Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 18:53:25 +0000 From: "steve.devos" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk> Subject: Re: terms - libertarian Shawn I did not intend to cause you personal offence - sorry you assumed I was. The standard understandings of the ter libertarian have a different meaning in Europe and the USA. In Europe it is commonly understood as refering to a culture and ideology based on the defense of individal liberty as a supreme value - this may be against the state but also in allaince and with the help of govenments, for example privacy protection, welfare state provision and so on. In the USA context 'libertarian' is a socio-political ideology that includes a distrust of govenments, often including the understanding that the market will take care of everything and that individuals will take care of themselves. There are other variants but the above are in some way or other sufficient to begin with. Whilst the former variant is acceptable, though not a position I agree or particularly sympathise with, the latter is not. Do I want to ban the 'cyborg' - no because as a construct, theoretical or otherwise I don't believe that they exist and am certainly not convinced by the level of argument that Haraway or Gray produce. As for SUV's yes - they should be banned and at some stage they will have to be, because they are environmentally appallingly destructive machines... (there's nothing wrong with being a romantic - on the whole I approve...) regards steve shawn wilbur wrote: >"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 >> >> > > >
HTML VERSION:
"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. -shawnand I'm probably ill with some nasty virus... off to a meeting in 10. M. solidarity... sigh regards steve