{"id":18288,"date":"2016-08-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2016-08-17T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/leithart.level2d.com\/?p=66"},"modified":"2016-08-17T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2016-08-17T00:00:00","slug":"technology-and-wonder","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/2016\/08\/technology-and-wonder\/","title":{"rendered":"Technology and Wonder"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<\/head>

M<\/span>any critiques of technology are technological critiques of technology. That is, they weigh technology by technological standards and find it wanting. So argues Antonio Lopez in an essay in Retrieving Origins and the Claim of Multiculturalism<\/a>. Lopez spies a technological mindset behind the question: \u201cwhat do we do with or in this technological world of ours<\/em>?\u201d (58; emphasis original). The question assumes that this technological world is another set of phenomena with which we are to \u201cdo\u201d something, another bit of raw material for us to master intellectually and practically. Moral questions about technology are necessary, he argues, but before we judge some tool or instrument to be good or bad, we have to figure out what technology is<\/em>. <\/p>\n

Lopez proposes not a technological critique but an ontological and epistemological one. George Grant provide a starting point: Technology is, Grant said, \u201cthe basic way Western men experience their own existence in the world. Out of it come large organizations, bureaucracy, machines, and the belief that all problems can be solved scientifically, in some immediate quantifiable way. The technological society is one in which men are bent on dominating and controlling human and non-human nature\u201d (quoted, 59). Following Grant\u2019s lead, Lopez sees a \u201cnovel and peculiar relation between thinking and making\u201d at the foundation of modern technology (59). Pre-moderns made things and used tools, but they did it differently. In what Lopez calls \u201cthe ancient-medieval worldview,\u201d \u201csingular beings are true because they participate in the divine logos.\u201d Like other beings, humans were created to participate in that logos, and our work expresses this participation in God\u2019s own creative logos. Human beings work \u201cnot to subjugate\u201d the world but \u201cto put it in relation with its Creator so that all created beings may attain the divine goal\u201d of worshiping the Creator and being transparent to His glory. Thus, \u201ctechne<\/em> is at the service of art and contemplation; thinking informs making\u201d (65).<\/p>\n

Relying on Joseph Ratzinger, Lopez argues that modernity disrupted this worldview by depriving truth of \u201cits ontological dimension\u201d and making is \u201ca product of human making.\u201d He cites Vico\u2019s axiom, verum quia factum<\/em>, translating it as \u201ctruth is what we have made ourselves\u201d (65). Science is knowledge of causes, Vico argued, and we can only grasp the causes of things we have made. This is linked to a reduction of Aristotelian fourfold causality to efficient causality, and the result is a separation of logos from being. Time is likewise detached from eternity, leaving the door open for historical relativism and for the Marxian drive to change instead of contemplate the world. In the earlier worldview, singular beings were treated as wholes; now they are treated as \u201cheaps\u201d of fragments that can be disassembled and reassembled at will. In a reversal of the ancient-medieval model, \u201cart<\/em> has become subservient to techne<\/em>; making informs knowing\u201d (65-66).<\/p>\n

Lopez lays a large part of the blame for this shift on Protestantism, specifically on Calvin, who taught, in Lopez\u2019s view, that God was \u201cradically other and omnipotent will\u201d (73). Protestantism wanted to dismantle ancient metaphysics for theological reasons; early modern scientists wanted to overcome hylomorphism because it stood in the way of scientific and technological progress. In fact the very drive to reform \u2013 to reform religion or to improve conditions through technology \u2013 expresses a technological mindset that severs \u201cthe intrinsic relation between God and the world\u201d (73). Channeling Weber, he argues that for Calvin \u201cGod\u2019s salvific will can only be perceived in action, not in contemplation. Successful, ever-fruitful action is the only place where the human being can perceive whether he is pleasing to God or not\u201d (73). (For a response to similar distortions of Calvin, see Todd Billings, Calvin, Participation, and the Gift<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

Lopez argues that our main stance toward the world shouldn\u2019t be control, domination, or mastery but wonder<\/em>. Each \u201csingular being has the form of, and, in fact, is<\/em> a gift\u201d (76). As gift, each being points \u201cto a giver intending a recipient,\u201d and this means that \u201cknowing takes place inside a prior being known\u201d (76). Recognizing the gift character of every being means recognizing that being as other<\/em>, and this produces a willingness to let it be, to delight in other beings for their own sake. Wonder \u201callows us to see that true knowledge also takes the form of fruition, that is, of selfless enjoyment of the rightness of being for its own sake\u201d (77). Lopez sees this as a fundamentally theological attitude toward reality: \u201cTo let be is to acknowledge the singular\u2019s otherness and its relation with the source that continuously makes the singular be. There is no fruition or wonder if the third, that is, the source that unifies the singular and the beholder while preserving each one\u2019s irreducible wholeness, is not also acknowledged\u201d (79). Technology is human making in a world without God.<\/p>\n

