Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 19:25:45 +0000 Subject: Re: Postmodernism as a bad meme in ripped jeans Well, I'm off to 'the land of the free and the brave' and will probably be out of touch... (in a suit, as I attempt to perseude the board to bill its customers...) Some notional replies below... clarification will have to wait. I meant to say post-gaien, as in living beyond the time when the Gaia metaphor was invented to describe the relations between the human and planet. I agree that their is a closeness between Lyotard's ethics and Badiou's - however I am interested in the extent to which there is a return to a leftist version of Hegel that always accompanies a re-engaging of left positions. A contemporary ethical position has to, it seems to me, to start from the four practical codas I noted earlier today. I am interested in this especially since we have discussed the Kantian turn extensively and its occured to me that a socio/political shift is being engaged in currently, as evidenced by the re-emergence of utopian leftist thought - Empire amoungst others - is deriving its force and relevance from a Hegelian turn. The question of ethics is defined by the extent to which it continues to function in a world of inhumans, the inherent distrust I have for humanistic readings is defined by the exclusions apparant in the texts. Badiou is attempting to reclaim the ethical ground away from the right - whose ownership of the right to think was so apparant during the 1980s. The slow death of the neo-liberal economic... The history political terroism in Europe is long and fascinating - the longest known terroist group is probably the Fenians which began in the 19th C around 1850 - (my memory of the actual date is unknown) and continue to this day. I'm sure that it began earlier, perhaps Toussaint in the West Indies - 1790 appealing to the French revolutionaries for freedom, he was on the non-humans so they didn't support him... Worth remembering as the bombs fall, in all directions, Sartre's call for the use of violence in gaining anti-colonialist ends. The irony of course is that no anti-colonial violence has ever been as great as the violence of the colonisers on the colonised. If we ever reach the moment when the agression of empire is less than that of its enemies then perhaps the empire will be worth supporting. To paraphrase Clauswitz (through Debord) War today proves the bankruptcy of the empires politics. The rest will have to wait for another day... fraternal regards steve Mary Murphy&Salstrand wrote: >Steve, > >I wasn't arguing that terrorism has changed in the passage from >modernity to postmodernity. A bomb remains a bomb, even when it is >disguised as a food drop. > >What I was responding to was the charge that postmodernism itself is >kind of terrorism because it is relativistic and frivolous. Thought as a >terrorist act. To evoke a Darwinian metaphor, some of our more profound >pundits have actually been arguing in the wake of 911 that postmodernism >is now dead and that such memes are actually terrorist viruses that must >be expunged from our nation's psyche in order for our noble civilization >to prevail. Luckily, for us Americans, we now have the Patriot act to >protect our 'open society' from such horrors. For myself, I am already >sleeping more soundly at night and hope that the current plans to >re-activate the Dream Police are implemented soon. > >I don't see why my ethics are reductive - what is it I am eliminating? > >I certainly think my ethics fit into the current scientific cosmology >(I'm very strung out!) > >I wasn't aware of calling for any skyhooks. > >Instead I was placing ethics in a materialist context that sees us as >organisms situated in a physical environment that act and react to >events based upon our instrumental feelings of pleasure and pain. What >is so Un-Darwinian about that? > >Furthermore, I am not working with a narrow conception of the human, >that empty footprint on the beach that waits for the eventual tide to >roll in. > >What I am attempting to formulate is an ethics for cyborgs! > >The difference between us here (and I am not sure it is a difference as >must as it is a misunderstanding) is this. I am not arguing for ethics >as a substitute for politics, but as a kind of artificial prosthetic. > >To badly paraphrase Clausewitz, ethics, like war, is the extension of >politics by other means. > >For me, both Badiou and Lyotard agree is seeing the ethical as a kind of >node or nexus embedded in situations that responds to the requisite >stimulus in a way that is productive of paralogical events, as opposed >to those which are merely innovative. > >>From this simple act of singularity, great political movements may >emerge. > >One day Rosa Parks refuses to give up her seat on a bus in the South... > >Like you, I believe in the possibility of social change, but I am >perhaps more Kynical than you because today I feel powerless to effect >any meaningful change in my country. It makes me feel something like a >Hamlet in a wheelchair. (cf. Beckett's Endgame.) > >In my reading of Badiou, he is not arguing against ethics per se, but >against a certain conception of ethics. I agree with him to that extent. > >Are you arguing that there is no valid conception of ethics? That >politics is all? > >And what is post-Gian anyway? > >eric > >
HTML VERSION:
Steve,
I wasn't arguing that terrorism has changed in the passage from
modernity to postmodernity. A bomb remains a bomb, even when it is
disguised as a food drop.
What I was responding to was the charge that postmodernism itself is
kind of terrorism because it is relativistic and frivolous. Thought as a
terrorist act. To evoke a Darwinian metaphor, some of our more profound
pundits have actually been arguing in the wake of 911 that postmodernism
is now dead and that such memes are actually terrorist viruses that must
be expunged from our nation's psyche in order for our noble civilization
to prevail. Luckily, for us Americans, we now have the Patriot act to
protect our 'open society' from such horrors. For myself, I am already
sleeping more soundly at night and hope that the current plans to
re-activate the Dream Police are implemented soon.
I don't see why my ethics are reductive - what is it I am el iminating?
I certainly think my ethics fit into the current scientific cosmology
(I'm very strung out!)
I wasn't aware of calling for any skyhooks.
Instead I was placing ethics in a materialist context that sees us as
organisms situated in a physical environment that act and react to
events based upon our instrumental feelings of pleasure and pain. What
is so Un-Darwinian about that?
Furthermore, I am not working with a narrow conception of the human,
that empty footprint on the beach that waits for the eventual tide to
roll in.
What I am attempting to formulate is an ethics for cyborgs!
The difference between us here (and I am not sure it is a difference as
must as it is a misunderstanding) is this. I am not arguing for ethics
as a substitute for politics, but as a kind of artificial prosthetic.
To badly paraphrase Clausewitz, ethics, like war, is the extension of
politics by other means.
For me, both Badiou and Lyotard agree is seeing the ethical as a kind of
node or nexus embedded in situations that responds to the requisite
stimulus in a way that is productive of paralogical events, as opposed
to those which are merely innovative.
>From this simple act of singularity, great political movements may
emerge.
One day Rosa Parks refuses to give up her seat on a bus in the South...
Like you, I believe in the possibility of social change, but I am
perhaps more Kynical than you because today I feel powerless to effect
any meaningful change in my country. It makes me feel something like a
Hamlet in a wheelchair. (cf. Beckett's Endgame.)
In my reading of Badiou, he is not arguing against ethics per se, but
against a certain conception of ethics. I agree with him to that extent.
Are you arguing that there is no valid conception of ethics? That
politics is all?
And what is post-Gian any way?
eric