Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 18:11:29 +1000
From: hbone <hbone-AT-optonline.net>
Subject: Re: DEFINITIONS: categories, concepts


Shawn/Glen/All,

Finding myself in agreement with both Shawn and Glen, I happened to find
(from another Internet source) a quote that seems to reinforce the idea of
re-visiting and updating
"categories":

"...the scientist makes use of a whole arsenal of concepts which he imbibed
practically with his mother's milk; and seldom if ever is he aware of the
eternally problematic character of his concepts. He uses this conceptual
material, or, speaking more exactly, these conceptual tools of thought, as
something obviously, immutably given; something having an objective value of
truth which is hardly even, and in any case not seriously, to be doubted.
...in the interests of science it is necessary over and over again to engage
in the critique of these fundamental concepts, in order that we may not
unconsciously be ruled by them.". (Einstein)

regards,
Hugh

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

> I'm working on something more, erm, definitive on the "cyborg," but the
> core of the issue is that "cyborg" designates a condition of mixture.
> The term is derived from "cybernetic organism," and i am interested in
> that condition in its broadest sense. My concerns are much broader than
> the "human-machine interface" or the "user-tool" relation, both of
> which, it sems to me, tend to leave intact and un(der-)questioned
> concepts like "the human" which perhaps need a bit more active
> deconstruction. Haraway starts from the empirical observation of the
> "leaky boundaries" of some of our cherished categories, which doesn't
> efface those categories - her "cyborg" is, i think, a radically
> troubling of "the human" as imagined by feminism and socialism, rather
> than an attempt to replace it with some new, clean and proper
> identitarian category - and in fact seems most radical by holding our
> attention close to the process by which (what we might recognize,
> following Bataille, as) limited economies such as "the human" or the
> (non-human) "animal" are carved out from the general, more excessive
> economy of "nature." To rethink oneself as a "cyborg" is to engage in a
> sort of conscious "reterritorialization" (to pick up another of the
> poststructuralist phraseologies.) Haraway insists on the non-innocence
> of the cyborg. In a way, to "be a cyborg" is to attempt to be that
> which, in the economies of humanism has been "the accursed share." Steve
> is right - as i have agreed right along - to associate the cyborg with
> the inhuman. I think, however, that he is wrong in attributing to
> Lyotard a blanket opposition to the inhuman. The introduction to "The
> Inhuman" seems to include a much bolder - and more dangerous - double
> engagement with "the inhuman."
>
> I think the concern about the limits, or lack thereof, of my definition
> of the cyborg is a bit misplaced as well. That most entities on the
> planet may now in some way be "cybernetic organisms" is the source of
> all the heat in this debate. It simply seems to be the case. But i have
> consistently insisted that the designation "cyborg" *alone* explains
> nothing *except* this state of mixture or leakage. My argument is that -
> particularly in the context of feminist and socialist critiques of
> humanism - the "cyborg" is a place to start asking other questions,
> engaging in other kinds of analysis, and forging other kinds of
> politics. And that it has been those things for quite some time now.
>
> More soon, but i just wanted to clarify that i am talking about a very
> small-c cyborg.
>
> -shawn
>
>
> fuller wrote:
>
> > G'day,I know this may be obvious... but, for the sake of discussion
> > (if you think there is some benefit) can we please make a distinction
> > between Steve's cyborg, the actual melding of organic and technical
> > inorganic material in some intelligent system, and Shawn's Cyborg, a
> > broader term, encompassing the cyborg (of Steve), used to describe a
> > subjectivity within a system where there is a blurring of boundaries
> > between 'tool' (previously object) and 'user' (ditto subject), for
> > whatever 'tool' is being played with (haha), be it an actual
> > cybernetic prothesis, a word, etc. The politics of both are similiar,
> > but only in an abstract sense dealing with power and authority,
> > authenticity, desire, etc.I think both Cyborg and cyborg as distinct,
> > but related (perhaps Cyborg?:) terms have their uses, Steve? Shawn?
> > Glen.
>