Wonder and letting-be might seem to undermine the biblical emphasis on human dominion over the creation, but Lopez affirms the goodness and necessity of human work. He offers a version of the ancient-medieval worldview. Wonder enables us to see that \u201chuman work is a participation in a far deeper working.\u201d A worker \u201cparticipates in the fulfillment of the design that he is not able to master.\u201d We inevitably change the world by our work, but \u201cthe change that human work is called to effect in the world is a participation in a deeper change that was neither begun nor will be completed by man alone\u201d (83). Technology is right to see that our engagement with the world collaborates \u201cin the revelation of what the world is.\u201d What is false in technology is its \u201cobliviousness to the truth that human making reveals a light that is not man\u2019s own but the divine mystery\u2019s, and that what man \u2018produces\u2019 reflects his finite glory only inasmuch as it reflects the mystery\u2019s glory.\u201d Detached from wonder, \u201ctechnological making, under the guise of novelty, increases boredom and homelessness\u201d (83).<\/p>\n

Lopez\u2019s dense essay offers a powerful critique of technological ontology and epistemology, but at some critical points it\u2019s not altogether persuasive. First, modern science and technology aren\u2019t as devoid of wonder as Lopez suggests. Galileo\u2019s telescope and Leeuwenhoek\u2019s microscope opened vast new worlds for human contemplation and exploration. Is anyone so numbed as not to be stunned by Hubble photographs of deep space or the unraveling of the genome? Awe at the \u201ctechnological sublime<\/a>\u201d may be little more than awe at an enlarged reflection of ourselves, but wonder at human prowess is still a form of wonder. This may amount to a friendly amendment to Lopez\u2019s argument, since it implies that what\u2019s missing from technology\u2019s epistemology isn\u2019t wonder per se<\/em> but a theological expression of wonder.<\/p>\n

But the sense of wonder in modern technology, second, is partly driven by recognition of the usefulness of \u201csingular beings.\u201d That is precisely the mindset that Lopez attacks, but it\u2019s not clear why perception of utility should be at odds with wonder. I am awestruck at the trees outside my office window, but my wonder only increases<\/em> as I learn more about the intricate workings of the roots, trunk, branches, and leaves and their intricate cooperation. My wonder increases as I break down the whole into a \u201cheap\u201d of parts and begin to see how the whole is complicated by its parts. Every whole we encounter is a complex<\/em> whole, and its glory is displayed in the unity-in-complexity. In short, there is a third choice between \u201cwhole\u201d and \u201cheap\u201d; and that is harmony<\/em>. <\/p>\n

<\/span>To make a similar point from another direction: Can I even know the qualities of a singular without some practical engagement with the thing? I might contemplate an apple tree, but doesn\u2019t its beauty arise in part from the fact that it produces fruit for me to consume? Isn\u2019t one of the wonders of a tree the fact that it\u2019s made of wood, and that this wood can be used to construct human habitations? But how can I even know that a tree possesses these wondrous qualities unless I pick the fruit, unless I cut it into usable planks? Isn\u2019t the tree\u2019s capacity to be put into service to my neighbor part of its glory? <\/p>\n

