CHAPTER 2

IN THE BEGINNING
TonyFry

.Votefrom editor: ff what distinguís/resl,uman bei11gs from 01/11:rspeciesis tlreirability to make, to slrapefound
material i11to1/ringsfor tlreirow11use,a.<suggeste,J i11TireFnult of Epimetl,eusby Ber11ard Stiegler,jusi lrowfar
óack does tlrisgo? Was tiremaki11gof toolsa/so the making of l,uman bei11 gs' At what poirrtdoes dtsig11arrive?
Was ita jlasl, of recognition- a,r a11ge11blick
- wltereina poUntia/for making otlrerwise was see,,?And wlratof
theanimal tluu remained, that Irasnever departed?

There was no 'fu-si man: Wedid not arri ve by virtue of o rigina ry ur-time;out of'Adam and Eve:or from a noble
or diviJle birth . Rather "·• arrivcd ou t of a now lost spccies over a vast expanse of tim e. lhe idea of a 'missing
lmk' to apes and chimpanues has now bcen abandoned by inform ed so urces - it no longer serves any useful
purpose .' Wh:it is kn own is tha t thc rc werc parti:illy bípeda! homin ids walk ing lhe planc t 6 mülio n years ogo
and aro und two anda half mili ion ycars ago the re were ho ruinids walkíng fully upright. 1 Toe earl iest ho rni nids,
classified main ly as Australopitlrccus,were African, d isp laying what bave been named as the thrce cri terio of
human.ity: erect posturc whilc walki ng; a free han d duri ng this Jocon1otio n ; and a 'sho rt' face (identified by
the size and positio n of tecth). Toe developmen t of thc brain cam e along with th ese ch aracteristics and had
a d irect relatio n to them .' Oevelopment was dependent 011processes of material evolu tion whereby t he body
and miod incrca.sing ly. if slowly, emb raced higher levels of complexity. Paleo -archaeo logical iJlfonn ation
indica tes that the more lhe han d was employed , the greater the demand was made on the braín. AJ; a result of
this demand, the more the cerebra l struc tur e im proved (im provement beiJlg indicated by tl1e increascd sizc
of the brain evidenced by an increase in si.1.eof the skull's bra in cavity') an d the more the bra in developed a
capacity to advaocc socia)interactions. whidl in turns.timulatedthe brain.
Toe interac tivity be tween the ha nd and the materia l world, together with the strengthe ning of socia l con taet
and struc:turc established the kcy relations betwee n th e con struction of a social world and those ac tions th at
startcd to form a world of proto -hu man existence with in the world at large. But the slowness of the ratc of
change is hard for us to comp rchend - incred ibly small ch angos took h undreds of tho usands of years .
Wo rld fonnat ion (of a world-withiJl -the -world) was an onto logical cond ition. The re wa.s n o vision, just
a depos it of chan ge vio process . Thc form atio n of an un -namcd world t hat evolves alongside its m aker was
central to the com ing into beiog of th c hum an, and was in divisible from the par lial rupture of th e hu man
from its retained,but represscd, animality.Obviou.sly. the more this activity became i.ntrinsk,thc more 'thc
"·orld' that was bcing formed was prefigured by intent (by desigo at its most basic leve!) the more thc gap and
difference be twee n othe r an imals and horuinids bccame.
( . ....)
Contemporary deb ates on th e huma 11/an imal rclalion havc paid considerab le attentio n to Heidegg er's
rdeas. particula rly from Part 2 o f h is 1he fondamemal Conceptsof ,Wetapl1ysics (a book bascd on lectures of
1929/30, first pub lishcd in German among his collcctcd works in 1983, and iJl English in 1995' ). lhe main
focus oí attentio n has becn on bis explicated commen t o n ú,c sto ne being worldless, the animal bei ng poor of
world and tb c hum an h aving a world. '
The Design Philosophy Read er

