**Links to**: [[Yuk Hui]], [[Techne]], [[Technology]], [[Culture]], [[Cosmology]], [[Grammatization]]. >“I would like to suggest further that organology is not only a systematic study of the human-machine relation but should also study how culture and technics interact: that is, how different cultures—for example, Chinese, Indian, European, Amazonian, and so on—are able to produce new thinking that integrates modern technology into their traditions and also transforms those traditions in order to reopen _technodiversity_, which is now dominated by the transhumanist imagination of the technological singularity. If in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries—an epoch characterized by a perpetual tension between mechanism and organicism/vitalism—we witnessed non-Western cultures surrendering to war machines equipped with mechanical technologies, in the twenty-first century we have to push ourselves to ask if cybernetics could be appropriated in order to open up the question of technodiversity.” p. 28, _Recursivity and Contingency_, Hui. The answer to the question might lie in [[Active inference]]. >“Cosmotechnics means primarily the unification of moral and cosmic order through technical activities; this unification is a reattachment of the figure to the ground, but it is not a return to metaphysics of the one and the all. We follow Simondon and adopt the figure and ground metaphor from Gestalt psychology. Simondon attempts to understand the history of technology as constant bifurcation from a magic phase where there is no separation between subject and object, and ground and figure coexist in harmony: The figure is the figure of the ground, and the ground the ground of the figure. The constant bifurcations—first the bifurcation into technics and religion, then each bifurcates into theoretical and practical parts—lead to the continuous divergence between figure and ground. It demands a philosophical thinking (in view of the failure of aesthetic thinking) to ceaselessly converge the figure to the ground. The genesis of technicity also proposes a multiplicity of cosmotechnics with different relations to different grounds. In other words, we have multiple cosmotechnics in different cultures, instead of a Greek _technē_ or a modern technology analyzed by Martin Heidegger in his famous 1949 lecture “The Question Concerning Technology.” In order to reopen the question of technology in the twenty-first century, it is necessary to reconstruct the genesis of technicities in different cultures, which have their own cosmic specificity.” p. 30.