SpringerLink
Log in

When the Poem Must Come to an End: Reply to Amzallag’s Commentary on the Coexistence of Technopoiesis and Technopraxis

  • Commentary
  • Published:
Philosophy & Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

    We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

    Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Abstract

Our recent paper examines the relevancy of the latest dual conception of technopoiesis and technopraxis, the former denoting a situation of the prevailing, manifest importance of a technical process upon its end-product and the latter the overall approach of technology conditioned by a dominantly teleological perspective, proposing the idea of techno-onto-poiesis (counterbalanced by techno-ontic-praxis) that points to the efflorescence of techniques (and their material and metaphysical potentiality) that are classified typologically rather than sequentially. Alongside Edgerton’s view, the response calls on the historians of ancient and modern technology to weigh in on the phenomena of technological changes and alternations, instead of essentializing the “old” and “new,” the “innovative” and the “conservative,” and discusses the potential challenges as we move forwards in the study of the history of measurement and measuring thinking.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agamben, G. (2021). La follia di Hölderlin. In Cronaca di una vita abitante (1806-1843). Einaudi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Agamben, G. (1978). Infanzia e storia. Distruzione dell’esperienza e origine della storia. Einaudi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Agamben, G. (2007). Infancy and history. In Translated by Liz Heron. Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amzallag, N. (2021). Technopoiesis—the forgotten dimension of early technique development. Philosophy and Technology, 34, 785–809. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-020-00433-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amzallag, N. (2023). On the coexistence of technopoiesis and technopraxis—comments on the paper “refining technopoiesis: Measures and measuring thinking in ancient China.”. Philosophy and Technology, 36, 29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-023-00629-4

  • Crease, R. P. (2011). World in the balance: The historic quest for an absolute system of measurement (1st ed.). Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edgerton, D. (2006). The shock of the old: Technology and global history since 1900. Profile Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faure, B. (2015). Protectors and predators: Gods of Medieval Japan (Vol. 2). University of Hawaii Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Heidegger, M. (1977). Sein und Zeit, GA 2. In Frankfurt a. M. Vittorio Klostermann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heidegger, M. (2008). In J. Macquarrie & E. Robinson (Eds.), Being and time. Trans. Harper & Row Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoły-Łuczaj, M. (2023). The “other” measure—the “other” technology? Heidegger and Far East traditions—commentary on Shan Wu’s refining technopoiesis: Measures and measuring thinking in ancient China. Philosophy and Technology, 36, 19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-023-00625-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, I. (2012). Ancient Egyptian technology and innovation: Transformations in pharaonic material culture. Brisol Classic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, S. (2023a). Refining technopoiesis: Measures and measuring thinking in ancient China. Philosophy and Technology, 36, 22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-023-00623-w

  • Wu, S. (2023). “Walls” of wax: Reply to Hoły-Łuczaj’s commentary, The “Other” Measure—the “Other” Technology? Heidegger and Far East Traditions. Philosophy and Technology, 36, 26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-023-00630-x

Download references

Availability of Data and Materials

Not applicable

Funding

The article is funded by the Fairbank Center and Harvard China Fund Grant (of Harvard University), Harvard Asia Center, and the Loeb Fellowship (granted by the Committee on the Study of Religion of Harvard University).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Committee on the Study of Religion, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA

    Shan Wu

Authors
  1. Shan Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Not applicable (single author)

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shan Wu.

Ethics declarations

Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate

Not applicable

Consent for Publication

Not applicable

Competing Interests

The author declares no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wu, S. When the Poem Must Come to an End: Reply to Amzallag’s Commentary on the Coexistence of Technopoiesis and Technopraxis. Philos. Technol. 36, 37 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-023-00639-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-023-00639-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation