Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 20:31:22 -0500
Subject: Re: terms


"steve.devos" wrote:

> Shawn
>
> What leaky boundaries are these then?

Steve, you're doing nothing to dispel my suspicion that you have not
read Haraway.
The question of leaky boundaries - those dividing the human for the
non-human
animal, the living from the non-living, and the tangible from the
intangible, roughly -
is explicitly at the center of the "Manifesto," but also most of the
rest of the essays
in _Simians, Cyborgs, and Women_, a collection named for three exemplary

boundary-crossing figures. Whether or not this is a compelling argument,
there
is nothing in it to support "the 'right of humans' to use the chickens."
Quite the
contrary.

> As the Oncomouse is endlessly sacrificed it is closer to the darkness
> that is Bataille then Haraways happy Cyborg vision....

Well, since there is no "happy Cyborg vision" in Haraway, the distance
between her
actual, stated vision and that of Bataille (whose relationship to
"darkness" is certainly
not unambiguous) is considerably less than you apparently believe.
Indeed, i find that
Bataille's notions of limited and general economies are rather useful
tools in thinking
through precisely the questions of "leaky boundaries."

> But then you are being romantic again Shawn...

And you're being unpleasant again...

> ((I think it's the libertarian in you) one day I'm going to have to
> ask how you can ban the cyborg and it's friend the V8 SUV from a
> libertarian position but not today)

Do i want to ban the cyborg or the SUV? Or do you - and you consider "a
libertarian
position" useless to your purposes? I'm actually asking for
clarification, not alerting you
to the possibility of asking for clarification at some later date.

-shawn

> and I'm probably ill with some nasty virus... off to a meeting in 10.
> M.
>
> solidarity... sigh
>
> regards
> steve