FranoisLaruelle,

TheConceptofFirstTechnology:
AUnifiedTheoryofTechnicsandTechnology.

SurSimondon:UnePensedeL'IndividuationetdeLa Technique,
ed.GillesChtelet,Paris:ditionsAlbinMichel,1994,20619,
trans.NanditaBiswasMellamphy.

Inordertodefinetheobjectofwhichwearespeaking,whichaffixesitslimits
uponourdiscourse,andalsoinordertodefineacertainrelationtotheworkofSimondon
orHeideggerthetwogreatestphilosophersoftechnicswewillmaketwodistinctions,
therelevanceorirrelevanceofwhichwillbedemonstratedbytheircapacityorincapacity
togroundanewdisciplinecalledfirsttechnology.Thesedistinctionsareexpressed
inthisway:ascienceratherthanaphilosophyorahumanscienceoftechniques
[destechniques],butascienceoftheessenceoftechnics[latechnique],notof
propertiesortechnicalfacts.So,thisisourobjectwhichtheworksofSimondon
andHeideggerwillcontributetosettingupaccordingtoarelationtobedetermined
theformulationofwhichbearswitnesstoaparadoxicalnature:arealscience,notaphilo
sophy;butanewkindofscienceoftranscendentalessence,notascienceofonticorpositive
facts.Essenceisthetraditionalobjectofphilosophy,andthatbywhichphilosophyclaimsto
distinguishitselffromscience;howcouldscience,asscience,takeessenceasitsobject?

Themostgeneralantinomy,thatofscienceandofphilosophy. Wethinkthat
themeanstoresolveitexistsoutsideofphilosophy,eitherasepistemologyoraspositivism
(= philosophyofscience),andthatitmustbesoughtapartfromtheinvariablemeansof
ontology,butnotoutsideofadimensionofthinkingandexperiencethatphilosophyitself
hasalwayspostulatedwithouteverrecognizingit,whiledenyingittoscience.Itconsistsof
thedimension,nolongerofBeing,butoftheOneinsofarasitrejectsallinterchangewithBeing
andwhich,forthereasonthatrendersitinalienablewithinBeing,mustbesaidtobeOneof

thelast-instance.We will come backtothis.Whatmeaningcould thishave for thatother

antinomy,partiallyderivedfromthepreviousone,oftechnicsandoftechnology?Canwe
establishprinciplesofaunified,notunitary,theory(= philosophical,hencehierarchical)
oftechnicsandtechnology?Thisnewdisciplinegroundedinthenonphilosophical
experienceoftheOnewouldrequireadoublecontribution:thecontributionoftechnology,
thatisofthephilosophicaltypeofknowledgeabouttechnics,oflogosastechnologos,thus
thedimensionofessence;itwouldalsorequirethecontributionofscience,whichisthegauge
ofanobjectiveandrigorousanalytic(notinterpretive)treatmentoftheobjectsandproperties
calledtechniquesandwhichwewillcalltechnicaleffects(butsolelywithinthepurviewof
thistreatment,thusdistinguishingthisuseofthewordtechnicalfromitsphilosophicaland
technologicaluse).Theobjectofthisunifiedtheoryifthelatterispossible:toknowit,

Laruelle (trans. Biswas Mellamphy)

itwouldbenecessarytorestartfromtheOnewecanthusdefineitnolongerasthebanal
andphilosophicalessenceoftechnicswhichpresupposesgivenorsupposedlygivenobjects
astechnical,aswellastheirintentionalaimwithinthephilosophicalhorizonofessenceas
eidos;butastechnicalEssence,writingdestinedtoindicateanindivisiblebloc,astrictidentity
oftechnicsandofessencewhichisnolongerphilosophicalorhierarchical.Thisstrictidentity
obviouslyremainstobethoughtandknownbothwiththehelpoftheOneandoftechno
logicaldiscourses;butwecanalwaysposititasourobject.

Aunifiedtheory,withoutbeinganonticscience,isalsonotanontologicalscience
inthesenseinwhichphilosophyormetaphysicsis.Itrepresentstheemergenceofanew
theoreticalgenre,neitherphilosophynorscience,butusingtheessenceandscientificobject
ofbothwithinrelationsthathavebecomeunintelligibletothemostreflexiveepistemology,
aswellastothemostpositivist.Thatitisaunifiedtheory,withoutbeingascienceina
classicalorordinarysense,isexplainedbythenatureofitscause:theOne;aunifiedtheory
inthisformrepresentsatranscendentaluseofthesciences.Itisanonphilosophicalusage
becauseherethetranscendentalisnolongerinterchangeablewithmetaphysicsanddoesnot
claimtoaddtoortakefromthesciencesortointerveneintheirpractice.Itisanimmanentuse
ofthescienceswhichleavesthemasis;anewdisciplinewhichincludestheconceptofscience
butwithoutphilosophicallydominatingorlegislatingoveritanymore.

