Conversation

I'll put it to that the relevance of Illich's "conviviality" is in the claim that vgr's "invisible soul" of tech has an intrinsic telos: human flourishing. There's no advancement of productive forces if "advancement" doesn't cause flourishing.
Quote Tweet
This is why I find fetishistic human-centricity and Waldenponding to be the essence of non-Tech. It’s people in denial about, or in active resistance against, how the definition of β€œhuman” is changing. Left or right, it’s all an aestheticized trad turn.
Show this thread
1
That is, it's the opposite way round: conviviality doesn't drive the invisible soul, it leads it. This applies regardless of whether what it is to be "human" changes. Flourishing informs and is the end of advancement of productive forces ("Tech").
1
A valuable observation:
Quote Tweet
So, while of course I am onboard with 'human flourishing' (who wouldn't?), I make a distinction between those who *solve* for it in Well-Regulated Techβ„’ , and those who *assume* it as a property of unregulated /intrinsically regulated tech twitter.com/arlynculwick/s
Show this thread
1
Replying to
Only indirectly and haltingly at best. Every time there's an advancement in productive forces, it causes new production relations and new kinds of human. As such, it's pretty much impossible to tell in advance what will count as "flourishing," but the market will inform us.
1
Show replies