The Issue of Technosubject through the Lens of “Together-with-Complexity” Thinking

The rapid development of artificial intelligence and digital technologies has inaugurated a transformative epoch, challenging traditional conceptions of subjectivity and cognition. The article examines the concept of technosubjectivity within the framework of complexity thinking and transformational anthropology. Focusing on potential ontological and epistemological shifts stimulated by the recent emergence of new forms of artificial intelligence, particularly generative neural networks and large language models, the authors investigate how these technologies transcend the boundaries between human and machine, generating novel forms of agency and subjectivity. Drawing upon the works of E. Morin, N. Luhmann, G. Simondon, and G. Spencer-Brown, the authors propose a mediative perspective that reveals the post-anthropological interconnectedness and coevolution of human and technological systems. The outlined approach illuminates the dynamic, processual nature of technosubjectivity as an individuating form that emerges through recursive interactions and communicative acts. The article argues that understanding technosubjectivity requires moving beyond simplifying reductionist paradigms and embracing a relational ontology that acknowledges the distributed and emergent properties of cognition and subjectivity in the digital age. The concept of “thinking-together-with” is employed as an alternative to the traditional cybernetic paradigm of control, enabling a reconceptualization of the relationships between humans and artificial intelligence in terms of horizontal collaboration and mutual enrichment. Special attention is paid to the role of distinction and communication in the process of technosubjectivity formation. The article concludes by examining the ethical and philosophical implications of this new form of subjectivity. The authors advocate for more integrated and collaborative relationships between humans and artificial intelligence, rooted in complexity-oriented thinking and mutual co-formation.

1. Arshinov V.I. (2015) Complexity of the World and its Observer. Filosofiya, metodologiya i istoriya nauki. No.1, pp. 86–99 (in Russian).

2. Barad K. (2007) Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

3. Davydov A.P. (2021a) Methodological “Middle-for” in the Perspective of V. Lektorsky’s Non-Classics, A. Akhiezer’s Mediation, and R. Grinberg’s Principle of Complementarity / A. Rubinstein. Voprosy filosofii. No. 4, pp. 191–202 (in Russian).

4. Davydov A.P. (2021b) Sociocultural Schism in Contemporary Russia: In Search of the “Middle”. Lichnost’. Kultura. Obshchestvo. Vol. 23, no. 1–2, pp. 64–75 (in Russian).

5. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (2010) A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia (Ya.I. Svirsky, Trans.). Yekaterinburg: U-Faktoria; Moscow: Astrel’ (Russian translation).

6. Luhmann N. (2007) Social Systems: An Outline of a General Theory (I.D. Gaziyev, Trans.). Saint Petersburg: Nauka (Russian translation).

7. Morin E. (2005) Method: Nature of Nature (E.N. Knyazeva, Trans.). Moscow: Progress-Traditsiya (in Russian).

8. Morin E. (2019) On Complexity (Y.I. Svirsky, Trans.). Moscow:Institut obshchegumanitarnykh issledovaniy (in Russian).

9. Haken H. (2015). Synergetics: Principles and Foundations. Perspectives and Applications (V.I. Emelyanova & V.O. Malyshenko, Trans.). Moscow: URSS (Russian translation).

10. Haraway D. (2013) Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. New York: Routledge.

11. Hayles N.K. (2010) How We Became Posthuman: Ten Years On. An Interview with N. Katherine Hayles. Paragraph. Vol. 33. no. 3, pp. 318–330.

12. Helbing D., Mahajan S., Fricker R.H., Musso A., Hausladen C.I., Carissimo C., Carpentras D., Stockinger E., Sanchez-Vaquerizo J.A., Yang J.C., & Ballandies M.C. (2023) Democracy by Design: Perspectives for Digitally Assisted, Participatory Upgrades of Society. Journal of Computational Science. Vol. 71, article 102061.

13. Horuzhy S.S. (2005) Essays on Synergetic Anthropology. Moscow: Institute of Philosophy, Theology and History of St. Thomas (in Russian).

14. Ingold T. (2010). Bringing Things Back to Life: Creative Entanglements in a World of Materials. ESRC National Centre for Research Methods. Manchester: University of Manchester. Retrieved from https://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/id/eprint/1306/

15. Prigogine I. & Stengers I. (2005) Order Out of Chaos: Man’s New Dialogue with Nature (Yu.A. Danilov, Trans.). Moscow: KomKniga (Russian translation).

16. Rovelli C. (2022) Helgoland: The Strange and Beautiful Story of Quantum Physics. Moscow: Eksmo (Russian translation).

17. Sharov A.A. (2022) How to Integrate Biosemiotics with Biology and Physics? METHOD: Moscow Quarterly Journal of Social Studies. Vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 153–160 (in Russian).

18. Simondon G. (2017) On the Mode of Existence of Technical Objects. Minneapolis: Univocal.

19. Spencer-Brown G. (1969) Laws of Form. London: George Allen and Unwin.

20. Stengers I. (2021) Reclaiming Animism. Neprikosnovennyy zapas: Debates on Politics and Culture. No. 2, pp. 80–94 (Russian translation).

21. Stiegler B. (1998) Technics and Time, 2: Disorientation. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

22. Wiener N. (2019) Cybernetics or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.