Westartfromacurrentlyheldthesisinordertoposeourproblemwhichis,ineffect,
theproblemoftheusage,notthevalidity,ofthisthesis:
1.Theknowledgesofthetechnicianbelongtoavastersphere,thatofprojectiveknowledges
withintentionalorsensecontent;itgoesfromcertainbiologicalphenomenatophenomena
ofunderstanding,fromtheprojectandingeneralfromtechnology,totheknowledges
thatmakeupthetechnological.
2.Thistypeofknowledgedoesnotgiverisetosciencesinthestrongorclassicalsenseofthe
term,explanatorysciencesratherthanprojectiveones,determiningratherthanreflective,in
awordmathematized.Wearenotchallengingthisthesis,butweposethefollowingproblem:
isitpossible toelaborate anegalitarianunifiedtheory ofthese twotypesof knowledge?
Thistheorycan,assuch,beneitherananalyticorreductivescienceofprojective
knowledgesnorconversely,aphilosophicalsynthesiswhichwouldonceagainreturn
toprojectasynthesisandtophilosophicallydominatethesciences.Wemustsearchfor
aprincipleofunificationoutsideofthisdoublereductionismwhichisneitherscientificnor
philosophicalathirdinstanceofexperienceandthinking,oratleastorientourselves
towardsitanditsnecessity.

Tothisend,weproposeacertainuseoftheTheoryofDemonstrationand,inparticular,
oftheworksofGdelasanewparadigmofthinkingwhichwewillextractfrommetamathema
ticalproblemsinordertogeneralizeandtransposeittomoreconceptualproblemsofphilo
sophyandoftechnics.Ratherthanaphilosophyorepistemologyofknowledgesorofthe
scienceofthetechnicalwhichremainaphilosophicalenterpriseandconsequentlyasimple

A Unified Theory of Technics and Technology, 2

Laruelle (trans. Biswas Mellamphy)

specularcommentaryontheseknowledgeswereinscibetechnicsandtechnologywithin
thetheoreticalintervalofscienceandmetascience,oflanguageobjectandmetalanguage.
TheGdelianideabeyondeventheworksofGdelconsists,ontheonehand,inpostulating
aninteriorityorpracticalimmanenceofsciencethatlegitimizesitselfwithoutneedingtohave
recoursetoaphilosophicallegitimation;and,ontheotherhand,injudgingthegrounding
claimsofmetalanguageinordertorefutethemfromtheirmostphilosophicalorauto
foundationalforms.

Howcanthisproblematicbeappliedhere?
1.Weimaginethatordinaryknowledgesthathavetechnicsasobject,beingofaprojective
type,aregloballyofthenatureofametalanguagethatdescribestechnicsinacertainway.
Thesetechnicalknowledgestechnologyinoursensedonotspontaneouslycomefrom
thescience,norfromtechnicsassciencewouldapprehendit,butametalanguagethat
decidesuponthebeingoftechnics.
2.Whatholdstheroleofthelanguageobjectvisvisthismetalanguagewhichistechnology?
Notthescienceswhichareinvestedintechniques(scientisticreductionism)buttheidentity,
tobedetermined,oftechnicsgraspedbyscienceandtechnology,theidentityofthetech
nicianand ofthe technologue:thetechnicalEssence.
3.Itispossible,througharegulatedprocessandoperationstobedetermined,toproject
orinternalizethemetalanguagethatistechnologywithinthetheoreticalspacedefinedby
thisstrictidentityofthe(explanatory)sciencesand(projective)knowledges,oftechnics
underscienceandtechnicsunderphilosophy.
4.Ifthisidentityorthisequalityexcludesdoublereductionism(scientific,andtechnological
and/orphilosophical),itisstill,forthemoment,unthoughtassuch.Wecannot,inreality,
posititexceptunderthebannerofasimplehypothesis tobe progressively determined
withdatafurnishedbyformsoftechnologicalthinking.
5.Whatisonlyahypothesisenablesexplainingtheillusionsthatengenderthisdouble
reductionism:illusionsoftechnicalphilosophiesontheonehand,andontheotherhand,
illusionsproducedbytechnologicalknowledgeswhenlefttotheirowndevices.Inbothcases,
theyareofaphilosophicalorquasiphilosophicaltype;technologytoo,andnotonlyscience,
secretesitsspontaneousphilosophy.

