论宇宙技术：人类世中技术与自然的关系重建 1

许煜著; 韩晓强; 王敏燕译

PDF(1579 KB)

国际新闻界 ›› 2023, Vol. 45 ›› Issue (1) : 157-176.

研究论文

论宇宙技术：人类世中技术与自然的关系重建 ¹

作者信息 +

On Cosmotechnics: For a Renewed Relation between Technology and Nature in the Anthropocene

Author information +

文章历史 +

摘要

本文旨在对“人类世”中自然与技术之间的新关系展开批判性反思，并将这一问题与人类学中最近关于“本体论转向”的辩论结合起来，以求超越被解析为现代性危机的自然/文化二元论。与人类学这一运动相关的“本体论政治”开启了非人类参与的问题。本文将这种人类学尝试与哲学家吉尔伯特·西蒙东的工作进行了比照，因为后者想要克服的恰恰是文化与技术之间的对立。根据西蒙东的观点，这种对立源自18世纪末现代性的技术断裂。本文分析了呈现于上述学者作品中的对立面（如文化与自然、文化与技术）之差异，以表明自然人类学（通过菲利普·德寇拉的工作予以说明）与技术哲学（通过西蒙东的工作予以说明）之间的对话在将自然与技术之间的关系重建概念化方面富有成效。本文试图表明，启动这种对话以及思考如何调和自然与技术的一种方式是发展宇宙技术的概念，并将其作为这两种思维趋势的公分母。

Abstract

This article aims to bring forward a critical reflection on a renewed relation between nature and technology in the Anthropocene, by contextualizing the question around the recent debates on the “ontological turn” in Anthropology, which attempts to go beyond the nature and culture dualism analysed as the crisis of modernity. The “politics of ontologies” associated with this movement in anthropology opens up the question of participation of non-humans. This article contrasts this anthropological attempt with the work of the philosopher Gilbert Simondon, who wants to overcome the antagonism between culture and technics. According to Simondon, this antagonism results from the technological rupture of modernity at the end of the eighteenth century. This paper analyses the differences of the oppositions presenting their work: culture vs. nature, culture vs. technics, to show that a dialogue between anthropology of nature (illustrated through the work of Philippe Descola) and philosophy of technology (illustrated through the work of Simondon) will be fruitful to conceptualize a renewed relation between nature and technology. One way to initiate such a conversation as well as to think about the reconciliation between nature and technology, this article tries to show, is to develop the concept of cosmotechnics as the denominator of these two trends of thinking.

导出引用

许煜著, 韩晓强, 王敏燕译. 论宇宙技术：人类世中技术与自然的关系重建 ¹[J]. 国际新闻界. 2023, 45(1): 157-176

Written by YUK Hui, by Han Xiaoqiang, Wang Minyan. On Cosmotechnics: For a Renewed Relation between Technology and Nature in the Anthropocene[J]. Chinese Journal of Journalism & Communication. 2023, 45(1): 157-176

参考文献

列表( 原文顺序 | 文献年度倒序 | 文中引用次数倒序 ) 可视化分析

[1]	Brague, R. (2006). The Wisdom of the World:The Human Experience of the Universe in Western Thought. Chicago, CHI: University of Chicago Press.

[2]	Brand, S. (1968). Whole Earth Catalog Fall 1968. Retrieved from http://www.wholeearth.com/index.php. http://www.wholeearth.com/index.php

[3]	Crutzen, P. J. (2006). The “Anthropocene”. In Ehlers, E and Krafft, T. (Eds.). Earth System Science in the Anthropocene (pp.13-18). Berlin, GER: Springer. 本文引用 [1]

[4]	Danowski D. & de Castro, E. V. (2016). The Ends of the World. xLondon, UK: Polity. 本文引用 [1]

[5]	Deleuze, G. (1992). Postscript on the societies of control. October, 59, 3-7. 本文引用 [1]

[6]	Descola, P. (2013). Beyond Nature and Culture (Lloyd, J. Trans). Chicago, CHI: University of Chicago Press. 本文引用 [3]

[7]	Descola, P. (2014). La Composition des Mondes - Entretiens avec Pierre Charbonnier. Paris, FR: Flammarion.

