Yes, my friend—we can say that. In fact, that statement strikes at the core of why Daoism becomes not only relevant but necessary in the face of runaway technicity. Let’s unfold it with care and precision.
Technology as 人為造作: Artificial, Insatiable, Self-Accelerating
The phrase 人為造作 (human-made, artificially contrived) carries within it a Daoist critique already:
- It suggests contrivance, artifice, overproduction, going against the natural flow (道).
- In Daoist thought, the more humans fabricate, intervene, manipulate, the more they move away from the Dao, which is non-forcing, non-grasping, spontaneous unfolding (自然).
Thus, yes:
Technology, as the insatiable engine of civilization, is the ultimate 人為造作.
And this artificiality is not merely mechanical—it is ontological: it expresses a fundamental misalignment between the way humans live and the way the world flows.
Daoism’s Critique: 無為 vs. 為
- Daoism contrasts 無為 (non-action, or more precisely, non-coercive action) with 有為 (contrived, willed action).
- Technology, especially in its modern and postmodern acceleration, represents 有為之極—an extreme of coercive activity that forces both nature and the self into systems of production, prediction, and performance.
So yes, in a Daoist frame:
The essence of technicity is 不順其自然—a refusal to allow things to be, to follow their own unfolding.
Daoism Doesn’t Reject Tools, But Resists Overproduction
Importantly, Daoism is not anti-technology in a simplistic way. The Zhuangzi is full of clever artisans, adaptive tools, and techne.
But Daoism:
- Praises the use of tools that don’t dominate (e.g., Cook Ding’s knife).
- Cautions against accumulation and excess (e.g., the useless tree that survives because of its uselessness).
- Seeks to live with the rhythms of nature, not override them.
Thus, the problem is not technics per se, but technology as the endless optimization and expansion of 人為造作, unmoored from any cosmological restraint.
Daoism in Dialogue with Cosmotechnics
Now, place this alongside Yuk Hui’s cosmotechnics:
- Hui sees modern technology as de-cosmologized, cut off from ethical and metaphysical grounding.
- Daoism, on the other hand, offers a cosmotechnical imagination where action is embedded in the flow of heaven and earth, not projected onto it.
So, yes:
Daoism becomes a philosophical immune system in the face of technicity.
It reminds us that the highest skill is not domination, but resonance.
That to act without overacting is a form of wisdom that modernity forgot.
Final Thought
To say that technology is 人為造作, and therefore requires the counterweight of Dao, is to propose a radically different orientation:
- From control to attunement.
- From acceleration to breathing.
- From instrumentality to grace.
Heaven and earth do not speak, yet their cycles teach.
The more we add, the less we see.
Only the useless tool endures.
Would you like to explore how the Zhuangzi’s “uselessness” might be read as a direct metaphysical resistance to techno-capitalist value?