File spoon-archives/lyotard.archive/lyotard_2001/lyotard.0112, message 27

Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 15:22:08 +1000
Subject: Re: more on cyborgs and the inhuman


First, Eric's reply to this message, with hbone comments at **
Second, additional comments, end of post.

> hbone wrote:
> IMHO these evils are consequences of the acts of living people whose
> religion is greed, and whose tools are institutions and technologies.
> The EVIL ONES siphon wealth from worker/consumers in the form of Rent,
> Interest, Profits, Taxes, Insurance, Advertising.  That where our money
> goes.
> Development, technology and complexity are not actors in this drama....
> only names of  concepts.
> Hugh:
> Just a couple of points.
> 1. I'm not sure that a moral category like greed is sufficient to
> emcompass all these political, social and technological issues.
**Think of greed as human action, as quasi-religious motivation, as
neo-liberal ideology.
> 2. Just to be the devil's advocate, what kind of social solution do you
> advocate that would not involve some form of transfer? After all, H&N
> advocate a global guaranteed income.  How does this differ in principle
> from some of the things you describe?  In a world that faces so many
> unequal streams of income distribution, it seems hard to visualize a
> solution that doesn't involve some form of transfers, at least in the
> short term.
**  1)Why should a solution not involve some form of transfer, as returning
stolen property, entitlements or political power to those from whom it was
taken?  2) There is already a global annual income, most of it earned by
highly industrialized nations.  The question is how and to whom it would be
> 3. By distinguishing "actors" from concepts and technology the way that
> you do, don't you end up with another dualism that lands you deep within
> the Luddite/Heidegger camp?  Where does the concept end and the actor
> begin?  That seems to be precisely the problem.

**1) Life is dualisms:  organism/environment, hot and cold, good and evil,
let's accept it.

    2) Nineteen terrorists demonstrated the transformation of concept to
inexpressible terror.

    3)In a more constructive vein, Civil Rights activists of the sixties
produced a relatively peaceful revolution, changing their concept to a
reality that transformed their lives and the lives of their children and

I'm putting together some pages of thoughts on philosophy to be posted soon,
in hope of
thoughtful response such as you gave above.

Back to basics of philosophy:  Mystery of phenomena, any and all phenomena
including human consciousness and language.  Perpetrated by God? or Nature?,
phenomena produce all that human beings know and experience.

Deconstruction of the "self" a useful exercise, but selves, subjects,
whatever... continue to inhabit living healthy brains.

The invention of a unique concept or paradigm is communicated by new words
or new shades of meaning the inventor-author confers on old words, "cyborg"
for instance.

Either situation bounces the inventor's vocabulary off her/his readers,
whose various interpretations (as critiquing Badiou) are exchanged,
questioned, but seem never to result in a politics of action, or even a
visualization of action plans.


Driftline Main Page


Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005