In esseuce, as the stone was viewed by Heidegger as ind ependent and ina11imate - as such it Jacks sentient
qualityand in üs unfeeling has no sense of its existencc - hcnce it is dcemed to be without a world. Theissue
of the anima l 'be ing poor of world' is clearly more complex. It <loes have a limited world, but for Heidegger,
the animal is co11stri cted in a world as a cond itio n of environmenta l conúnement that for it is 'a fixed sphe re
that is i11capa ble of funher ex.pansion or contractio n'.7 Ali animals are daimed to be cap tivc to thcir conditions
of cxistcnce, and while 'open' to other things they are (by degree ) in a state of capt ivation within the 'naturc' of
thcir ccology - it is their habitus. Here again differe nce t>egsack nowledgement - a bird in a forest or ape in a
jw1glc 'exper ieuce' the ope11in some fonn or another, while a steer in a feedlo t or a chicken in a battery cage
live in an c11vironm eu1 of absolut e ecologica l deprivation . At the same time, ali animals are captive to whal it
is they are - they ali have the individ ual or coUectivc character of 'bei11gabsorbed'wit hin what it is they are
(wh ich means thcy cannot simply be individuatcd i11tothat which ha s no existentia l selfhood) .•
(.. )
A need to know is purdy a hwnan need. One could argue tba l wbat an anim al lacks of world, we lack of
em•ironmenl.Boththcyandwcarcin ourown wayshcldcaptive.Ouropenness,our freedom)is ínappropriately
generaJised- our realily is relativc.ln many ways \,,e• remain captivc to our ani1uality andas such share sorne
of t he environm ental circumscription of anirnals. More tha11this : is no l our co11dítíon of becoming open to
becom ing closed (job sec uri ty, the domeslic, urban lifr, etc.,) no Lthe very cssence of our bei ng captured in
a transmuting environment (once 'the world ltself' now dominantly a condition mostly within the insecure
settlement of the world -within •the -world)' So while in the context of the cveryday, our a1úmallty remains
mostly conceaJed. Yet it can instantly arrivein the open as lust, fear or violcnce. Morcovcr.'thc irresolvabJe
st ruggle between unconcealedness and conce-.iledness, which defint s lhc hwnan world, is an internal/etemal
st ruggle between 'man'and/as animality:9
( .. ...)

Emergence: Out of the phylum

We Homosapier,semerged out. of a p hylum - t he collectivity of ali those ho minoid beings before us as llrey
accrned and deve loped in telligence, ali gathered in a bequest of knowledge, mater ials, techni ques and tools .
Ali tha t 'we achieved came from appropriation tha t was oblivious to any correl.ation betwee n de,•elopme nt
an d dcstruction (readable as a 'will to powcr'), 'Wc' havc. in our coming int o being (as it rup tured our
relation to o,u- zoological ber itage) always, inhercntly and mostly ullknow ingly, been disposed toward t be
unsustainable. Of coursc, this condition did not become critica! until we: (i) became of sufficient numbers and
with a volume of 'productivc ou tput' to dramaticaUy amplify our ncgativc plancta ry imp acts: and. (ü) crea ted
a way of life removed from direct ly observing the irnpacts of our actions upon thc natural cnviro11ment and
lhcreby adjusli n g our aclions accordingly (which is wh at hunter /gathers did). 1hcs c impacts, whik having
planetaryconsequences>most fundamentally diminish our finitude.
As we shall consider in sorne detail>the crucial factor in our species emergence as creatorsand destroyers
the useof tools. lnitially, somethi ng like 2.5 mi Ilion yearsago, a stone was picked up bya prolo-hominoid
\1..-as
animal and used to smash an object containing food (for instance . a coconut, other nuts o ra marrow bone).
The stone was simply a bodily extension 'much Hke an animal uses it clawS:But it was this use of the stone that
emplaced the means to prefigurethe arriva1of stones as too1s. We have now arrived a.tapoint where the nature
oft he stone, the animal, the human and world evoked by Heidegger can be revisit.ed.
The anim al p icks up the stone and slowly discovers, in its use, new capability . Slowly, oh so slowly (the
paleon tolog ical conse nsus is t hat it was well over one anda half míll ion years) two ílint stones are picked up

