Folder Contents

Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 14:12:22 +1000 From: hbone <hbone-AT-optonline.net> Subject: Re: DEFINITIONS: Re: [Fwd: [CSL]: At Airport Gate, a Cyborg Unplugged] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_++LqMEj69dUsYCRzmbu+pQ) Mal/All Considering definitions and "totalizing" (Lois' post) reminds me of "Le Differend" and Lyotard's concern with addressor, addressee, the words used, and the inadequacy of words to accurately convey meaning. Opinions of List members are valued and essential steps which might lead to better understanding of our own and other's views. Definitions are tedious, sometimes frustrating, may help avoid unjustified totalizing. Cyborgs are real and can't be philosophized out of existence. I just heard on TV that video camera surveillance has been decreed for national monuments and other public places. Big Brother is watching, indoors and out. Eyeballs and fingerprints and medical records as well as credit ratings, and other elements of your financial profile, are, or soon will be, part of your identity in Govt. and Commercial records. Much of this data is bought and sold every day. What can we say and what can we do? regards, Hugh Steve, You are too much a philosopher. Why does something have to NOT be a cyborg for the term to be useful? Can a term only name and distinguish---negate? What if becoming-cyborg doesn't spare anyone-anything? We can still consider, fruitfully I think, what it means to take technology seriously and not just as something that must be put at a distance from the "human." To begin with, the idea of the cyborg, as a border-dwelling entity, can help get the monkey of definition off our backs. mal ----- Original Message ----- From: steve.devos To: lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 9:46 AM Subject: Re: [Fwd: [CSL]: At Airport Gate, a Cyborg Unplugged] Shawn I don't have any particular problem with the concept of 'cyborg' as such - I just reject the loose notion of what constitutes a cyborg that Gray and yourself have. We can't discuss it because we've tried and you can't accept a boundary around the concept. You have stated that my cat because of its injection is a cyborg. A concept that broad is simply not something I can understand. Supply a boundary to the concept of cyborg that is understandable and mutually agreeable and we can discuss its relationship to the 'inhuman'. From my domestic cat, through Bush, a hapless security guard, to the supplanting of humanity by half-machines/hulf human, through to machine intelligences is simply a cyborg to far... As for the 'good inhuman' and the 'bad inhuman' - define it then if you feel that it's a necessary concept. regards s shawn wilbur wrote: "steve.devos" wrote: ShawnIt is simply not possible for us to have a discussion founded on andaround statements that suggest that there are good cyborgs and badcyborgs. The people and non-human sentient beings I share my life withare not cyborgs and the term is simply not useful. Oh, bullshit. It is certainly possible to discuss it. Your unwillingness todo so doesn't change that a bit. The term "cyborg" has, of course, beenuseful to others, myself included, and your denials of thatutility-to-others - along with your willingness to distort and misread folkslike Haraway and myself - suggest a sort of narrow absolutism that i suspectmakes many sorts of discussion impossible. Lyotard quite clearly deals withtwo sorts of "the inhuman" - and sees one as perhaps necessary in resistanceto the other. I certainly think that formulation is "adequate" - atleast asa place to start - but it is clearly a formulation that you reject. I thinkit would be pretty easy to show that, of the folks you cite below, at leastLyotard, Deleuze and Guattari leave open - indeed require - a space forsomething like the positive "inhuman" or "good cyborg."Personally, i believe that attempts to close t hose spaces are as potentiallyfascist as anything the extropian crowd can come up with. It is a commonenough attack against the poststructuralists that their work can be asuseful to the right as to the left, but this is only true to the extent thatthe work is appropriated and recuperated to ignore the general, centralconcern with the differend, with justice, with that which, in general,resists totalization and totalitarianism.Steve, you've made it clear that you aren't going to engage with the complexnature of "the inhuman" in Lyotard - just as you will admit no possibledifference between, say, Haraway and Moravec. But i would have to say thatit is *not possible* to engage with Lyotard's work at all if you can't admitthat sort of complexity into the discussion.It seems to me absolutely critical to come to terms with these morechallenging aspects of Lyotard's work. Either that, or we perhaps shouldstop wasting our time with this forum.