[8]	Descola, P. (2015). Humain, trop humain. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EKlazkW-ls. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EKlazkW-ls 本文引用 [1]

[9]	Duhem, L. (2009). La tache aveugle et le point neuter (Sur le double « faux départ » de l”esthétique de Simondon). In Barthélémy, Jean-Hugues. (Ed). Cahiers Simondon, Numéro 1 (pp. 115-135). Paris, FR: L’Harmattan. 本文引用 [1]

[10]	Foucault, M. (1970). The Order of Things. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.

[11]	Haraway, D. (2016). Staying with the Trouble:Making Kin in the Chthulucene. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. 本文引用 [4]

[12]	Heidegger, M. (1950/1971). The Thing. In Poetry, Language, Thought. (pp.163-80) (Hofstadter, A. Trans.). New York, NY: Harper & Row.

[13]	Heidegger, M. (1977). The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays. (Lovitt, W. Trans.). New York, NY: Harper and Row. 本文引用 [2]

[14]	Hui, Y. (2015). Modulation after Control. New Formations, 84-85, 74-91.

[15]	Hui, Y. (2016a). On the Existence of Digital Objects. Minneapolis, MPLS: University of Minnesota Press.

[16]	Hui, Y. (2016b). The Question Concerning Technology in China: An Essay in Cosmotechnics. Falmouth, UK: Urbanomic.

[17]

Hui,

(2017). Rhythm and technics: on Heidegger’s commentary on Rimbaud. Research in Phenomenology, 47, 60-84.

https://doi.org/10.1163/15691640-12341356

https://brill.com/view/journals/rip/47/1/article-p60_4.xml

摘要

This article takes up Heidegger’s commentary on Rimbaud’s Lettres du voyant as the starting point for an exploration of the question of rhythm in Heidegger’s thought, and an attempt to situate it within his understanding of technics and Being. Besides pursuing a historical study of the concept of rhythm in Heidegger’s work, this article proposes to understand rhythm through the concept of individuation. It responds to the French philosopher Jacques Garelli’s critique of Heidegger that the latter ignores the question of individuation and always starts with beings that are already individuated. On the contrary, this article attempts to sketch a theory of individuation of rhythm in Heidegger’s proper thinking through a re-interpretation of the Fug—a word he used to translate the Greek word δίκη and words derived from it: joint (Fuge), structure (Gefüge), submission (sich fugen), etc.

[18]	Hui Y. & Halpin, H. (2013). Collective Individuation: The Future of the Social Web. In Lovink, G. (Ed.). Unlike Us Reader (pp.103-16). Amsterdam, NL: Institute of Network Cultures. 本文引用 [1]

[19]	Ingold, T. (2014). A Circumpolar Night’s Dream. In Clammer, J., PoirierS., & SchwimmerE.(Eds.). Figured Worlds:Ontological Obstacles in Intercultural Relations (pp.25-57). Toronto, CAN: University of Toronto Press. 本文引用 [1]

[20]	Kohn, E. (2015). Anthropology of Ontologies. Annual Review of Anthropology, 44, 311-327. https://doi.org/10.1146/anthro.2015.44.issue-1 https://www.annualreviews.org/toc/anthro/44/1

[21]	Koyré, A. (1957). From the Closed World to the Ininite Universe. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

[22]	Latour, B. (1993). We Have Never Been Modern. (Porter, C. Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 本文引用 [1]

[23]	Latour, B. (2004). Politics of Nature:How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy. (Porter, C. Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

[24]	Latour, B. (2013). An Inquiry into Modes of Existence:An Anthropology of the Moderns. (Porter, C. Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 本文引用 [1]

[25]	Latour, B. (2015). Face à Gaïa: Huit conférences sur le nouveau régime climatique. Paris, FR: La Découverte. 本文引用 [1]

[26]	Lévi-Strauss, C. (1992). Tristes Tropiques. (Weightman, J & Weightman, D. Trans.). New York, NY: Penguin Books. 本文引用 [1]

[27]	Lovink G.(Ed.) (2013). Unlike Us Reader. Amsterdam, NL: Institute of Network Cultures.

