Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 17:45:50 -0600
Subject: Re: cyborg *


steve:

I have read your comments in cyborg 1,2,3 and think you have done an
excellent job of framing some of the central political and social
issues.  I am in agreement with you in principle here. The specter of
another so-called Master Race composed primarily of yuppie mall rats on
the genetic equivalent of steroids scares the hell of me too.

What I still find problematic is framing this dialectically between the
transhumanism of the radical technogeek wing and the fundamentalist
humanism of the the religiously dogmatic.  

I recognize that my framing of the issues has been polemical and has
unhelpful in the long run, but as this discussion continues have become
aware that I really want to accomplish is a kind of philosophical
anthropology, one that avoids the essentialism of either of the above
forementioned groups. I would argue that Lyotard was groping towards the
kind of anthropology I have in mind, even though I freely acknowledge he
did not develop this, for a number of reasons. 

I guess what I would like to ferret out is what this antropology might
have been, had Lyotard lived to accomplish it.  Also, beyond Lyotard,
what kind of antropology is necessary to avoid the false dilemma between
either transhumanism or fundamentialist humanism.

Unfortunely, today I don't have time to attempt going into the details
of what I mean by this, but perhaps now that we are discussed Badiou's
book in some detail (even though perhaps still not finished completely)
we can explore this topic in greater detail, less in terms of the cyborg
and more in terms of anthropology.

It also occurs to me that Bateson and Deleuze as well as other might be
useful in terms of this project.

Does this sound like a viable approach to you?  

eric