-shawn The proposal that Bush and Blair need to be re-defined as bad cyborgs isunnecessary - Negri and Hardt, Deleuze and Guattari, Lyotard, Luxembourghave all at times, adequately defined such socio-political perspectivesand the current globalisers are understood. I have made my positionquite clear on this list and so far have seen no reason to change it... (incidentally lyotard's dates were all wrong the planet will beuninhabitalin 1Bn years not 4.5Bn years as he imagined) sshawn wilbur wrote: Steve,I do not "disagree" with Lyotard. Our last exchange ended with a readingof Lyotard much more ambiguous about the "inhuman" - and, thus, i haveargued, about the "cyborg" (since neither are all of a piece) - than youhave characterized him. Lyotard seems really straightforward in hisassertion that while a certain manifestation of "the inhuman" is thatwhich must be resisted at all costs, it is another such manifestationthat is, perhaps, our only source of defense. Haraway's use of thefigure of "the cyborg" has very much the same character.There are apparently several different concerns being addressed in thisexchange. The question of "security" - airport guards protecting us fromterrorist threats, and what this means for individual liberties - iscertainly one of them. If the airport guards who denied the cyberneticsresearcher access to the plane - and, apparently, roughed him up a biti n the process - were "doing their job," then presumably there is someevidence in his appearance that, despite his credentials, he actuallyposed some sort of terrorist threat. It is not the airport guards' jobto protect humanity from the inhuman. In fact, as part of themilitary-security apparatus that is spreading its reach into new aspectsof daily life all the time, they might be considered very much on theside of the (bad) inhuman. Perhaps you think the researcher's choice ofresearch somehow annuls his basic rights and liberties. I'm notparticularly concerned with that question *in this context*. This seemsto me like yet another instance of overzealous cop behavior, with the"cyborg" element simply another shade of thenonconformist-thus-dangerous.I say all of this while maintaining - perhaps more consistently than you- an opposition to the state-cyborg apparatus that Bush, Blair and theirilk are currently riding over what, i take it, ought to be basic humanfreedoms on a global scale.If there is a "humanity" that must bedefended, then i think we're going to have to extract it - perhaps buildit (not rediscover, and i hesitate to say "rebuild" since i think thereis no essense or origin to which we can simply return) - from the rathermixed bad that we all are at present.As to how we are to be protected from any of these bad-cyborginstitutions, whether scientific, military, governmental, or whatever,it seems to me that the fine old core of socialism - a materialistscience of society, social struggle based on this sort of analysis,together with a rigorous attention to the perhaps unanswerable butvitally important question of social justice - remains about our onlyhope. If we are to place some basic principle above all others, it seemsto me that liberty or justice would be a better one to choose - one morelikely to result in something like real security - than safety. Ofcourse, any movement towards a "liberty" or "justice" beyond the tiredexcuses for tyranny which those ideas have so often become willundoubtedly involve a struggle to transvalue then, as, i have beenarguing - and i think Lyotard suggests - the "inhuman" might bestruggled for as well as with.I'll take Nietzche over Dubya when it comes to questions of "good andevil."-shawn --Boundary_(ID_++LqMEj69dUsYCRzmbu+pQ)

