{"id":93,"date":"2016-02-02T11:47:37","date_gmt":"2016-02-02T11:47:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/lab.wrkshp.fi\/huopaniemi\/?p=93"},"modified":"2026-03-19T10:23:19","modified_gmt":"2026-03-19T08:23:19","slug":"3-5-frag-25","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/actascenica.teak.fi\/huopaniemi-otso\/3-5-frag-25\/","title":{"rendered":"3.5 Fragment 25"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"
Fragment 25<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

In this response to fragment 25<\/a>, I will deal with technogenesis (the co-evolution of humans and technologies) by presenting an adaptation video and a series of questions. The purpose of the video and the questions is to clarify how this research approaches the hypothesis presented by Hayles. As a concept, technogenesis refers to a remarkably broad and complex phenomenon, which is why it must be approached attentively. How We Think<\/em> is also a comprehensive and challenging work, the interpretation of which requires patience and careful reading. For these reasons, I have decided to imitate DAR here and create a Hayles adaptation of my own, albeit in the form of a video text.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In video 3.5.1<\/span><\/span>, I have assembled, translated, and adapted nearly all the passages of How We Think<\/em> in which Hayles explicitly addresses technogenesis. The impetus for this is the deepening relationship of the human writer and digital media, evident in fragment 25<\/a> and throughout this research. I turn to Hayles in order to acquire more specific conceptual tools for describing this development within the framework of my research. For this purpose, I employ the most effective means I am familiar with, translation and adaptation. In this context, this strategy appears as a methodological tool, as a means of acquiring, modifying, and re-interpreting knowledge—in short, as a means of thinking.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 Video 3.5.1<\/span><\/span> is literally a paraphrase, in that the ideas presented in it are not my own. Instead of simply referring to Hayles, I have, however, found it necessary to present a rewording of parts of her text (which, in many cases, fails to capture the elegance of the original). The rationale for such a precarious textual exercise is this: in order to work in earnest with the complex concepts Hayles presents, in order to really access the lines of thought put forward, I need to tamper with the material text itself and not only the concepts. Ultimately, this churning or churning up of the textual surface aims at creating distance from the ideas presented by the author and space for individual reflection to enter. In the latter part of this response, I list a series of questions that, in light of video 3.5.1<\/span><\/span>, seeks to comprehensively present the relevance of technogenesis for this research.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hayles on Technogenesis<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n