File spoon-archives/lyotard.archive/lyotard_2001/lyotard.0112, message 109

Subject: Re: cyborg *
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 09:19:53 +0800


Yes, sorry, by sound I meant consistent. That is the ethical subject does
all s/he can to be as just as possible, but only within the constraints of
the event. And that is a process in which the self is always suspended,
besides as another player, or stake-holder, in the event, not the same as
any other(s) but no different either. I am still playing with Badiou.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Shawn P. Wilbur" <>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 1:58 AM
Subject: Re: cyborg *

> Glen,
> I suppose the point at which i have most questions about your post is this
> business of the "ethically sound." I think one of the points on which a
> number of our references here might be brought together identifies the
> ethical as always something other than "sound." Haraway's insistence that
> the cyborg isn't innocent has at least something in common with, for
> example, Derrida's claims that ethics can never be reduced to
> "technology" without ceasing to be ethics.
> There are lots of ways of coming at the quasi-dualism that's in play
> here. It's harder to know which is useful without knowing how
> "soundness" plays though.
> -shawn
> Shawn P. Wilbur
>  |
>  |


Driftline Main Page


Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005