Applying Critical Thinking of Techné to the Organisational Mindset

Applying Critical Thinking of Techné to the Organisational Mindset

by Drs. Neville Buch and Neil Peach and A.I.

In this essay we apply critical thinking of Techné to the Organisational Mindset. First, an earlier post addressing the “Communication gap between scholars and the “organisation men (and women)” is reproduce to explain ‘the Organisational Mindset’ in critical thinking. Secondly, Dr Buch puts forth an intermediate, of the connections and engagement of technology and society, and of technology and organisational thinking, to assist readers to understand the A.I answer in this essay (third section). Finally, is the A.I. answer (an engagement) to Dr Peach’s essay, “The Future Lies Ahead not Above“.

1. Communication gap between scholars and the “organisation men (and women)

Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left. Surely, no government can be expected to foster its own subversion, but in a democracy such a right is vested in the people (i.e. in the majority of the people). This means that the ways should not be blocked on which a subversive majority could develop, and if they are blocked by organized repression and indoctrination, their reopening may require apparently undemocratic means. They would include the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements that promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, or that oppose the extension of public services, social security, medical care, etc.

2. The Intermediate: of the connections and engagement of technology and society, and of technology and organisational thinking

Buch’s Statements on technology and society:

1. There is a problem in the thinking between generational change, historical delay, and historical forgetfulness to which creates a bubble thinking on the topic of technology and society. Karl Mannheim (1893-1947) is partial correct in his generational model. His model still has general value, but generations do not change homogeneously.  The concept of historical delay is an analogy with Delay-line memory. For example, as opposed to modern random-access memory, delay-line memory was (is) sequential-access. Historical forgetfulness is symbolised in the Forgetting Curve. It is the decline of memory retention in time;
2. The Key for understanding the bubble problem in technology and society is comprehensive education;
3. Professionalisation is a ‘double-edge sword’ in that it erodes freedom and creativity in society. This was the ignored (by the population) lessons from Ivan Illich (1926-2002) in the 1970s. Without creative pedagogy or creative anthology, society’s institutional approach to education demotivates and alienates individuals from the process of learning.
4. Another causal factor in the bubble thinking is ironically progressivism, being the push to control to create social progress.
5. Political rhetoric erodes understanding of technology and society.
6. The maturing process of society would to break the bubble. That can be done in the new directions that would take any organisation into global thinking, theologically, philosophically, and sociologically.
7. An important Key here (1-7) is understanding historiographical change.

Buch’s Statements on technology and organisational thinking:

1. Parallel developments happen globally in institutions and para-organisations;
2. The confides of conventional institutions or para-organisations create the bubble thinking, closed off to ‘the world’;
3. The organisation branding and marketing adoption of programs reinforce the bubble of thought;
4. Compassionate faith within the organisation is ‘the double-edge sword’, it is both the means to prevent critical thinking breaking through, but also it is the means to be open to change one’s dogmatic thinking, often hidden as dogma under prejudices and biases;
5. Another means to breaking the bubble is an orientation to community and listening to others of community valuing;
6. The bubble damages the organisation as it will eventually crush the freedom and creativity of personhood.
7. Professionalisation is a ‘double-edge sword’ in that it erodes freedom and creativity in an organisation. This was the ignored (by members of the organisation) lessons of Ivan Illich (1926-2002) in the 1970s. Without creative pedagogy or creative anthology, an organisation’s institutional approach to education demotivates and alienates individuals from the process of learning.
8. Political rhetoric erodes understanding of technology and organisations.
9. The maturing process of the organisation would to break the bubble. That can be done in the new directions that would take any organisation into global thinking, theologically, philosophically, and sociologically.
10. An important Key here (1-10) is understanding historiographical change.

3. An A.I. Answer to reading “The Future Lies Ahead not Above”

What is  “organised inorganic matter”  – is it  technology or technics.

1. Inorganic Matter: This distinguishes technical objects (tools, machines, digital networks, writing systems, etc.) from living, biological organisms (organic matter).

2. Organised: This is the crucial part. Technology isn’t just inert matter; it is matter that has been organised by human thought, knowledge, and intention. It embodies and carries information, memory, and structured processes. A flint knife, a book, a computer – these are all inorganic matter organised in specific ways to perform functions and store information.

3. Externalised Memory (Tertiary Retention): Stiegler sees organised inorganic matter as the support for what he calls “tertiary retention.” This is memory recorded outside the individual brain (primary retention – immediate consciousness) and the individual’s biological/neurological memory (secondary retention – recall).2 Technical objects – from cave paintings and writing to digital databases – are forms of externalised, collective memory passed down through generations.3

4. Epiphylogenesis: This concept is central. Stiegler argues that human evolution is not just biological (phylogenesis) or individual/cultural (epigenesis) but also epiphylogenetic – driven by the evolution of this organised inorganic matter, this external technical memory. Technology evolves, and humans co-evolve with it.4 Our tools and technical systems shape our ways of thinking, perceiving, remembering, and relating to the world.5

In essence, for Stiegler, organised inorganic matter (technics) is not merely a collection of tools external to humans. It is the material basis of externalised memory and knowledge that fundamentally constitutes human existence, history, and consciousness.6 It’s the “who” and the “what” evolving together through the medium of the technical object.

The concepts of “simple” and “complex” exoorganisms directly build upon Stiegler’s idea of “organised inorganic matter” through the process he termed exosomatization.

1. Organised Inorganic Matter as the Basis: As established, organised inorganic matter is Stiegler’s term for technics/technology – matter structured by human knowledge to function as tools, memory supports, etc.

2. Exosomatization: This is the crucial linking concept. Stiegler argues that humans evolve by externalizing their organs and functions into technical objects. A hammer externalizes and enhances the function of the fist/arm; writing externalizes memory; a telescope externalizes the function of the eye. These technical objects (organised inorganic matter) become external organs, or exo-organs.

3. Exoorganisms: When these technical objects/exo-organs become sufficiently integrated or function systemically, they can be thought of as constituting “exoorganisms.” They are external systems that augment, support, or even structure the life of the human organism. Organised inorganic matter is the substance of these exoorganisms.

4. Simple vs. Complex Exoorganisms: This distinction relates to the level of organisation, integration, and autonomy of the technical systems (the organised inorganic matter):

5. • Simple Exoorganisms: These correspond to simpler forms of organised inorganic matter, typically individual tools or basic technical systems that extend a specific human capacity in a relatively straightforward way. Examples include:

     • A flint knife (extending cutting/shaping ability)

     • A hammer (extending impact force)

     • Eyeglasses (extending vision)

     • A basic lever (extending force application)1 These are generally directly manipulated by the user and function as relatively discrete extensions.

   • Complex Exoorganisms: These correspond to more highly organised, networked, and often automated technical systems. They represent a more advanced stage of exosomatization where externalised functions are integrated into larger systems that can operate with a degree of autonomy and structure entire environments or domains of life. Examples include:

     • Industrial factory systems

     • National electrical grids

     • Global transportation networks

     • The internet and digital networks

     • Algorithmic systems and Artificial Intelligence These complex systems involve intricate organisation of inorganic matter, often manage vast amounts of externalized memory (tertiary retention), and can profoundly shape human behaviour, social structures, attention, and thought processes, sometimes in ways that escape direct human control or understanding.

In essence:

Organised inorganic matter (technics) -> through Exosomatization becomes -> Exo-organs -> which form Simple or Complex Exoorganisms depending on their level of systemic integration, complexity, and autonomy.

Stiegler was particularly interested in the rise of complex technical exoorganisms (especially digital ones) and their impact on human individuation, memory, knowledge, and society, arguing that their speed and complexity pose significant challenges.

Where does the human fit?

Here’s the breakdown within his structure:

1. The Core Distinction: Stiegler’s key distinction is between the living, biological organism (which is organic) and the technical objects or systems it creates and uses (which are inorganic but organised by human thought and memory).

2. Humans are Organised Organic Matter: From a purely biological standpoint, yes, humans are highly complex examples of organised organic matter. We are living beings made of organic compounds, structured into cells, tissues, organs, and systems.

3. Stiegler’s Specific Term: However, when Stiegler uses the term “organised inorganic matter,” he is specifically referring to technics/technology. He uses “inorganic” precisely to differentiate these external tools, artifacts, and memory supports from the living organism itself.

4. Human Role: In Stiegler’s framework, the human (the organised organic being) is the creator and user of organised inorganic matter (technology). The human possesses primary (consciousness) and secondary (biological/neurological) memory, while technology constitutes tertiary memory (externalised).

So, while humans are literally organised and organic, they occupy the organic side of the fundamental distinction Stiegler makes. “Organised inorganic matter” specifically denotes the non-living technical realm that co-evolves with humanity.

What is an organisation or a corporation?

Stiegler wouldn’t neatly categorise a corporation or organisation as either simply organic or inorganic. Instead, he would view it as a complex socio-technical system resulting from the deep interrelation and co-evolution of both:

1. Hybrid Nature: A corporation fundamentally consists of people (organised organic matter) who possess their own internal memories, skills, and consciousness. However, these people operate within, are structured by, and utilize complex systems of organised inorganic matter.

2. The Role of Organised Inorganic Matter: This includes:

   • Physical Infrastructure: Buildings, machinery, computers, servers.

   • Information Systems: Databases, software, communication networks, archives.

   • Formal Structures: Organisational charts, rules, procedures, legal frameworks, contracts. These are often encoded in documents or software (tertiary retention).

   • These inorganic elements are not passive. They actively shape workflows, communication patterns, decision-making processes, and the very possibilities available to the human members. They embody the corporation’s operational logic and memory.

3. Systemic Integration: Stiegler would see the corporation as a powerful example of advanced exosomatization. Functions that might once have resided within individuals or smaller groups (calculation, planning, communication coordination, memory storage) are externalised onto the technical and procedural infrastructure (the organised inorganic matter). This integration creates a system that is more than the sum of its parts.

4. Focus on Effects (Individuation and Proletarianization): Stiegler’s primary concern would be how this specific configuration of organic and inorganic elements affects the humans within it.

   • Does the corporate system enhance the knowledge, skills (savoir-faire), and critical thinking (savoir-théoriser) of its members, contributing positively to their individuation (both psychic and collective)?

   • Or does it lead to proletarianization – not just in the Marxist sense, but in Stiegler’s broader meaning of the loss of knowledge, deskilling, and the reduction of individuals to mere executors of processes defined by the technical system? Does it automate functions in a way that diminishes human understanding and autonomy?

5. Attention and Care: He would analyze how the corporation, as a system, captures and directs the attention of its members and consumers. Does its structure (driven by profit motives, algorithms, KPIs encoded in its inorganic systems) foster care (prendre soin) and long-term thinking, or does it promote short-termism, standardization, and potentially toxic behaviours?

6. Tertiary Retention and Governance: The corporation is a massive apparatus of tertiary retention (externalised memory). Stiegler would question how this memory is governed, who controls it, and how it shapes the collective present and future.

In summary: Stiegler would regard a corporation not as a thing to be simply classified, but as a dynamic, complex socio-technical system. It’s a crucial site where the interplay between humans (organised organic matter) and their technical extensions (organised inorganic matter) unfolds. His analysis would focus critically on the consequences of this interplay for human knowledge, individuation, attention, and the potential for a sustainable and meaningful collective existence within such powerful, technologically mediated structures.

Featured Image: Mind-Reality-dreamstime_xs_45497563.jpg

Perspectives Of Mind

The following two tabs change content below.

• Bio
• Latest Posts

Neville Buch

Professional Historian at Professional Historians Association (Queensland) Inc.

Neville Buch (Pronounced Book) Ph.D. is a certified member of the Professional Historians Association (Queensland). Since 2010 he has operated a sole trade business in history consultancy. He was a Q ANZAC 100 Fellow 2014-2015 at the State Library of Queensland. Dr Buch was the PHA (Qld) e-Bulletin, the monthly state association’s electronic publication, and was a member of its Management Committee. He is the Managing Director of the Brisbane Southside History Network.

Latest posts by Neville Buch (see all)

• Changeling Leadership - April 21, 2025
• ‘Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?’ (David Pinder) - April 21, 2025
• Bob Dylan’s Ballad of a Thin Man - April 19, 2025