I find Mumford’s assertions extremely contradictory. For instance, Mumford writes, “Though it was by his symbols, not his tools, that man’s departure from a purely animal state was assured…” This statement puts a lot of weight on symbols and not the tools humans are known to have developed that set them apart from animals, and more importantly, the early humans’ use of fire. Mumford claims it’s symbols that separate early humans from animals, but without the fire the early humans wouldn’t have survived. Also, if we look at symbols closely, they are a form of technology, a tool for deeper understanding. The two should be looked at equivocally, not in separate categories. This oversight intrigues me the most because it also speaks about how the concept of what constitutes a technology has changed. I wonder how Mumford and his contemporaries defined technology in the 60s.This cuts the artery of his argument and negates “the misleading notion that man is primarily a tool-making animal, who owes his inordinate mental development to his long apprenticeship in making tools.”    

 My Personal Technic

The technics that I use are very similar to Robinson Crusoe’s, but at the same time distinct. Instead of a journal, I write poetry and fiction. But when I write fiction I focus on teaching the reader or conveying a message about existential experiences or critiquing society. On the other hand, when I write poetry, it comes from the emotions I am feeling at the time. In other words, I write poetry only when I am in the mood to. Poetry helps me get my feelings out and releases them from my unconscious. My fiction comes from the more rational side of my being and I put serious thought into it, and worry about mechanics and tone, as opposed to the poetry, where it’s just an oppotunity to release myself from any creative restraints.

Print Friendly