Perhaps Lopez means to cover this sort of use when he describes work as a collaboration in revealing \u201cwhat the world is.\u201d We fulfill the purpose and design of the tree when we turn it into a house or a meal. But Lopez appears to view our practical engagement with the world as a second<\/em> moment, following on contemplative wonder. I am proposing that wonder and work are coinherent: Our wonder deepens as we make practical use of creation, and our use is guided by grateful wonder. And this, finally, points back to the ontological issues that Lopez raises. Lopez\u2019s characterization of modern treatments of making-thinking is, at the very least, questionable. As Milbank has argued, Vico\u2019s idea that verum <\/em>and <\/em>factum<\/em> are convertible, the elevation of factum<\/em> to a place among the transcendentals, is rooted in late medieval Trinitarian theology, developing the patristic insight that God Himself is eternally productive and fruitful, eternally producing an image that is His ars<\/em>. The Son is not made but begotten; yet there is a transitive movement within the divine life, the Father begetting an other<\/em>. Within the Triune life, there is not only praxis<\/em> but also poiesis<\/em>, not only actions that remain with the actor but actions that produce an other<\/em> to the actor. The departure from ancient-medieval hylomorphic metaphysics doesn\u2019t necessarily detach logos from created being, nor time from eternity. A poetic Trinitarian ontology instead supports something very like Lopez\u2019s notion that our work participates in change that we neither initiate nor complete. Perhaps it provides sounder support that Lopez\u2019s own ontology.<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Many critiques of technology are technological critiques of technology. That is, they weigh technology by technological standards and find it wanting. So argues Antonio Lopez in an essay in Retrieving Origins and the Claim of Multiculturalism. Lopez spies a technological mindset behind the question: \u201cwhat do we do with or in this technological world of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3021,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1631,1632,111,1633],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-18288","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-antonio-lopez","category-hylomorphism","category-technology","category-wonder"],"yoast_head":"\nTechnology and Wonder<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Many critiques of technology are technological critiques of technology. That is, they weigh technology by technological standards and find it wanting. So\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/2016\/08\/technology-and-wonder\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Technology and Wonder\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Many critiques of technology are technological critiques of technology. That is, they weigh technology by technological standards and find it wanting. So\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/2016\/08\/technology-and-wonder\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Leithart\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:author\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Leithart\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2016-08-17T00:00:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Peter Leithart\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@PLeithart\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Peter Leithart\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/2016\/08\/technology-and-wonder\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/2016\/08\/technology-and-wonder\/\",\"name\":\"Technology and Wonder\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2016-08-17T00:00:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-17T00:00:00+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/#\/schema\/person\/6bb7113e4dd45fe26045622aa56f891d\"},\"description\":\"Many critiques of technology are technological critiques of technology. That is, they weigh technology by technological standards and find it wanting. So\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/2016\/08\/technology-and-wonder\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/2016\/08\/technology-and-wonder\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/2016\/08\/technology-and-wonder\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Technology and Wonder\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/\",\"name\":\"Leithart\",\"description\":\"My blog is a public notebook, featuring essays, notes, and explorations on Scripture, theology, literature, politics, culture.\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/#\/schema\/person\/6bb7113e4dd45fe26045622aa56f891d\",\"name\":\"Peter Leithart\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f1033df9cd7263d2e0408cf9ee92ee4d?s=96&d=identicon&r=pg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f1033df9cd7263d2e0408cf9ee92ee4d?s=96&d=identicon&r=pg\",\"caption\":\"Peter Leithart\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Leithart\/\",\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/PLeithart\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/author\/pleithart\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Technology and Wonder","description":"Many critiques of technology are technological critiques of technology. That is, they weigh technology by technological standards and find it wanting. So","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/2016\/08\/technology-and-wonder\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Technology and Wonder","og_description":"Many critiques of technology are technological critiques of technology. That is, they weigh technology by technological standards and find it wanting. So","og_url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/2016\/08\/technology-and-wonder\/","og_site_name":"Leithart","article_author":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Leithart\/","article_published_time":"2016-08-17T00:00:00+00:00","author":"Peter Leithart","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@PLeithart","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Peter Leithart","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/2016\/08\/technology-and-wonder\/","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/2016\/08\/technology-and-wonder\/","name":"Technology and Wonder","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/#website"},"datePublished":"2016-08-17T00:00:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-17T00:00:00+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/#\/schema\/person\/6bb7113e4dd45fe26045622aa56f891d"},"description":"Many critiques of technology are technological critiques of technology. That is, they weigh technology by technological standards and find it wanting. So","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/2016\/08\/technology-and-wonder\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/2016\/08\/technology-and-wonder\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/2016\/08\/technology-and-wonder\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Technology and Wonder"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/","name":"Leithart","description":"My blog is a public notebook, featuring essays, notes, and explorations on Scripture, theology, literature, politics, culture.","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/#\/schema\/person\/6bb7113e4dd45fe26045622aa56f891d","name":"Peter Leithart","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f1033df9cd7263d2e0408cf9ee92ee4d?s=96&d=identicon&r=pg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f1033df9cd7263d2e0408cf9ee92ee4d?s=96&d=identicon&r=pg","caption":"Peter Leithart"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Leithart\/","https:\/\/twitter.com\/PLeithart"],"url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/author\/pleithart\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18288","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3021"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=18288"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18288\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=18288"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=18288"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=18288"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}