[28]	Lyotard, Jean-François & Brügger, N. (1993). Examen oral - Entretien avec Jean-François Lyotard. In Brügger, N., Frandsen, F. & Pirotte, D. (Eds.). Lyotard - Les déplacements philosophiques (pp.137-53). Brussels, BE: De boeck-Wesmael. 本文引用 [1]

[29]	Mauss, M. (2013). Sociologie et Anthropologie. Paris, FR: PUF. 本文引用 [1]

[30]	McLuhan, M. (1974). At the moment of Sputnik the planet became a global theatre in which there are no spectators but only actors. Journal of Communication, 24(1), 48-58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1974.tb00354.x https://academic.oup.com/joc/article/24/1/48-58/4553567 本文引用 [1]

[31]

Northcott,

(2015). Eschatology in the Anthropocene: From the Chronos of Deep Time to the Kairos of the Age of Humans. In Hamilton, C., Bonneuil, C. & Gemenne, F. (Eds.). The Anthropocene and the Global Environmental Crisis: Rethinking Modernity in a New Epoch (pp. 100-112). London, UK: Routledge.

本文引用 [1]

[32]	Pickering, A. (2017). The ontological turn: taking different worlds seriously. Social Analysis, 61(2), 134-150. 本文引用 [1]

[33]	Simondon, G. (2005). L”individuation à la lumière des notions de forme et d”information. Grenoble, FR: Million. 本文引用 [2]

[34]	Simondon, G. (2009a). Entretien sur la méchanologie. Revue de synthèse, 130(1), 103-32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11873-009-0072-9 https://brill.com/view/journals/rds/130/1/article-p103_6.xml 本文引用 [1]

[35]	Simondon, G. (2009b). Technical mentality. Parrhesia, 7, 17-27. 本文引用 [1]

[36]	Simondon, G. (2012). Du Mode d”Existence des Objets Techniques. Paris, FR: Aubier. 本文引用 [11]

[37]	Simondon, G. (2014). Sur la Technique. Paris, FR: PUF. 本文引用 [1]

[38]	Simondon, G. (2016). Sur la Philosophie. Paris, FR: PUF. 本文引用 [1]

[39]	Skaish, P. (2014). Anthropological Metaphysics/Philosophical Resistance. Retrieved from https://culanth.org/fieldsights/anthropological-metaphysics-philosophical-resistance. https://culanth.org/fieldsights/anthropological-metaphysics-philosophical-resistance

[40]	Stiegler, B. (2015). Sortir de l’anthropocène. Multitudes, 3(60), 137-46. 本文引用 [1]

[41]	Stiegler, B. (2016). Dans la Disruption. Paris, FR: Les liens qui libèrent.

[42]	Stiegler B, and During, E. (2004). Philosopher par accident. Paris, FR: Galilée.

[43]	Viveiros de Castro, E. (2014). Cannibal Metaphysics. Minneapolis, MPLS: Univocal Publishing.

注释 [Notes]

1. 原文出处：Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology 21. 2/3 (2017): 319-341. 本文得到作者和发表期刊的同意授权。

2. 由于技术（technics）这一概念（我以之涵盖所有形式的技术活动）有着很大的局限性，我们或许可以说，依海德格尔所见，技术应该有两种概念：首先是希腊的技艺（technē）概念，这意味着创生或生产（Hervorbringen）；其次是现代技术，海德格尔认为其本质不再是技艺而是集置（Gestell），其中的存在被理解为“储备”或“库存”（Bestand）。这里的局限性在于，一旦这种理论化被全球接受，就不再有任何非欧技术概念的位置，目前的情况就是如此。

3. 我是从贝尔纳·斯蒂格勒与埃尔·杜灵（Elie During）的对话录《意外地哲学思考》（Philosopher par accident，2004）以及吉尔伯特·西蒙东那里知悉了第二自然的概念，对西蒙东而言（对布莱士·帕斯卡尔也一样），第二自然更多意味着习惯。参见Gilbert Simondon, Du Mode d’Existence des Objets Techniques, Paris: Aubier, 2012.布鲁诺·拉图尔在他的《自然的政治》中建议放弃自然这个概念，并写道：“当最狂热的生态学家颤抖着喊出‘自然将死’时，他们不知道自己有多么正确。谢天谢地，自然确实将死，伟大的潘神已经死了。在上帝和人类接连死亡后，现在轮到自然化为幽灵了。时候到了：我们无法再参与任何政治了。”参见Bruno Latour, Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy, trans. Catherine Porter, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004.与拉图尔相反，我认为人们只能放弃作为绝对天真纯粹意义的第一自然概念，但不能放弃自然这个绝对概念，因为正是自然将我们与宇宙的问题重新联系起来。

