File spoon-archives/lyotard.archive/lyotard_2003/lyotard.0306, message 26


Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 20:29:13 +0100
From: "steve.devos" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk>
Subject: Re: The Matrix - Reloaded




Eric/all

There are various aspects in the original text which I'd like to 
understand how you arrive at but the section I'd like to clarify most is 
around the following:

"...Postmodernism coincides with the moment when Man becomes obsolete 
and the posthuman arrives to take his place. The continued development 
of capitalism supercedes human development. Man then becomes an 
also-ran...."  

   1. What is 'Man' in this statement ?
   2. What is the posthuman ?
   3. How can capitalist development supercede human development ?
   4. Are you now arguing that Badiou, Zizek, Lyotard, Foucault  and
      others are occupying the same social and philosophical space ?
   5. What is humanism ?

In Hallward's interesting presentation of Badiou  he state's 
"....Badiou's thought in terms of more familiar figures (aligned with 
Plato, Descartes and Lacan against Wittgenstein, Heidegger and 
Lyotard...).  It is still not clear how you can successfully rework 
Badiou, Zizek, Lyotard and Foucault into a coherent non-contradictory 
position.

Was the "human/postmodern" a freudian slip for human/posthuman? 
Anti-humanist is understandable and perhaps something to be applauded 
but 'posthuman' means nothing - at least so far in this exchange.

I agree with Badiou when he says that "When you abandon the universal 
you get universal horror"  At the heart of  the rejection of the 
theories/theory of the postmodern(ists) is the recognition that the 
postmodern tendency that has dominated left radical responses to the 
counter-reformation has been hopelessly inadequate.  From Negri and 
Hardt to Badiou and Zizek and beyond; the problem that has been 
identified is that postmodern approaches repudiate the possibility of 
 sustained radical challenges to the existing systems of social, 
economic and political relations. To support claims for social and 
political rights for example it is absolutely necessary to do so not on 
the grounds of the existence of a community of women, a colonised 
community of Iraqis, but only if the grounds for doing so are 
emancipatory,  that requires that the arguments are constructed around a 
"space of universality..."

oh and The Matrix Reloaded is still a great hollywood movie - if not as 
good as Fassbinder's 'Welt am Draht'....

regards
steve


Eric wrote:

>Steve,
>
>Reactionary seems a little strong for an analysis. I wasn't advocating
>posthuman, just pointing out the obvious trend and how the matrix fits
>in as myth.
>
>What do you disagree with.
>
>Surely you are aware that Badiou, Zizek, Lyotard, Foucault and others
>contest the simple kind of humanism you seem to advocating here. If I am
>reactionary (I doubt it) you are a utopian socialist in the sense Marx
>used the term.  
>
>Surely you recognize that it isn't just a choice between
>human/postmodern. There is a little thing named capitalism that must
>also be overcome.
>
>eric 
>  
>


HTML VERSION:

Eric/all

There are various aspects in the original text which I'd like to understand how you arrive at but the section I'd like to clarify most is around the following:

"...Postmodernism coincides with the moment when Man becomes obsolete and the posthuman arrives to take his place. The continued development of capitalism supercedes human development. Man then becomes an also-ran...."  
  1. What is 'Man' in this statement ?
  2. What is the posthuman ?
  3. How can capitalist development supercede human development ?
  4. Are you now arguing that Badiou, Zizek, Lyotard, Foucault  and others are occupying the same social and philosophical space ?
  5. What is humanism ?
In Hallward's interesting presentation of Badiou  he state's "....Badiou's thought in terms of more familiar figures (aligned with Plato, Descartes and Lacan against Wittgenstein, Heidegger and Lyotard...).  It is still not clear how you can successfully rework Badiou, Zizek, Lyotard and Foucault into a coherent non-contradictory position.

Was the "human/postmodern" a freudian slip for human/posthuman? Anti-humanist is understandable and perhaps something to be applauded but 'posthuman' means nothing - at least so far in this exchange.

I agree with Badiou when he says that "When you abandon the universal you get universal horror"  At the heart of  the rejection of the theories/theory of the postmodern(ists) is the recognition that the postmodern tendency that has dominated left radical responses to the counter-reformation has been hopelessly inadequate.  From Negri and Hardt to Badiou and Zizek and beyond; the problem that has been identified is that postmodern approaches repudiate the possibility of  sustained radical challenges to the existing systems of social, economic and political relations. To support claims for social and political rights for example it is absolutely necessary to do so not on the grounds of the existence of a community of women, a colonised community of Iraqis, but only if the grounds for doing so are emancipatory,  that requires that the arguments are constructed around a "space of universality..."

oh and The Matrix Reloaded is still a great hollywood movie - if not as good as Fassbinder's 'Welt am Draht'....

regards
steve


Eric wrote:
Steve,

Reactionary seems a little strong for an analysis. I wasn't advocating
posthuman, just pointing out the obvious trend and how the matrix fits
in as myth.

What do you disagree with.

Surely you are aware that Badiou, Zizek, Lyotard, Foucault and others
contest the simple kind of humanism you seem to advocating here. If I am
reactionary (I doubt it) you are a utopian socialist in the sense Marx
used the term.  

Surely you recognize that it isn't just a choice between
human/postmodern. There is a little thing named capitalism that must
also be overcome.

eric 
  


Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005