16
 In the Beginning

and smashed together lo revea]sometbing new.No doubt a h11genmnber of stoncs would have been smashed
logether beforc lb.is moment, but tbis lime and in a flash - an aug1mblick.an instan! moment of reflective
lhought arrivcs - a potentiality is secn. Toe stone is perceived as somctbing else (retrospectivcly nanied as
whal we would now caUa 1001, a chopper) and the cxperimenl of use begins - who knows for bow long. Bul
nonetheless this is !he birth of a new skill. No-. technics and ontologicaldesigning move from the prefigured
(thc object and idea with potential) to continually cnacted innovation. Bul again the process is slow - ver)•
slow. Yctwhat has begun now will never stop.
Without the Slone, the animal to become hominid would nol havc starlcd on the palh toward humanity.
Tbe inanimale was animated in a process that was to eventuare in the formation of rhe animal/human nexus
and the world-within-thc-world of 'its' crealion. Toe determinare factor 10 empbasise was the arrival of a
refalional potential of becoming in which chance carmot be discerned from destiny. So wbile !he stone can
ncver materiaUybecome more !han stone, il can bccome appropriated in use lo become a material tlúng ablc
to be directed toward 'thinging' i.n particular ways - lhercby becoming an cmployed agcnl oí change with
symbolic value. As such il co,Jd, and did, acquire funcrionality as a designing object of use, innovation and
causal change of its user. lt was, as said, a crucial agcnt in 1heanimal bccoming other, and more than, itselí.
Appropriating the slonc w:1sthe approprialive evenl par excellcnce!
Complexity of lhought slarted to increasc as a result of rhc conlinuing and d)"1amicinteraclion between
mind, hand, 1001, cnvironment and thc made. Over millennia, this developmcntal dynamic (which cannol be
reduced lo mere teehnics) established,along with thc rise oí thc power of languagcand the symbolic,a brain
lhal incrcased in siu by a third. Our cognitive capacity could be said to have arrived out of 1hepre-linguistic
encountcr of the animal with the stone. 1he ontological designing journey that began in this momenl has
nol end(.,d.Bul what is now evident is thal thc complexily of 1he agency of what designs (us) is beyond our
comprehension. Whal remains open is the question of our fate - is il actually sealed by this agency? lh c
proposition lhat undcrpins al,nost everything said here is that, in large part, it is. What tbis mcans is thal our
destiny and design conflate.As al! that has gonc before tells us, the human is a product of the world of its own
crcation, and while tbis world impinges on 1he animal thal wc are, it remains much of whal il alwayshas been
in the given world ofbiophysical natural, and unnatural change.

Source:Ton)' Fry 8ecoming Húman by Design llerg: London, 2012, pp. 65-72.

Notes

J, J.A.VanCouvering& A.S. Brooks(c-ds)Enc)'c/apedia

l. Sce E.Delson, l. TattersaJ 0/huma,1 ~volution:,ndpr~liUtory
NcwYorl:.:Garfand Publishing,2000;and Carl ZimmcrWlien, Did Wc Come From! Sydncy: ABCBooks,2005, p. 43.
2. !bid.
3. Andtc Lcroi-Gourhan
Gr.wrc and Sprtd, (trans. Anna BostockBergcr)Cambridge(Mass):MIT Prcss,1998,pp. 18- 19.
4. lbid.,p. 59.
5. MartinHeidegger71J(: FundamentalConreptsof Metapliysics(tr:lns. Williafu McNcUIand Martin Wa1ker)
81oom.ington:
india.naUnivtrsityPrcss.,1995.
6. lbree )'C-!l.rs
latc:r(1933) Ht·ideggeraddedthc qu~fication that tl1e humanW3S also dbtinguishedfromtbe aoim:.il
(ond obviouslythc stonc) via'care'.Mutin Heidegger &ing a,ul Trutl,(trans. GregoryFri<d and Ríchud Polt)
Blooming1on:Indiana UniYcrsity Prcs.s,201O,p. 167.
7. Mcideggcr11i, l'lmdamwtal Conctpts of ,\frtaphy,i<>~17, p. 198.
8. !bid., ~ 59, pp. 240-41.
9. GcorgioAg.unben 'flic Opc11
: Ma11at1dAnimal (lrans.Kc,fo Attell)S1,nford Univcrsíty Press,2004,p. 69.

17