Thisidentityisnotanewfiguretakenbywesternmetaphysics,itisderivedneither
fromthephilosophernorfromthetechnician,norfromthescientist. Itisanewtheoretic-
al typethatisnot completedby existing knowledgesbut thatrepresentsthe chanceor
future of a newusageof whatpreviously hadnouse,pure theory; or anewtheory

of whatpreviouslyhadnotheory,technics.Ascientificutopia,perhaps

Aunifiedtheoryhereisnotthesimplepositivistsymmetryofaphilosophy.
Withoutdoubtitconsistsasmuchinrefusingtheauthorityofthephilosophyoftechnics,
andwhatwouldbethemoreorlessviciouscircleofatechniqueoftechnics,asinrefusing
ahumanscienceoftechnicsorthetechnical,withthephilosophicaland/ortechnological

A Unified Theory of Technics and Technology, 3

Laruelle (trans. Biswas Mellamphy)

selfpositioningwhichisattheheartofthesedoctrines.Thisrefusal,however,isnottakenin
byatheoreticismoracomplementaryscientificidealismandstilllessbyapositivism(ascience
oftechnics).Apartfromaphilosophyoftechnicsanditsmodeshistoryetc.onecouldim
agineahardscienceoftechnics.Butaunifiedtheory,ifitistobeascience,cannotbea
reductive,physicalistscienceoftechnics.ItsobjectisthetechnicalEssence(oftechnics)
andthislatterdoesnotclaimtobeasubstituteforobjects,machinesandmaneuvers,and
stilllessfortheirconditionsbetheyphysical,economicetc.Sciencehereis,moreprecisely,
theonlyrigorousknowledgeoftheEssence(of)technics.Itistheguardianparexcellenceof
theimmanenceofthetechnicalsituation,theguarantorofapurelyphenomenaldescription,
animmanence,moreoverthatisnolongeronlythatofknowledgeingeneralbutonethatwill
havetohaveaformadaptedtotechnics.Thereisherenotheoreticalreduction,andonly
philosophycanbelieveforamomentintechnicalphenomenainthemselves,having
nootherinitselfthanEssence,whichisnotitselftechnological.

TechnicalEssence/Essence(of)TechnicsandTechnology

Inordertoenterintoourobjectmoreprecisely,letussetoffagainfromthe
distinctionssuggestedattheoutsetandteaseoutsomeconsequences.
1.Thefirstdistinctionisthatoftechnicalandtechnological.Thesewillnolongerbe
twotypesofentitiesorobjects,ofphenomenathatarebothsupposedtobetechnical
orbeinthemselvesofatechnicalorderanddistinguishedsimplybymaterialeconomic,
socialorhistoricaltraits,andbytheirdifferentrelationstoscience.Rather,technicshere
istheobjecttowhichweofferscience(thusincludingcontemporarytechnologies),where
astechnologyisoftheorderofdiscourse,ofknowledge,knowledgeofhumansciencesre
gardingthisobjectandmoregenerallyknowledgeofaphilosophicaltypeofknowledge,
technologosortechnologicaldifferencewhichstillbasksinthehumansciences
thoughfromafar.Ourprincipalobjectisthustechnicsratherthantechnologyinthissense.
2.Thisdistinctioniscontinuedandspecifiedbyanotherdistinctionthatbearsonthecontent
ofthesinglewordtechnics.Thislatterheredesignatestheessenceoftechnics,butmore
exactlywhatwearecallingthetechnicalEssence(of)technics:fromallinitialconjecture
(toberectified),theensembleofactions,operations,andcausalitiesthatmakeupthe
technicalphenomenon,graspedwithinitselementsanditsultimaterequisites.Itcanalso
designatemoretraditionallysocalledorsupposedlytechnicaleffectsandobjects.Hereagain,
however,wemakeachoice,apparentlyatleast;ourrealobject,theoneweproposetoknow
ordetermineisthe[technical]Essence(of)technics,nottechnicalobjects.

