In his account of technics, Leroi–Gourhan makes no essential distinction between the tool as a technical organ and the organ as a bodily element. A technical object —a biface, for example—emerges from the sensible matter in the same way as the hand insofar as they both are a “secretion of the body and the brain” and entail a “technique of the body”. In fact, technological tools and devices should never be considered in isolation, because they exist only in relation to the interminglings between bodies and society that they make possible or that make them possible. Thus, technicity, understood in its broadest sense as exteriorization, cannot be thought of as something that is merely added to a so-called “natural” core of embodied life but in its mutual implication with sensibility, that is, in its relationship with the development and historical evolution of the living body understood––in its inseparable connection with the mind–– as the junction between the sensible and the symbolic, the organic and the cultural, and perception and expression. In this paper, I investigate the reciprocal implications of embodied aesthetic thinking and technical thinking in order to show how technicity, as a cultural and symbolic attitude, is rooted in the aesthetic dimension of human experience, understood not only as the relationship to artistic creation but more radically as the human body’s ability to aesthetically engage with the world. In a complementary way, I examine the sensible genesis of the living body’s technicity and address the decisive question of how technics can inflect and catalyze changes in the human sensorium, thinking, and intersubjective relationships. My contribution articulates these questions in the wake of Merleau–Ponty’s phenomenology of the body, especially with regard to the connection between the living body’s motricity and symbolism, and on the basis of Simondon’s groundbreaking reflection on technics, particularly his conception of techno-aesthetics—that is, a primitive form of our contact with the world or of technics in its functional aspects—to develop a cross-reading of the theoretical account of the body and technics made by the two philosophers.

Techno-Aesthetics and Technics of the Body From Merleau-Ponty to Simondon and Back / A.C. Dalmasso - In: Essays in Post-Critical and Contemporary Philosophy of Technology / [a cura di] M. Héder, E. Nádasi. - [s.l] : Vernon Press, 2019. - ISBN 9781622734573. - pp. 89-97

Techno-Aesthetics and Technics of the Body From Merleau-Ponty to Simondon and Back

A.C. Dalmasso
2019

Abstract

In his account of technics, Leroi–Gourhan makes no essential distinction between the tool as a technical organ and the organ as a bodily element. A technical object —a biface, for example—emerges from the sensible matter in the same way as the hand insofar as they both are a “secretion of the body and the brain” and entail a “technique of the body”. In fact, technological tools and devices should never be considered in isolation, because they exist only in relation to the interminglings between bodies and society that they make possible or that make them possible. Thus, technicity, understood in its broadest sense as exteriorization, cannot be thought of as something that is merely added to a so-called “natural” core of embodied life but in its mutual implication with sensibility, that is, in its relationship with the development and historical evolution of the living body understood––in its inseparable connection with the mind–– as the junction between the sensible and the symbolic, the organic and the cultural, and perception and expression. In this paper, I investigate the reciprocal implications of embodied aesthetic thinking and technical thinking in order to show how technicity, as a cultural and symbolic attitude, is rooted in the aesthetic dimension of human experience, understood not only as the relationship to artistic creation but more radically as the human body’s ability to aesthetically engage with the world. In a complementary way, I examine the sensible genesis of the living body’s technicity and address the decisive question of how technics can inflect and catalyze changes in the human sensorium, thinking, and intersubjective relationships. My contribution articulates these questions in the wake of Merleau–Ponty’s phenomenology of the body, especially with regard to the connection between the living body’s motricity and symbolism, and on the basis of Simondon’s groundbreaking reflection on technics, particularly his conception of techno-aesthetics—that is, a primitive form of our contact with the world or of technics in its functional aspects—to develop a cross-reading of the theoretical account of the body and technics made by the two philosophers.
No
English
Settore M-FIL/04 - Estetica
Settore M-FIL/01 - Filosofia Teoretica
Settore L-ART/06 - Cinema, Fotografia e Televisione
Capitolo o Saggio
Comitato scientifico
Pubblicazione scientifica
   Dipartimenti di Eccellenza 2018-2022 - Dipartimento di FILOSOFIA
   MINISTERO DELL'ISTRUZIONE E DEL MERITO
Essays in Post-Critical and Contemporary Philosophy of Technology
M. Héder, E. Nádasi
Vernon Press
2019
89
97
9
9781622734573
Volume a diffusione internazionale
manual
Aderisco
A.C. Dalmasso
Book Part (author)
reserved
268
Techno-Aesthetics and Technics of the Body From Merleau-Ponty to Simondon and Back / A.C. Dalmasso - In: Essays in Post-Critical and Contemporary Philosophy of Technology / [a cura di] M. Héder, E. Nádasi. - [s.l] : Vernon Press, 2019. - ISBN 9781622734573. - pp. 89-97
info:eu-repo/semantics/bookPart
1
Prodotti della ricerca::03 - Contributo in volume
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
2018_A.C. Dalmasso article Post-critical Essays in Philo Tech.pdf

accesso riservato

Tipologia: Publisher's version/PDF
Dimensione 263.13 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
263.13 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2434/790630
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact