De-Construction: Derrida, Stiegler and Scybernethics

°°°°~x§x-<@>

Introduction

The relationship between Scybernethics de-construction, Derrida’s deconstruction, and Stiegler’s techno-philosophy can be understood as a profound interplay of critical thought, recursive logic, and the exploration of conceptual dipoles. Scybernethics, with its emphasis on second-order rationality (logic²), resonates strongly with Derrida’s deconstruction of binary oppositions and Stiegler’s rethinking of technics as constitutive of human existence. Below, we explore these connections.

Derrida’s Deconstruction and Conceptual Dipoles in Scybernethics

Derrida’s deconstruction critically examines binary oppositions (e.g., presence/absence, speech/writing) that underpin Western metaphysics. He reveals how one term is privileged over the other and seeks to destabilize this hierarchy by showing how each term depends on the other for meaning. This process is not about reversing the hierarchy but exposing the difference and deferral (différance) that constitute meaning itself. In Scybernethics, this approach is mirrored in its use of conceptual dipoles—pairs of interdependent concepts (e.g., subject/object, mind/body)—and the observation of their phenomenological asymmetry (one polarity is easier to grasp, to formalize and so to understand than the other) to explore the tensions and co-determinations within cognitive and epistemological systems. However, Scybernethics goes beyond deconstruction by introducing second-order logic (logic²):

• Logic² involves not only analyzing the relationship between concepts but also recursively reflecting on the process of conceptualization itsel.
• For example, a conceptual dipole like “observer/observed” is examined not only in terms of its binary structure but also through the recursive act of observing the observer—a hallmark of second-order cybernetics.

This recursive approach aligns with Derrida’s anti-foundationalism while extending it into a systematic framework for exploring dynamic processes and embodied cognition.

Stiegler’s Techno-Philosophy and Scybernethics’ Recursive Rationality

Stiegler builds on Derrida’s concept of différance to argue that technology (technics) is not external to humanity but constitutive of it. He describes human beings as “prosthetic” creatures whose existence is always mediated by tools, memory systems, and exterior supports. For Stiegler:

• Technology introduces an aporia: it both enables human development (as a prosthesis) and risks alienation or loss of autonomy (e.g., through cognitive capitalism). It is the “pharmakologic” (greek pharmakon, cf Plato, Stengers) ambiguous logic of technics because technics is transjective: it blurs the 1P-3P distinction through its processual nature.
• He emphasizes the need for a “politics of memory” (cf. hypomnemata and self-writing, Foucault) to ethically navigate this tension.

Scybernethics converged with Stiegler’s insights by addressing how technology shapes cognition and culture:

• It critiques the “mechanical rhythm” of thinking reinforced by technological systems (e.g., AI metaphors like “memory” or “learning”).
• Through its quasi-bidimensional logic (Cartesian-measurable vs. recursive-imaginary), Scybernethics models how humans interact with technics while maintaining ethical self-awareness.
• It use self-writing tools, hypomnemata (like top-down normative crossing bottom-up creative conceptual maping) in its methodology.
• Like Stiegler, it emphasizes attentional practices (cf. the ambijective gesture) to counteract cognitive exploitation in techno-social systems.

Where Stiegler focuses on technics as an externalized memory system, Scybernethics integrates this with second-order rationality to explore how individuals recursively enact meaning within these systems.

Here memory is centered on the cognitive organism and conceived as a situated biocognitive parallel and distributed process (hermeneutic and heuristic) enacting a posteriori a formal remembrance. Memory is an embodied process (cf. Fuchs) or to put it in another way, our body is a (ontogenic, phylogenic and epigenetic) memory. So seeing technological artifacts as “external memories” (or extended cognition/mind, cf. Clark & Chalmers EMT thesis) is understood here as heuristically useful but clearly metaphorical (a light way of speaking). I consider them as constraining/enabling factors of cognition and mind, not as “extensions” in a strict analytical sense, or the all universe should be considered as such.