4. 值得注意的是，在与皮埃尔·夏波尼耶（Pierre Charbonnier）的对话中，德寇拉谈到了他成长时期法国的两个人类学流派：其一是由斯特劳斯创立的社会人类学与民族学研究（FRASE）；其二是勒鲁瓦-古昂创立的以人种学为中心的研究（CFRE）。德寇拉指出“这对应人类学思维的两种风格，彼此不完全对立，但由于两位创始人的个性和旨趣不同，它们在大学领域里基本上是分开的”。参见Philippe Descola, La Composition des Mondes - Entretiens avec Pierre Charbonnier, Paris: Flammarion, 2014.

5. 在《论中国的技术问题：宇宙技术初论》（2016）一书中，我以中国为例解释了传统知识在现代化过程中是如何被破坏或侵蚀的。然而我同样认为“回到过去”不可能是一个现实选项，因为从目前的地缘政治以及社会经济形势来看，这绝无可能。我的提议是从中国哲学中发展出一种宇宙技术思维，以证明这一从中国思想中提取的技术思维脉络如何有助于反思全球技术的问题及未来发展。黛博拉·达诺夫斯基与维韦罗斯·德卡斯特罗在他们合著的《世界的尽头》（The Ends of the World，2016）一书中批评拉图尔未能认识到“土著人的小人口基数与‘相对薄弱’的技术”之优势和资源，在我看来，人们很容易陷入一种民族中心主义，认为解决方案在西方或土著人的思想中已然存在，而且在某种程度上从一开始就存在。我们的主要问题是，土著本体论能以何种方式与西方技术及形而上学展开对话，进而改变当前全球技术的趋势。

6. 在《论数码对象的存在》（On the Existence of Digital Objects，2016）一书中，我批驳了西蒙东将他的网状结构概念过多限定在地理阈限上，并且指出他的网状结构理论正是因为这个原因而无法为理解数码对象提供一个适当的数量级。然而就生态与环境危机而言，他对地理环境与技术环境之兼容性的强调仍然是富有意义的。

7. 在海德格尔看来，物与Gegenstand这一意义上的对象是全然对立的。物，或德语中的Ding，来自动词dinc，意思是聚集、集合；在对象的政治中，存在着主体与客体的二元对立，而在物的政治中，则是从属-共同的对立，一个物因此具备四重聚合的功能。Cf. Yuk Hui, On the Existence of Digital Objects, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2016.

8. 该视频可见于YouTube，https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLkjI8U5PoQ。

9. 在西蒙东的遗作文集《论哲学》（Sur la philosophie）中，我们发现他对“反馈”一词有多重译法，包括内部共振（résonance interne）、对向反应（contre-réaction）、因果复现（récurrence de causalité）与循环因果关系（causalité circulaire）。Gilbert Simondon, Sur la Philosophie, Paris: PUF, 2016, p.51.

10. 像雷米·布拉格（Rémi Brague）与亚历山大·柯瓦雷（Alexandre Koyré）等史学家都在他们关于西方宇宙学的工作中得出欧洲现代性中宇宙终结的结论。参见Rémi Brague, The Wisdom of the World: The Human Experience of the Universe in Western Thought, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006.以及Alexandre Koyré, From the Closed World to the Infinite Universe, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press,1957.

11. 我们可以参考斯蒂格勒以及基尔特·洛文克的提案和实践，参见Bernard Stiegler, Dans la Disruption, Paris: Les liens qui libèrent, 2016.以及Geert Lovink, ed. Unlike Us Reader, Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures, 2013.

12. 在此我参考了马丁·海德格尔把对未知事物的预期视为诗人的任务，并视其为自我封闭的技术力量之对立面。参见Yuk Hui, “Rhythm and Technics: On Heidegger’s Commentary on Rimbaud”, Research in Phenomenology, no. 47, 2017, pp.60-84.