Class 5: February 4, 2010

Frames of Reference

During the class, I said a few things about the enframing section of The Question Concerning Technology and read from a paper by David Waddington. I didn't discuss what may be considered an important point or two in that section, so I'll share now what I might have also said.

The enframing is, I think and as I said in class, a frame of reference from which to view the world. It's ironic that Heidegger uses the discipline of physics to make his point because it is in physics that frames of reference abound. It really is interesting in the sense that modern physics is purely theoretical; that is, what is discovered is first put forward through hypothesis, and then from the realm of the unseen, the concealed, comes the proof. When was the last time you saw an atom, let alone a quark? I haven't either, but according to physicists, they are there. Nature has reported to physicists that it is so.

Heidegger said that "because the essence of technology lies in enframing, modern technology must employ exact physical science." His reference to Heisenberg's lecture may be the address Heisenberg gave when accepting the 1933 Nobel Prize for physics - have not been able to verify that yet. I looked at that address; didn't read beyond the first page. Anyway, Heidegger also says that even causality is not the same, that it too has become a "reporting challenged forth." Everything is now coldly calculated and has become ultra utilitarian, physical science supporting all. Not to worry though, the saving power exists.

Moving on, Theoretical Physics (modern physics) is essentially all mathematics. But, like Heidegger said, math existed before technology. Here is where fuzz appears, again. How can technology set-upon math? It doesn’t, unless we’re trying to prove that pi is rational, and then we need a program to run a computer to get to that next decimal place. A program... hmm, I want to talk about that.

Probably everyone in this course has written a computer program. Programming is all about modeling and ordering, an exercise similar to that of Theoretical Physics. Theoretical physicists make models based partially on what has come before, which, when traced back far enough, are built upon direct observation of nature. Those observations were modeled mathematically afterward, not the other way around. Newtonian Physics began with observation, not with math, yet, it did turn into a mathematical physics. No matter. Just imagine that you observe a phenomenon and realize you can model it with an equation. Now begin playing with equations supporting particular phenomena, in the same way Denis was playing with the text/words during class. Let the enframing begin? Play with enough things that you can see and maybe you’ll discover something you can’t. Enough... as I was saying, programming is about modeling and ordering. Not one detail can be missed when composing a program, not one condition overlooked. And while programmers today have sophisticated tools to help create the Windows’ of the world, those tools must meticulously be designed on paper (or in mind) and every possibility thought through before production of them can begin. Early computers would have first begun on paper and all the hardware’s AND, NAND, OR and NOR gates tested by tracing through manually, in the same way we add numbers without a calculator. The computer, actually all modern technology, is nothing short of miraculous. The technology - the techne - behind it is not the laws of physics or chemistry, it’s the reason and creativity that went into combining the scientific laws with pure logic. Programming, actually all engineering design, is a perfect act of enframing. But, it is all grounded in revealing, a process directed by Being (so Heidegger might say). The modern machine, in the generic sense of the word, is a work of art, just like the chalice. Given what I have just said, the essence of technology just might be pure reason, which can be said to be spirit. I read that in a book somewhere years ago, that spirit is pure reason. Hence, the essence of technology is nothing physical, and as Heidegger says, it is an illusion to think so. Spirit, by the way, can be argued to be the essence of Being. So, logical syllogism applied, Being is technology. Yes... so, if technology is Being revealed, then enframing must be a destining because Being does things on its own terms. Having said that, I still believe in free choice, as I said in my handout. But, wouldn't it be something if the choices we make, which we think are free, are actually predestined. That, is on the edge. One last observation regarding revealing, the light from the most distant stars is just starting to hit Earth now. The universe is revealing itself.

Now, if you are not too tired, here’s another idea. How do we challenge-forth learning? What technology – techne – do we use? Denis pointed out that his iPhone challenges him... well, I’ll say preoccupies him. But, he is interested in it... and he is learning. The technology is challenging-forth learning. Something I heard on the radio today struck me. I was listening to The Age of Persuasion on CBC radio one, 990. Host Terry O’Reilly talked about media theorist Neil Postman, saying that he said that when there was only printed materials, people thought in text, in print. They would have also thought in images, and music. Today, people also think in hyper-mode media: websites, TV, smartphone. Designing curricula for all the media of current thought sounds like a good idea.