Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 22:00:59 -0600
From: Mary Murphy&Salstrand <ericandmary-AT-earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: more on cyborgs and the inhuman


steve.devos wrote:

Basically you haven't convinced me that what you are attempting to say
would not have been better said by reducing the elements of the
discourse to smaller component parts. 

> Can you explain how this would be done?  I don't understand what you
> mean here? I am not arguing for the cyborg as much as attempting to
> understand the immanence of technology in the intrinsic fact of being > human/inhuman.  Consider Kafka's Penal Colony - our relationship with
> technology is a mode of inscription. Technology is the crabshell 
> extruded out of our flesh; the armor(amor) of the naked ape.

After all on thanksgiving 58million turkeys were slaughtered 

>Benjamin Franklin wanted this to be the national bird. I am told that >now through genetic engineering, theses animal cannot mate without 
>help. Corn does not exist in nature; The apples we eat are a very 
>narrow strain, discovered by chance; I want to go beyond the geeky >greasy glamour of the cyborg and know first hand these marks, these >traces we leave behind us upon the earth. Roads without a destination.
>A journey without end. Stones become wheels become circuits of >information become the round disk of the sun shining in your oval eyes.  
- in the cyborg discourses of Gray these simple industrial...

> Who is this Gray?