Considering definitions and "totalizing" (Lois' post) reminds me of "Le Differend" and Lyotard's concern with addressor, addressee, the words used, and the inadequacy of words

Opinions of List members are valued and essential steps which might lead to better understanding of our own and other's views.

Cyborgs are real and can't be philosophized out of existence. I just heard on TV that video camera surveillance has been decreed for national monuments and other public places.

Big Brother is watching, indoors and out. Eyeballs and fingerprints and medical records as well as credit ratings, and other elements of your financial profile, are, or soon will be, part of your identity in Govt. and Commercial records. Much of this data is bought and sold every day.

You are too much a philosopher. Why does something have to NOT be a cyborg for the term to be useful? Can a term only name and distinguish---negate? What if becoming-cyborg doesn't spare anyone-anything? We can still consider, fruitfully I think, what it means to take technology seriously and not just as something that must be put at a distance from the "human." To begin with, the idea of the cyborg, as a border-dwelling entity, can help get the monkey of definition off our backs.

Shawn

It is simply not possible for us to have a discussion founded on and
around statements that suggest that there are good cyborgs and bad
cyborgs. The people and non-human sentient beings I share my life with
are not cyborgs and the term is simply not useful.

Oh, bullshit. It is certainly possible to discuss it. Your unwillingness to
do so doesn't change that a bit. The term "cyborg" has, of course, been
useful to others, myself included, and your denials of that
utility-to-others - along with your willingness to distort and misread folks
like Haraway and myself - suggest a sort of narrow absolutism that i suspect
makes many sorts of discussion impossible. Lyotard quite clearly deals with
two sorts of "the inhuman" - and sees one as perhaps necessary in resistance
to the other. I certainly think that formulation is "adequate" - at
least as
a place to start - but it is clearly a formulation that you reject. I think
it would be pretty easy to show that, of the folks you cite below, at least
Lyotard, Deleuze and Guattari leave open - indeed require - a space for
something like the positive "inhuman" or "good cyborg."

Personally, i believe that attempts to close t hose spaces are as potentially
fascist as anything the extropian crowd can come up with. It is a common
enough attack against the poststructuralists that their work can be as
useful to the right as to the left, but this is only true to the extent that
the work is appropriated and recuperated to ignore the general, central
concern with the differend, with justice, with that which, in general,
resists totalization and totalitarianism.

Steve, you've made it clear that you aren't going to engage with the complex
nature of "the inhuman" in Lyotard - just as you will admit no possible
difference between, say, Haraway and Moravec. But i would have to say that
it is *not possible* to engage with Lyotard's work at all if you can't admit
that sort of complexity into the discussion.

It seems to me absolutely critical to come to terms with these more
challenging aspects of Lyotard's work. Either that, or we perhaps should
stop wasting our time with this forum.

-shawn

The proposal that Bush and Blair need to be re-defined as bad cyborgs is
unnecessary - Negri and Hardt, Deleuze and Guattari, Lyotard, Luxembourg
have all at times, adequately defined such socio-political perspectives
and the current globalisers are understood. I have made my position
quite clear on this list and so far have seen no reason to change it...

Steve,

I do not "disagree" with Lyotard. Our last exchange ended with a reading
of Lyotard much more ambiguous about the "inhuman" - and, thus, i have
argued, about the "cyborg" (since neither are all of a piece) - than you
have characterized him. Lyotard seems really straightforward in his
assertion that while a certain manifestation of "the inhuman" is that
which must be resisted at all costs, it is another such manifestation
that is, perhaps, our only source of defense. Haraway's use of the
figure of "the cyborg" has very much the same character.

There are apparently several different concerns being addressed in this
exchange. The question of "security" - airport guards protecting us from
terrorist threats, and what this means for individual liberties - is
certainly one of them. If the airport guards who denied the cybernetics
researcher access to the plane - and, apparently, roughed him up a bit
i n the process - were "doing their job," then presumably there is some
evidence in his appearance that, despite his credentials, he actually
posed some sort of terrorist threat. It is not the airport guards' job
to protect humanity from the inhuman. In fact, as part of the
military-security apparatus that is spreading its reach into new aspects
of daily life all the time, they might be considered very much on the
side of the (bad) inhuman. Perhaps you think the researcher's choice of
research somehow annuls his basic rights and liberties. I'm not
particularly concerned with that question *in this context*. This seems
to me like yet another instance of overzealous cop behavior, with the
"cyborg" element simply another shade of the
nonconformist-thus-dangerous.

I say all of this while maintaining - perhaps more consistently than you
- an opposition to the state-cyborg apparatus that Bush, Blair and their
ilk are currently riding over what, i take it, ought to be basic human
freedoms on a global scale.If there is a "humanity" that must be
defended, then i think we're going to have to extract it - perhaps build
it (not rediscover, and i hesitate to say "rebuild" since i think there
is no essense or origin to which we can simply return) - from the rather
mixed bad that we all are at present.

As to how we are to be protected from any of these bad-cyborg
institutions, whether scientific, military, governmental, or whatever,
it seems to me that the fine old core of socialism - a materialist
science of society, social struggle based on this sort of analysis,
together with a rigorous attention to the perhaps unanswerable but
vitally important question of social justice - remains about our only
hope. If we are to place some basic principle above all others, it seems
to me that liberty or justice would be a better one to choose - one more
likely to result in something like real security - than safety. Of
course, any movement towards a "liberty" or "justice" beyond the tired
excuses for tyranny which those ideas have so often become will
undoubtedly involve a struggle to transvalue then, as, i have been
arguing - and i think Lyotard suggests - the "inhuman" might be
struggled for as well as with.

I'll take Nietzche over Dubya when it comes to questions of "good and
evil."

-shawn

File spoon-archives/lyotard.archive/lyotard_2002/lyotard.0203, message 36

HTML VERSION:

Driftline Main Page