File spoon-archives/lyotard.archive/lyotard_2001/lyotard.0111, message 102

Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 17:59:55 +0000
Subject: Re: We have always been cyborgs

Eric and All
Since I seem to be the person who most appreciates and sympathises with 
Badiou's work - it should not require stating, but I do it anyway, that 
I think the important aspects of the work are not being covered in your 
misreading - it is the implicit materialism of his reading that I find 
so attractive. Rather than quote directly I'd refer you to the bullert 
point on p54 in 'Asceticism?' where he refers to 'a-sociality' and the 
'social game' which is by default and intention understood as being 
language games. But the interpretation also relates this back to the 
material, to the real. The limitation of the ethical case is well made 
here, for its distence from the real and the everyday makes ethics 
a-social. What Badiou is describing is the dialectical clash, the 
dialectical contradiction between post-event fidelity and knowledge, 
perhaps most specifically the knowledge from the everyday - from science 
and technology through to love... Beyond this of course he relates this 
to the impossibility of the multiple-being that each of us is to be 
'whole'. This is the heart of the psychoanalytical subject...(though 
Badiou's references to the human condition - how esle can you read the 
second paragraph on page 55?)

My purpose in touching  on this is to begin to draw out a  different 
reading of Badiou...

' replace determined scientific investigation with the pursuit of 
recognition and awards...' (56)  says it all when read through the 
recognition of the impossibility of  the human subject to be a-social.

regards (jet-lagged and glad to be home...)


Mary Murphy&Salstrand wrote:

>you are not alone if you don't like Badiou. Both Diane and Shawn have
>sent posts stating their own reservations. (I am also merely presently
>his argument, but not necessarily as a disciple.)
>So, yes, I would like to hear you expand on what you are reacting to so
>negatively in Badiou.  Is it similar to what Diane and Shawn have
>expressed or is it something different for you? 
>The whole reason I have outlining this book is to provoke discussion.  
>If no one speaks, what good does it do?
>Also, I recognize that individuals and even states can each sometimes
>act ethically, but that wasn't my point.  Do you really not see the
>extent to which US actions often show a disconnect between realizing its
>strategic interests and the need for the media and politicians to
>idealize this in the name of liberty and justice. 
>In the past, you have often argued yourself precisely along these lines.
>Have the recent events changed you that much? Are you now feeling more
>sentimental about these purple mountain majesties, these amber waves of
>grain? These ABMs with nuke warheads above the fruited plain?
>ps I mentioned the connection with Dewey because I think it is a
>interesting connection to make. Call it my own sense of patriotism.


Driftline Main Page


Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005