Wewillask:whatisreallytechnicalandwheredoesitlie,thissocalledessenceor
thesesocalledtechnicalobjectssominutelydescribedbySimondonwhoknowswhathewas
talkingabout?Thisquestionhasnorelevancefromourviewpointandisdecomposedinthe
followingway:

A Unified Theory of Technics and Technology, 4

Laruelle (trans. Biswas Mellamphy)

Iftherearetechnicalobjects,theyareindeedthosethatSimondondescribes,but
wequestionherethat,whetherasbecomingorconcretisation,theyexistwithscientific
objectivityanddefinethetechnicalEssence(of)technics.Bycontrast,whatwearecalling
thetechnicalEssence(of)technicsisnotitselftechnical,thatistosaynotatechnicalobject
andnotunderstoodfromSimondonsphilosophy,fromitsreadingoritsreinterpretation.
Moreover,sincethenotionofobjectishereaphilosophicalnotionparexcellence,linkedto
thatofobjectificationandtologosandtoallGrecoSimondonianontologyifwecanpermit
thisshortcutwewillsayrigorously,tocorrectHeideggersformula:thetechnicalEssence(of)
technicsisnothingtechnologicalandcannotbeunderstoodbythenotionoftechnicalobject,
whetherinastate ofgenesis or not, thatis to saybytechnologyin the highest sense of
techno-logos, whichisthatofSimondon.

However,itisnotenoughtosaythattheessenceoftechnicsisnothingtechnological
ifitisforthepurposeofleavingitundeterminedandhanging.Heideggerstillpostulatestoo
muchaboutthevalidityofontologyandoftechnologytodoanythingotherthanitsdecon
structionandsoasnottoleaveundeterminedtheEssence(of)technicsthusexperienced
inawaythatisstilltoonegative.Itmustbedeterminedfurtherandinamorepositiveway,
butnotpositivist.HowtoproceedthensincebyallevidencewecannotignoreSimondon
orHeideggerandhisphenomenologyofinstrumentality,whoseauthorityandrelevance
wehaveneverthelesssuspended?Toremoveallcontradiction,itsufficestoreturnto
thesetechnologicalphilosophiesundertheconditionofthissuspensionand,consequently,
totreatthemandtheentirespherecalledtechnologyasasimplematerialandnolongeras
apointofview;asanensembleofpropertiesorphenomenawithoutrelevancefordetermining
theEssence(of)technicsbythemselves,bytheirselfinterpretationortheirselfposition,but
withthehelpofanewtheorywhichcouldneverthelessdeterminethislatter.

Inotherwords:ontheonehand,HeideggersandSimondonsdescriptionsbothbelong
tothegenreofontotechnologicaldifference(either,likeSimondon,toputitintoplayas
processofconcretizationandfunctionaloverdetermination;orlikeHeiddeger,todrawit,
ifwecansay,behinditselfandarticulateitupontheontologicaldifference,andeven
onthewithdrawalthatpermitsthinkingthislatter,awithdrawalthatnevertheless
continuestoconsideritaspertinent).Fromourpointofview,thesedescriptions
areaboutcombinationsoftechnicaleffectsandphilosophicaldecisions.Thewellknown
technicalobjectoftheformerandtheequallywellknowninstrumentalcircuitofthelatter
donotexistinthemselvesbutaresimplyallegedtechnicsraisedtothestatusofessence;
theyareamphibologicalformations,butinevitableifoneisaphilosopher;thatis,
moreorlessGreekorphenomenologicaldecisionsthatisolatematerial,physical,andsocial
phenomenaproducedbytechnicalcausality,andthatraisethese[decisions],perhapsnot
withoutgoodreasons,tothestatusoffactortechnicalfactum,indeedsometimes[tothe
status]oftechnicalessence.Buttheyremainforustechnologicaluniversals.

A Unified Theory of Technics and Technology, 5

Laruelle (trans. Biswas Mellamphy)

Conversely,forus,iftheseuniversalsinthemselvescannolongerdefineorthink
theessenceoftechnics,theyremain,inanycase,wellfoundedwithintheirlogic[ordre]
whichisthatofanobjectivefetishism,andarenecessaryundertheheadingofobjectivedata
foradisciplinethatwouldproposetodefinethisessenceinapositiveandnoncircularmanner,
thistimebywayofascientificratherthanphilosophicalusageoftheseuniversalalthough
inaunifiedtheoreticalsensetobedetermined.Itisamatterofmakingtechnicstheoretical
lyintelligiblewithoutdeductingorprojectingthemfromsocalledtechnicalphenomenaina
vagueorintuitivemanner;withoutmakingthisessencetheresultofamoreorlessworkedout
oralteredselfpositingofsurfacetechnicaleffects.

