Ostensive-Imperative Generativity and Scenic Design Practices
dennisbouvard.substack.com
I’m continuing to work on my technics hypothesis that the construction of a technological world constitutively complementary to the human one is a product of the perfection of the imperative. The dedication to perfecting the imperative—that is, to ensuring that the imperatives you issue are fulfilled in a way that is completely contained within and predictable by the imperator—has the following consequence: it spreads the initial imperative by generating subsidiary imperatives that prove necessary to ensure the repeatability and controllability of that initial imperative; it generates new pedagogical relations by requiring human supervision over relations between primary and subsidiary imperatives; it spreads the imperative order into nature, which must be made to work as part of the human-machinery network. It should be added—it is imperative to add—that any analysis of these consequences can only be conducted within the perfecting imperative order itself. Any attempt to imagine a “human” space unimplicated in the technological would lead to an incoherent ranting against all the implications in the technological the “humanist” denies. But this also means that in developing an analysis, like this one, for example, one must design ways of indicating the spread of the words one is using across the various technological media. This implies a way of writing, and a way of thinking, that is not logocentric, i.e., that depends neither upon the presumed scenic transparency of classical prose nor the Big Scene imaginary.
Ostensive-Imperative Generativity and Scenic Design Practices
Ostensive-Imperative Generativity and Scenic…
Ostensive-Imperative Generativity and Scenic Design Practices
I’m continuing to work on my technics hypothesis that the construction of a technological world constitutively complementary to the human one is a product of the perfection of the imperative. The dedication to perfecting the imperative—that is, to ensuring that the imperatives you issue are fulfilled in a way that is completely contained within and predictable by the imperator—has the following consequence: it spreads the initial imperative by generating subsidiary imperatives that prove necessary to ensure the repeatability and controllability of that initial imperative; it generates new pedagogical relations by requiring human supervision over relations between primary and subsidiary imperatives; it spreads the imperative order into nature, which must be made to work as part of the human-machinery network. It should be added—it is imperative to add—that any analysis of these consequences can only be conducted within the perfecting imperative order itself. Any attempt to imagine a “human” space unimplicated in the technological would lead to an incoherent ranting against all the implications in the technological the “humanist” denies. But this also means that in developing an analysis, like this one, for example, one must design ways of indicating the spread of the words one is using across the various technological media. This implies a way of writing, and a way of thinking, that is not logocentric, i.e., that depends neither upon the presumed scenic transparency of classical prose nor the Big Scene imaginary.