Technology's Autonomy and Human Achievement: What Feedback Wants
Podcast:
In What Technology Wants Kevin Kelly attributes autonomy and wants to technology. Where some science fiction films such as The Terminator demonstrate human anxiety over technology accelerating exponentially, Kelly presents a more optimistic view. Not only that, but Kelly argues that humans are the first human invention. By using some of Kelly’s ideas, I consider the human relationship with technology and technological achievement. My podcast focuses specifically on Jimi Hendrix’s groundbreaking use of feedback. I argue, inline with Kelly’s thinking, that Hendrix did not unleash feedback upon the world; feedback unleashed itself upon the world. Hendrix enabled feedback’s desire to manifest itself.
(20 votes)
Comments
Hey Michael, Fantastic
Hey Michael,
Fantastic post--the production quality is really great.
As I don’t want to jump too far ahead in the syllabus, I will only briefly mention that this idea of “intentional distortion” autonomously arising will pair well with the Michelle Ballif article on the Third-Sophistic Cyborg. Basically, Ballif draws on Michel Serres’ concept of ‘noise’ to argue against a more neo-pragmatic conception of rhetoric. ‘Noise’ proves to be central inclusionary term for Ballif as she claims that neopragmatic rhetoric, operating on clarity and precision, is thoroughly exclusive and therefore not generative. In relation to your post, ‘noise’ allows for the possibility of difference—and this is, as Kelly suggests, the driving force behind understanding technology as a cosmic force. It’s a great article and it will definitely augment some of the ideas you have expressed here.
I have a question though. Like the light bulb, it seems that several people have stumbled across the idea of intentional distortion within the same (dare I say) kairotic moment. Yet, is the reason behind distortion’s want the same as the light bulb? By “wants,” Kelly (along with Dawkin’s selfish-genes, I suppose) means: what are technology’s dominant trends and how do these play out in a bio-techno sphere that privileges and/or inhibits (though not permanently) one trend over another? In other words, was there a kind of cultural and/or musical exigency that set the stage for the advent of intentional distortion?
What's more persuasive than a dinosaur?
Michael, Your podcast was
Michael,
Your podcast was technologically sophisticated, to say the least. But I particularly enjoyed how form matched content. You generate multiple characters or voices, for example, while discussing simultaneity of innovation of voices, such as the guitar. Very cool.
In many ways, Kyle beat me to the punch in bringing up Kairos (Kairotic, indeed!). I will not dwell long, except to say that one of the things I found most interesting about your argument is what was unsaid, yet necessary to your assertions. That of course is the Kairotic. In other words, you implicitly argue that the "wants" of technology or its "leanings, urges and trajectories" are a product of the boundaries embedded within a technology. So, in arguing that "Feedback invented itself; Feedback wanted to happen," you assert that the potentiality of an amplifier (and thus, its subsequent boundaries) erects a trajectory of inevitability. Written into the technology itself is a series of limitations, and ultimately someone will explore them. The uncertain aspect, is the "right time" or the kairotic moment to experiment or explore. So, I agree with Kyle's statement by wondering what the "cultural and / or musical exigency [was] that set the stage for the advent of intentional distortion?".
On that note, I would assert that your argument draws some interesting and unexpected parallels to Brooke's argument about the actionary in _Lingua Fracta_. In Kevin Kelley's first chapter he suggests that "In order to decide how to respond to technology, we have to figure out what technology wants" (17). According to Brooke's logic, this is a reactionary method, rather the one inhabiting the realm of the productive or actionary. While we have determined that these are not mutually exclusive terms, it might be interesting to consider the technium's or a specific technology's "leanings, urges, and trajectories" as an access point to the actionary. If we can sense the trajectory and boundaries of a certain technology, we might better position ourselves within kairos to perform the actionary.