File spoon-archives/lyotard.archive/lyotard_2003/lyotard.0302, message 156


Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 18:53:25 +0000
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:

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
    

  


Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005