Itisonthisconditionthatessencewillceasetobeanindeterminategenerality.
UnderthenameofthetechnicalEssence(of)technics,wenolongersearchforatrait
commontoaspoke,anengineandacomputer;commoneitherbyabstractionoreven
byselfpositingofpropertiespresumedalreadytobecommon;traitsthatwouldrunthrough
technicalobjects.Initiallywearenotgiventechnicalobjectsbyarbitrarilysupposingthat
theyaretechnical.No,thisessenceisitselfanewtypeofobjectwithoutoriginaryor
specularcontinuitywithtechnicalobjects.Thistechnicalessenceisstillbeforeus:
wedonothavetophilosophizeitasalreadyhavingtakenplace,butinsteadtoknowit,
toproduceknowledgerelevanttoit.Forthis,wemakeuseofthesedescriptionsofthe
spoke,engineandcomputer,undercertainsuspensiveconditions,descriptionsaboutwhich
wecansaythis:nolongertointerpretSimondononceagain,tostopreinterpretingtheessence
oftechnics;buttomakeuseofSimondonandtechnologicalreinterpretationstoknowthe
Essence(of)technicsand,withthisgoalinmind,totransformorrectifytheseinterpreta
tions;toexplainthemfinallywithinthetechnologicalguiseunderwhichtheyproduce
thisessence.

Nowifwepickupagainfromthetechnologicalgiveninitsspontaneousself
representationanditsselfsufficiency,whichoperationsarenecessarytoarriveatthe
precedingdistinctions?Thehumansciencesandphilosophyestablishasysteminorderto
constitutethesphereoftechnologicaldiscourse.Itisforthissystemthattechnicalobjects
exist,thatis,anamphibologyoftheEssence(of)technicsandoftheobjectasontotechno
logicalform.Itisnotenoughtosay,inthehopeofdestroyingtechnicsasbackground-
world [arriremonde],there arenotechnical phenomena but [only] a technical interpretation of phenomena because thiswould reconstitute a generalized techno
logy asthe general form of everybackground-world,atonce philosophical mach-
ine andengineeringphilosophy. It is toreconstitute the philosophical myth of
a supposed technical object the nature of whichone knowsnothing; confusion

between a phenomenon gratuitously calledtechnical andan essence that is wholly

philosophical.

A Unified Theory of Technics and Technology, 6

Laruelle (trans. Biswas Mellamphy)

Itisnecessarytohaveatleasttworeductionsortwosuspensionsinorder
toreachtechnicalEssenceandfreeitfromitsintuitionandconsummation,fromits
philosophicalcontemplation:atechnologicalreductionofappearancesoroftechnical
transcendentalsuppositionsforthebenefitoftechnologicaldifference.Itisthebracketing
ofregionaloronticappearancesoftechnicsuponwhichthehumanscienceslive;thesuspen
sionoftheperspectivesoftheengineer,themanufacturer,thesociologist,theanthropologist,
theeconomist,thepsychologist,thetechnologueetc.,forthebenefitoftheperspectiveof
thephilosopherastechnologue,andofitscorrelate:therelationorontotechnological
differencetowhicharededicatedthedescriptionsofSimondonandHeideggerwhothus
bringoutaninvarianttechnologicalschemasynthesizingtheseperspectiveswithin
asuperiorperspective.Technologicalefficacytheontotechnologicaldifference
is,ineffect,irreducibletothefourcausesmetaphysicsisolates:itcontainsthefour
[causes],butastheirsuperiorform.Atonceitgeneralizestheirdivisionorheterogeneity,
andtheirunity;itmakescoextensivethesetwopropertieswhileatthesametimesuspending
orannullingtheirmoremassiveorregionalforms,themostrepresentativeones,theones
mostsusceptibletobeingopposedinatranscendentmanner.

Butasecondnullificationisnecessaryfromourperspective,thatofphilosophyitself,
oftechnologicalcausalitystillexternaltotheEssence(of)technics.But[withregardsto]this
suspensionoftechnologicalphilosophy,onlyanewdisciplineaunifiedtheoryofscience
andphilosophycanimplementit,andthustofreeanEssence(of)technicsbasedon
obviouslynonphilosophicalprocessesandtoreturntotheimmanenceofthetechnical
situationwithoutjustreflectinguponitundertheformofgeneralities,technologicaleffects
andschemas.

Wewouldthusceasetoimaginetechnicalcausalityonthephysicalmodelof
propulsion;oronthetechnicophilosophicalmodelofproduction;oronnarrowmodelsof
thespoke,theengine,thecomputer,whicharetranscendentensemblesfromwhichwecan
onlyhaveopinionsaboutthisgeneralitythatwouldbetechnicsortechnologies,butno
more.NosupposedlytechnicalobjectcanserveasexampleoftheEssence(of)technics.
Thislatterisnotmade,butrathercomesoutormakesitselfknownwithinascience
tobepracticedhereandnow.Thisiswhywewilldescribethisessencebytheformalterms
oftechnesisandtechnema,forexample,ratherthanbyprojectionsthatcomeoutoftools
suchasmechanicsorinformaticswhichareheremerematerialsandmodelsofinterpretation
forthescienceofthisessence.Itistochallengethehistoryoftechnicsasmuchastheir
philosophies,atleastasultimatepointofview,aswellasthecircularandunstable
generalitiesthattheyproduce.ThetheoryoftheEssence(of)technicsisaninaugural
rupturewiththetechnicistconstructionofmachines,theireconomicmanagement,
andtheirphilosophicalmeditation.Itdoesnotextendintoatechnologicalessenceof
constructedandsupposedlygivenmachines.Ithaltsthechainofconfusionthatgoesfrom

