A brief survey of the development of some techniques from antiquity to recent times reveals that their initial phase was stimulated not by perspectives of exploiting their outcome, as is usually expected for technology, but by the valorization of the process itself. This initial phase, defined here as technopoiesis, is conceptually and practically distinct from what subsequently becomes technology in respect of inventiveness, standardization, technical skill, level of ornamentation, practical use, integration into systems of exchange, and ritualized versus secular uses. (...) It is shown that technopoiesis may profoundly modify the cultural environment by shaping the universe of beliefs, rituals, and values and that this influence may persist even after the transition to technology. It makes the distinction between technology and technopoiesis essential for evaluating the cultural influence of techniques, from the Paleolithic era to modern times. (shrink)

Technopoiesis was previously identified as the juvenile phase of expression of a technique that spontaneously evolves towards technopraxis as soon as the perspectives of practical use of the end-products overcome the cosmological resonance of the process itself. This view is re-examined considering the data and analyses exposed in “Refining technopoiesis: Measures and Measuring Thinking in Ancient China,” in which a coexistence of the technopoiesis and technopraxis approaches of technics is suggested.

It is argued in this study that ʿāpār, in the context of mining expressed in Job 28:2, 6, probably denotes neither ‘dust’ nor related materials, as is generally assumed, but ‘metallic ore’. A similar designation of ʿāpār as ore is identified in Job 30:6 and Ezek. 26:12. Further examination reveals the figurative use of ʿāpār as ore in Job 22:24, Isa. 34:9, and Isa. 41:2. In contrast to the abasement, humiliation, and worthlessness that are closely related to dust, metallic ore (...) is associated with preciousness, rarity, and wisdom. Consequently, disregard of the figurative meaning of ʿāpār as ore may generate misunderstandings of the biblical text. It may also conceal a theological reality. For example, the identification of ʿāpār as ore in Prov. 8:26 promotes homology between Lady Wisdom and the Egyptian goddess Hathor in Prov. 8:22–31. In Gen. 3:14, it stresses the metallurgical background of the Hebrew myth of origin and helps to clarify its significance. The meaning of ʿāpār as ore in Isa. 65:25 even transforms the metallurgical theological component into the source of eschatological developments. It is concluded that the ‘ore’ dimension of meaning of ʿāpār coexists in Biblical Hebrew with the traditional association of ʿāpār with dust and that the disregard of this dimension overlooks the meaning of these verses and the theology that inspires them; it also reflects misunderstandings of Biblical Hebrew after the Persian period. (shrink)