Subject: Re: cyborg
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 18:22:36 +0800


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.


G'day Hugh,

I was wondering if cultural axioms (ethical or otherwise) might be thought of as some form of 'natural intelligence' that have evolved into being with humans. For I have been thinking (along non-humanist (if I can just invent a term:) lines) about Steve's objection to the other as being resolutely human.

>Approximate answers might come from an anthropological approach. 

Like you say... I was imagining being some alien life form so advanced that the difference between lifeforms on this planet are minute enough so as to not warrant a distinction between various parasites, human or otherwise. To draw a rather tenuous link in pop culture, from the movie Evolution, the alien is always regarded as a single thing, even though it creates multiple species, lifeforms, etc.

ciao,
Glen.

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: hbone
  To: lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
  Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2001 8:03 PM
  Subject: Re: cyborg


  Glen/All,

  I don't think there are easy answers for what you write below, and philosophers in general if that's a meaningful phrase, don't always ask those questions, perhaps taking them for granted..

  Approximate answers might come from an anthropological approach.  The bio-revolution
  dating from modification of genes, cloning, stem cells etc., has opened possiblities that knowing about "knowing" and "truth" may come about thru molecular biology. 

  These functions might turn out to be an extension of of nature's intelligence
  that functions in constructing unborn humans and maintaining (without human consciousness) operation of heart and lungs and other organs for a life-time. 

  regards,
  Hugh

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Glen wrote



    What I am trying to focus on is what makes something *feel* real, so that you *know* it is real, or rather when something is true you don't really feel anything, it is when you encounter something that is utterly not-true (some form of the other, I am not too sure, not thought about that for now) that there is a fissure, a tear in your simulacra (and here I am inverting 'true' to mean anything that conforms and confirms your personal simulacra, ie 'true' to you). Not what is true, or how it can be communicated in the form of some language, or how it can be proven to other people, but what makes us know true is true (and exist accordingly). That is pre-cultural (or pre-ego based thought), for every living thing has a version, the tree bends towards light, ants follow the line, birds migrate, etc. I doubt any of these things would be having metaphysical debates about the nature of the god 'Fireball', or the evils of chaos and not following the 'Line', etc. It would be so non-true to be non-sensical, nonsense...
    I don't mean pre-cultural in the sense of a pre-organised social state, but in a kind of phenomenological effect following the event within the everyday. Perhaps pre-cutural is a bad way to express what I mean, instead of a pre-cutural state, how about an 'affected state'?

    Glen.

HTML VERSION:

----- Original Message -----

From: hbone

To: lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu

Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2001 8:03 PM

Subject: Re: cyborg

Glen/All,

 

I don't think there are easy answers for what you write below, and philosophers in general if that's a meaningful phrase, don't always ask those questions, perhaps taking them for granted..

 

Approximate answers might come from an anthropological approach.  The bio-revolution

dating from modification of genes, cloning, stem cells etc., has opened possiblities that knowing about "knowing" and "truth" may come about thru molecular biology.  

 

These functions might turn out to be an extension of of nature's intelligence

that functions in constructing unborn humans and maintaining (without human consciousness) operation of heart and lungs and other organs for a life-time. 

 

regards,

Hugh

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Glen wrote

 

 

What I am trying to focus on is what makes something *feel* real, so that you *know* it is real, or rather when something is true you don't really feel anything, it is when you encounter something that is utterly not-true (some form of the other, I am not too sure, not thought about that for now) that there is a fissure, a tear in your simulacra (and here I am inverting 'true' to mean anything that conforms and confirms your personal simulacra, ie 'true' to you). Not what is true, or how it can be communicated in the form of some language, or how it can be proven to other people, but what makes us know true is true (and exist accordingly). That is pre-cultural (or pre-ego based thought), for every living thing has a version, the tree bends towards light, ants follow the line, birds migrate, etc. I doubt any of these things would be having metaphysical debates about the nature of the god 'Fireball', or the evils of chaos and not following the 'Line', etc. It would be so non-true to be non-sensical, nonsense...

I don't mean pre-cultural in the sense of a pre-organised social state, but in a kind of phenomenological effect following the event within the everyday. Perhaps pre-cutural is a bad way to express what I mean, instead of a pre-cutural state, how about an 'affected state'?

 

Glen.