A Unified Theory of Technics and Technology, 7

Laruelle (trans. Biswas Mellamphy)

givenandinertmachineobjectstotheirworkingortechnologicalschema,andfromthislatter
totheiressence.Butif[thetheoryoftechnicalEssence]ceasestobeinscribedwithinthepro
ductionoftechnologicaluniversals,itisinordertotaketheseasregionalpropertiesthat
itmustexplain.

Thegoalofthesereductions,assuch,istodissolvetheamphibologyinwhichphilo
sophiesandthehumansciencesdwell;theconfusionbetweentheEssence(of)technics
withitsregional,materialoreconomicetc.conditions,anditsphilosophicalconditions;
theideathattherewouldbeanoriginalcontinuitybetweenasupposedlytechnicalexperi
enceandthisessence.Thisdissolution,however,isbutoneoftheleastpositiveaspectsof
theventurewhichistodeterminetheimmanenttechnicalphenomenon,todetermineit
morepositivelythanHeideggerdid,butwithoutreflectingthetechnicalobject
withinthisessenceasdidSimondon,forexample.

Ourapproachmustbeunderstoodintermsofitsambitionsbutalsointermsof
itslimits.Weceasetreatingobjectsortechnicalcausalityasmetaphysicalentities
mythologicalonesasaphilosophermightsaythatwewoulddesignfreelyaccordingto
suchadecisionorlineofdemarcation,manipulatingscientificknowledgeandreified,
factualizedandfetishizedtechnicaleffects,andinthiswaybelievingthatwemightdescribe
therealandsoonmodifyitinitsessence.Theinvariantofphilosophiesoftechnicsis
thattheymoreorlesscircularlyarrangeeffectsorprocesses,propertiesthatare
supposedtodefinethisorderofphenomenaandphilosophicaldecisions,thismixing
thatissupposedtoequivalentto[valoircomme]essence.Butthisdiscourserestson
anoversightorrepressionofsomething=xthatpreciselyasciencewouldpropose
ratherthantakeitasitsobject:theessenceortheidentity(of)technics,theidentity
ortheimmanentphenomenonthatpreventsfromsinkingintoanddissolvingwithin
philosophyandthesciences,that[avoids]beingdogmaticallyreducedtophilosophy,
indeedatechnophilosophicalmixlikeforexampleconceptualordesiringmachines,
orreducedtoapplicationsofsciencethataresupposedlyfundamental.Ascienceofthe
essenceoftechnicsisthebestmeansofprotecting[theessenceoridentity(of)technics]
fromitsdoubleontologicalandscientisticreduction.Philosophiesoftechnicsdonotsee
thattheydonotseetheproblemofidentityoressencethatis,oftherealityoftechnics,
anditistheobjectofaspecialscienceonlytoreestablishthecorrectandcomplete
formulationascienceof the essence (of) technicsandtomake the realcritique

ofthephilosophicalrepressionofthisessence.Thusitisamatterofputtingatermwithin
foundationaltechnologicaldiscoursesoftechnics,ofexpressingtheirtheoreticalimpossibility,
yetwithoutdenyingtheiruseofdatawithin a science.

TheHypothesisofFirstTechnology

A Unified Theory of Technics and Technology, 8

Laruelle (trans. Biswas Mellamphy)