Moreover, this typical technical transjective simplification, in phase with a reductionist and materialist understanding of empiricism, leads to a blurring between the organic and the non-organic, a vital distinction to preserve the discrimination between heuristical intentions and truth-telling (aletheia, cf. Foucault) in discourse regimes. The map is not the territory, the brain not the mind, and the model is not (conventional) reality, nor machines “intelligent”! The meta-stabilized interaction between us and the artifact, appearing to us (phenomenological “natural attitude”) as an enacted form, is erroneously taken as a property of the thing-in-itself (cf. Kant noumena/phenomena or cognitivism) leading to what I called the technology-by-itself fallacy. While metaphorical discourse is of course a legitimate mode of expression, the problem arises when this nuance is not clearly stated in a regime of discourse claiming to be “scientific”, and therefore ethically carrying the social normativity of collective (conventional) reality.

Second-Order Logic (Logic²): The Unifying Framework

Both Derrida’s deconstruction and Stiegler’s techno-philosophy find a natural synthesis in Scybernethics’ second-order logic:

• Logic² involves double hermeneutical cycles, where concepts are not only analyzed but recursively reflected upon in relation to their observer or enactor (Varela & al.).
• This mirrors Derrida’s différance (the deferral and relational nature of meaning) while operationalizing it through recursive cybernetic principles.
• For example, in exploring the dipole “human/machine,” logic² examines not only their interdependence but also how this relationship is enacted by humans embedded within technological systems.

This recursive framework allows Scybernethics to serve as an onto-epistemological reverse engineering tool—de-constructing traditional binaries while reconstructing them within a dynamic, processual paradigm.

From Cyberspace to Scyberspace: Personalizing Technological Mediation

Scybernethics bridges cyberspace (the techno-social domain) with scyberspace (a psycho-phenomenological framework for recursive cognition):

• Cyberspace represents externalized networks of interaction, while scyberspace models how individuals internalize these interactions through recursive meaning-making.
• This connection reflects Derrida’s insight that meaning arises through relational deferral and Stiegler’s view that technics mediates human experience.

By applying second-order logic to conceptual dipoles like “subject/object” or “human/machine,” but also “explaining/understanding” (in which we are immersed right “now”), Scybernethics personalizes technological mediation, emphasizing ethical self-awareness and disciplined subjective experience.

Integrating the Tecnical and Epistemological Power of Virtual Reality

Scybernethics extend the potential domain of the possible by extending the intelligible and rational domain of the thinkable. Here’s for example a comparative table between the cyberspace and the scyberspace:

Ethical Implications: Toward a Politics of Attention

Both Derrida and Stiegler emphasize ethics as central to their projects:

• Derrida critiques metaphysical hierarchies to reveal hidden assumptions that shape power dynamics.
• Stiegler warns against cognitive capitalism’s exploitation of attention and calls for a politics that prioritizes care over consumption5.

Scybernethics extends these ethical concerns by proposing attentional self-techniques grounded in second-order rationality:

• It encourages individuals to reflect recursively on their role as observers-enactors within techno-social systems.
• This aligns with Derrida’s deconstruction by uncovering hidden epistemological hierarchies and with Stiegler’s focus on cultivating autonomy in a technological age.

Conclusion: A Recursive Dialogue Between Deconstruction, Technics, and Rationality

Scybernethics can be interpreted retrospectively and rationalized as a dialogical synthesis of Derrida’s deconstruction and Stiegler’s techno-philosophy:

1. It adopts Derrida’s critique of binary oppositions while operationalizing it through second-order logic.
2. It integrates Stiegler’s insights on technics as constitutive of humanity into a recursive framework for understanding cognition.
3. By exploring conceptual dipoles within a quasi-bidimensional scyberspace, it provides tools for navigating the interplay between subjective experience and technological mediation.

Ultimately, Scybernethics offers an ethical paradigm for engaging with technology in ways that preserve human autonomy, foster attentional discipline, and reveal the hidden dynamics shaping our epistemologies. It transforms deconstruction into an active practice of second-order reflection—an onto-epistemological reverse engineering designed for an era defined by rapid technological change.

°°°°~x§x-<@>