for an unconditional justification that makes each act and every subject appear as inferior to real unity; related back to a totality that dilates infinitely, the moral act and subject derive their meaning only from their relation with this totality; the communication between the totality and the subject is precarious, because at every instant the subject is brought back to the dimension of its own unity, which is not that of the totality; the ethical subject is de-centred by the religious requirement. (190)