Question Concerning Technology” has been enormously influential in its conceptualization of the ontological essence of modern technology as being less that of the originary classical Greek notion of technē, understood as a bringing-forth of beings, than of what Heidegger called “enframing” [Gestell], understood as a mode of revealing of beings that provokes or challenges them forth exclusively as standing reserves [Bestand]. Under enframing, “nature” is being reduced to a gigantic reservoir of energy and material resources for economic and technological exploitation. While this image and critique of modern technology has been widely if critically accepted in the West, what has often been missed in those criticisms of its detail or trajectory is its applicability when extended to non-Western technological developments, both historically and projectively, for if these are not reducible to either technē or enframing in the Western sense, how can we articulate their unfolding and what could this question of technology prior to the Heideggerian formulation contribute to the current debate on the Anthropocene and the profound ecological and geological mutations it entails? One current way forward in this context of the Anthropocene is a reappraisal of the idea of nature. For example, some representatives of the so-called “ontological turn” in contemporary anthropology such as Philippe Descola (Beyond Nature) and Eduardo Viveiros de Castro (Cannibal Metaphysics and Relative Native) have proposed an unravelling of the concept of nature to show that nature as it is experienced in non-European cultures cannot be equated to naturalism, which is a product of modernity, characterized by an opposition between nature and culture, in which nature is conceived as a universal ground that is common to all particular cultures arising from it while each having a different view or conception of that nature, which is adequately conceived though only by Western science. This naturalist framework of one universal nature – mono-naturalism – and many particular cultures – multiculturalism – is being confronted by these anthropologists with an alternative framework, principally derived from Amerindian animism, of a commonly shared culture – mono-culturalism – giving rise to many

中文翻译：

---

宇宙技术与人类世时代的本体论转向

“关于技术的问题”在现代技术本体论本质的概念化方面具有巨大的影响力，因为它不是原始的古典希腊概念 technē，被理解为存在者的产生，而是海德格尔所谓的“框架”[Gestell ]，被理解为一种揭示存在的方式，它专门作为常备储备 [Bestand] 激怒或挑战他们。在框架下，“自然”被简化为一个巨大的能源和物质资源库，用于经济和技术开发。虽然这种对现代技术的形象和批评已经被西方广泛接受，但在对其细节或轨迹的批评中经常被忽视的是，当它扩展到非西方技术发展时，它的适用性，无论是历史上还是投影上，因为如果这些都不能还原为西方意义上的技术或框架，我们如何阐明它们的展开，以及海德格尔公式之前的技术问题对当前关于人类世和深刻意义的辩论有何贡献？它带来的生态和地质突变？在人类世的背景下，当前的一种前进方式是重新评估自然观念。例如，当代人类学中所谓的“本体论转向”的一些代表，如菲利普·德斯科拉（超越自然）和爱德华多·维韦罗斯·德卡斯特罗（食人形形而上学和相对本土）提出了对自然概念的解体，以表明自然因为它在非欧洲文化中的体验不能等同于自然主义，这是现代性的产物，其特点是自然与文化之间的对立，其中自然被认为是一个普遍的基础，对于所有源自自然的特定文化来说都是共同的，而每个人对自然都有不同的看法或概念，尽管只有西方科学才充分考虑到这一点。这些人类学家正面临着一种普遍性质的自然主义框架——单一自然主义——以及许多特定的文化——多元文化主义——一个主要来自美洲印第安人万物有灵论的替代框架，一个共同的文化——单一文化主义——产生了许多 尽管只有西方科学才充分考虑到这一点。这些人类学家正面临着一种普遍性质的自然主义框架——单一自然主义——以及许多特定的文化——多元文化主义——一个主要来自美洲印第安人万物有灵论的替代框架，一个共同的文化——单一文化主义——产生了许多 尽管只有西方科学才充分考虑到这一点。这些人类学家正面临着一种普遍性质的自然主义框架——单一自然主义——以及许多特定的文化——多元文化主义——一个主要来自美洲印第安人万物有灵论的替代框架，一个共同的文化——单一文化主义——产生了许多