Howtocharacterizethisspecialsciencefromtheperspectiveofitstheoreticalsense,
[thisscience]adaptedtoessences,andwhichusesphilosophical,e.g.ontotechnological,
formationsthatfollowmetatechnicaldiscoursesaswellastheirregionalproperties,
inordertoknowtheEssence(of)technics?Hereareitsmainfeatures:
1.Wearegivenabodyofphenomenaorproperties:thusnolongersocalledproperties
inthemselvesofsupposedtechnicalobjects,buttechnologicaldiscoursesthemselves.
Notphenomenaaspositedby,forexample,Simondon,whichwewouldclaimtobe
reinterpreting,butratherthedescriptionsthathegivesthemandwhichare,assuch,
ourobjects.Importantclarification:wetreattechnologicaldiscoursesasmetatechnical
discourseswhichtargettheEssence(of)technicsbutinanillusorywayandthrougharepress
ion.Allontotechnology(Heideggerincludedbecausehedidnotinvalidateitrightoffthebat)
canbetreatedlikeavastprogramofphilosophicalfoundationsoftechnics,likeameta
technics.Itisthisform[ofmetatechnics]thatconstitutesourregionofphenomena.
Obviouslyitisamatterofexplainingandlimitingwithinasciencethesefoundation
alprogramsthatare philosophiesoftechnics.
2.Wegiveourselvesaspace,apostureratherorascientificbuttranscendentalinteriority
(whichaddsnothingtotheconceptofscience)inwhichwewillprojectthesemetatechnical
discourses.Aposture,thatistosayheretheminimalconditionsforhavingascience,areality
ofthislatter.Whythenistherescienceinsteadofonlyphilosophy?Thisproblemisvery
limited.Itdoesnoteliminatethequestionregardingtheempiricalconditionsoftheexistence
ofsuchascienceforexample,conditionofobjects(sincethesciencethatweareapplying
operationalizestheregionoftechnologicalphenomena)butthephilosophicalorepistemo
logicalreductionoftheessenceofsciencetoitsempiricalconditions,forexampletoits
methodsorprocedures,toitswork,etc.,anditsreductiontoitsontologicalconditions.
Whatistherealityofscienceratherthanitseffectivenessanditsconditionsofpossibility?
Inordertohavearealityandthusanautonomousessenceofscienceratherthanitssimple
possibility,itisnotnecessarytohaveBeing,inthesenseinwhichtraditionandHeidegger
canstillunderstanditaspresenceorrepresentation,asontologicalproject;butifthisis
nottosuffice,theremustbefirstaOnenotoftheOne,butOneitselfandthusanon
metaphysicalbutpurelytranscendentalusageofscience.Andthentheremustbethe
Multiple,thatisBeingifyouwill,butinanew,preciselynonphilosophical,sense,
althoughonenotentirelyestrangedfromthisphilosophicalsense.

TheOneitself:nolongerthatwhichphilosophyplaceswithintheneighbourhoodof
Beingandthatwithwhichitconsidersitselftobeinterchangeable;nolongerthearithmetico
philosophicalmixofnumber1internalizedandheldupwithinthemetaphysicalOne;butthat
whichothershavealreadycalledradicalimmanancedevoidofscission,nothingness,transcen
dence,alientation.WecallittheOneoflastinstance:inordertomarkitsinalienablebut
determiningcharacterthisapparentcontradictionbeingthecontentoftheconceptof

A Unified Theory of Technics and Technology, 9

Laruelle (trans. Biswas Mellamphy)

determinationinthelastinstancedeterminingof essences,of the essence (of) science

andthat(of)technics.ThisOneiscertainlynotsciencenottechnics,thatistosaytheir
essence,itisonlytheimmanentcauseoftheseessences.

Yetsuchacause,givenitspurelytranscendentalbutreal statusandnotaddition-
ally metaphysical andontologicalis nolongera metaphysical entity composedandself
composedwithinaphilosophicaldiscourse.Itstheoreticalstatusisthatofahypothesis
oranaxiom(neitherlogicoformal,norlogicorealMe=Me,butpurelyrealorimmanent
inthelastinstance).FirstTechnologyisthusnotanaprioriorspeculativeconstruction
despitecertainappearancesitisalsoascienceproceedingbywayofhypothesis,
butnowwithinatranscendentalorrealinthelastinstanceusageofthelatter.

AsfortheMultiplewhichisthecontentofBeing,thatistosay,nolonger
ofthecausebutoftheelementofrepresentationorscientificpresentationstrictlyspeaking,
itisdeducedfromtheOneundercertainconditionsuponwhichwepasshere(thoseofa
scienceoftheEssence(of)sciencewhichusesphilosophyasmaterial).Fromthisper
spective,Beinghasthreeorfourcharacteristics:

Itisthevoidasdevoid(of)aOne,[the]unrealasempty(of)[the]real(nonOne);
also, and by definition, evidently empty of all philosophical form, of all philosophi-
cal and/or technological consistency;

ThisvoidisidenticallyapureMultiple,unrepresentablejustastheOneitselfisun
representable,thusdevoidofallphilosophicalformofclosureorunity,butalsoofallformof
scientificregional,arithmetictypeconsistencyforexample,andevenmoresoofarithmetic
philosophicalmixedforms;

However,thisMultiplereceivesaconsistencyoftheOneitself,butconsistencyinthelast
instanceandneverthelessabsolutelyinternal:itisneitherontic(arithmetic)norontological
(presence);

ThisMultiplefinishesbeingdeterminedwhenitisspecifiedaccordingtophilosophyandits
structuresorpropertieswewillnotheredescribethisspecification.

Herearetheminimalconditionswhichexplainthenonphilosophicalrealityof
science,orwhichgivesit[thisreality](toknowwhetheritisrealbyitselfisnotourproblem).
Notthesufficientreasonofscience,butthecausethatcandetermineinthelastinstance,
thatistosay,touseitwithoutmodifyingitasscience.Itistherethatwehaveaparadigm
ofintelligibilitythatisneitherphilosophicalnorscientisticorpositivistic;itisgroundedon
anewtypeofintersection,neitherepistemologicalnorofphilosophyorscience,where
thelatteracquiresthemeansoftreatingtheformerasitsobjectwithoutreducingit
inapositivisticway.
3.Itsufficestonowbegiventhisscientificpositionandtoprojectintoitorscaleitdownto
technologicaldiscoursesinordertobeabletoelaboratearigorous,nonillusorydiscourseon
theEssence(of)technics.Whereasphilosophiesoftechnicspracticetheheadlongrushinto

A Unified Theory of Technics and Technology, 10

Laruelle (trans. Biswas Mellamphy)

metatechnics,intotechnologicaloneupmanship,wehereinhibitthisprocess,wereverse
asitwere,institutingadisciplineofscientificessencethathasasphenomenathemeta
sciencesormetatechnics,andasrealobjectessencesandonlyessences,tobedetermined
rigorouslyandrealisticallyuponanonphilosophicalmode.

Itisnottechnosciencethatisaproblem,itistechnophilosophy,ofwhich
technoscienceisanavatarandanartifact.

WethuscallEssence(of)technicstheensembleofresiduesabandonedbytechno
logicalormetatechnicalstatements,allowingthistobekeptundertheheadingofknowledge
whenweposeitasexplanatorythatistosaytheoreticalandcriticalhypothesis,this
scientificpositionitself,atleastitsrealessentialingredients.TheEssence(of)technics
isthusknownandontheotherhandexplainstheillusoryformsunderwhichthisessence
isgivenwithintechnologicaldiscourses.Whatwecallscientificpositioncorrespondsto
theEssence(of)sciencesuchthatcanbeknownwithoutepistemologicallyinterpretingit,
anditfunctionsherelikeanolongerphilosophicaltypeofhypothesisandrelativetowhatis
tobeinterpreted,butlikeascientifictype,heterogeneoustophenomenaandsolelycapableof
givingrisetoatrueexplanationratherthanamoreorlesscircularinterpretation.

Theontotechnologicalschemeisagivenwithrespecttothereallybasicgiven
thatistheOne.Anditisonlywhenitistreatedasmaterialthatitappearsafterwardslikea
doublethattooktheplacenotsomuchofessenceitselfasoftheelaborationofitsknowledge.
Sciencedoesnotreturnfromtheimaginarydoubletotherealveiledbyit;itdoesnotdispel
thedouble,itusesittoknowtherealandasaresultgivesititsstatusasdouble;andthe
doubleiswhatbecomesthetechnologicalwhen,ceasingtobeapointofview,itis
treatedassimplematerial.

Thispositionoftheproblemhasimportantconsequencesforthe status of technology.

Weusethetechnologicalschemaassimpleindexandasmaterial.Asciencedoesnottraceits
realobjectfromitsphenomenawhicharebutpartiallyexternalandrepressedconstructionsof
theEssence(of)technics.

Savingtheimmanentphenomenonoftechnicsfromitsphilosophicalflightpath
andfromitsobjectification,thisisthegoal.Thusitisbynomeansamatterofanew
strongertechnics,anewtypeofinstrumentoranewconception(philosophicaland
mythological)oftechnicsgroundeduponthefoundationofascienceorbythetechno
logicalinterchangeabilityoforinvestmentinthelatter.[Itisamatterof]obtainingarigorous,
noninterpretiveknowledgeoftechnics.Andthisistheknowledgethatisnew,nottechnics.
Whatwecallfirsttechnologyis,assuch,neitheraneffectivetechnologyitisnotwithin
ourpowertoinventitnoraphilosophicalgeneralityoraconceptoftechniques;itis
knowledge,primaryoranteriorbyrighttoallphilosophy,ofitsessenceofanessence
thatleavesitasiswithoutclaimingtoappropriateit.