From: "Eric" <ericandmary-AT-earthlink.net> Subject: RE: The Matrix - Reloaded Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 23:11:21 -0500 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. Steve, Let me try to unpack briefly what I was trying to say in my posting on the Matrix that related it to some of Lyotard=92s theories. I recognize the whole concept of postmodernism is a little passé these days. Who would now dare to call themselves postmodern? It=92s like so pre-millennium. Still though, as the Matrix shows, these ideas aren=92t really dead yet. My point was this. Despite the various changes in style, Lyotard=92s work shows much more unity in its themes retrospectively then he is usually given credit for. If we read the Postmodern Condition in the light of later books such as the Inhuman and Postmodern Fables, it would seem that the Postmodern is not merely a temporal period for Lyotard, but a kind of conceptual space brought about by the proliferating idea of complexification and, with it, a bracketing of the concept of humanism that once had strong currency under modernism. Certainly Lyotard is not alone in critiquing the concept of humanism. I have no desire to equate the philosophies of Badiou, Zizek and Foucault with Lyotard, but I would certainly argue there is a negative agreement among them in terms of this critique. Badiou says it far better than I can. In the first chapter of his Ethics entitled =91Does Man Exist?=92 he points out that Foucault, Althusser and Lacan all critiqued the concept of Man and says: =93It followed that the humanism of human rights and ethics in the abstract sense were merely imaginary constructions =96 ideologies =96 and that we should develop, rather=85 a =91theoretical antihumanism.=92 Man is this sense is simply that old bogeyman; the white male heterosexual European/American rational subject who has been critiqued a thousand ways by poststructuralist, postcolonial, feminist thought. No real surprises here. It is also of interest, however, that a similar theme with a slightly different orientation has also been in vogue during the same period within technological circles (principally biology and computers) and science fiction which also have been contesting Man by proclaiming he will become superceded by a silicon-based machine intelligence, a merging of human and machine in the guise of the cyborg, or a transformation of the human as the result of a singularity memorably evoked by Olaf Stapleton in his novels and Arthur C. Clark in 2001 and Childhood=92s End. I know in previous postings primarily directed against Sean and me, you have been extremely critical of this notion of the cyborg, primarily for what you see as its unrealistic utopian expectations. What seems harder to deny, however, is that in a certain sense this doesn=92t really matter since these notions have already entered into imaginative collective discourse and reshaped the shifting boundaries of what it already means to be human. As I see it, the very popularity of movies like the Matrix make the strongest possible counter-argument to your whole critique. For who is Neo if not a cyborg who straddles both the flesh meat world and the virtual realm? Both human and avatar? The latent fear the Matrix plays upon is that machines now rule the world and there is no real place for humans except in a subservient role as power serfs whose energy is required to keep the machine world running. How far is this from those critiques of globalism that argue the system has its own agenda in terms of the flow of capital and free markets to which human and ecological needs remain merely secondary? How far is it from Lyotard=92s own arguments about complexification when he says: =93The pursuit of greater complexity asks not for the perfecting of the Human, but its mutation or its defeat for the benefit of a better performing system, Humans are very mistaken in their presuming to be the motors of development and in confusing development with the progress of consciousness and civilization, They are its products, vehicles, and witnesses. Even the criticisms they may make of development, its inequality, its inconsistency, its fatality, its inhumanity, even these criticisms are expressions of development and contribute to it.=94 Since you=92ve seen the Matrix-Reloaded twice, don=92t you agree the last past of this statement chillingly mirrors exactly the theme that is presented at the end of the sequel? Welcome to the desert of the real=85. eric p.s. =96 in his ethics, Badiou distinguishes between what he calls the Immortal and the animal. Furthermore, he claims that one of the conditions of an ethics of truth is that it must remain in a certain sense unnameable. I think the burden is on you to show why this is so different from Lyotard=92s conceptualization of the Inhuman, especially when he quotes Adorno as saying: =93Art remains loyal to humankind uniquely through its inhumanity in regard to it.=94
HTML VERSION:
Steve,
Let me try to unpack briefly what I was
trying to say in my posting on the Matrix that related it to some of Lyotard’s
theories.=A0 I recognize the whole concept
of postmodernism is a little passé these days.=A0
Who would now dare to call themselves postmodern? It’s like so
pre-millennium.
Still though, as the Matrix shows, these
ideas aren’t really dead yet. =A0
My point was this. Despite the various
changes in style, Lyotard’s work shows much more unity in its themes retrospectively
then he is usually given credit for. =A0If
we read the Postmodern Condition in the light of later books such as the
Inhuman and Postmodern Fables, it would seem that the Postmodern is not merely
a temporal period for Lyotard, but a kind of conceptual space brought about by
the proliferating idea of complexification and, with it, a bracketing of the
concept of humanism that once had strong currency under modernism.=A0
Certainly Lyotard is not alone in
critiquing the concept of humanism.=A0 I
have no desire to equate the philosophies of Badiou, Zizek and Foucault with
Lyotard, but I would certainly argue there is a negative agreement among them in
terms of this critique. Badiou says it far better than I can. In the first
chapter of his Ethics entitled ‘Does Man Exist?’ he points out that
Foucault, Althusser and Lacan all critiqued the concept of Man and says: “It
followed that the humanism of human rights and ethics in the abstract sense
were merely imaginary constructions – ideologies – and that we
should develop, rather… a ‘theoretical antihumanism.’
Man is this sense is simply that old bogeyman;
the white male heterosexual European/American rational subject who has been
critiqued a thousand ways by poststructuralist, postcolonial, feminist thought.
=A0No real surprises here.
It is also of interest, however, that a
similar theme with a slightly different orientation has also been in vogue
during the same period within technological circles (principally biology and
computers) and science fiction which also have been contesting Man by
proclaiming he will become superceded by a silicon-based machine intelligence, a
merging of human and machine in the guise of the cyborg, or a transformation of
the human as the result of a singularity memorably evoked by Olaf Stapleton in
his novels and Arthur C. Clark in 2001 and Childhood’s End.=A0
I know in previous postings primarily directed
against Sean and me, you have been extremely critical of this notion of the
cyborg, primarily for what you see as its unrealistic utopian expectations.=A0 What seems harder to deny, however, is that in
a certain sense this doesn’t really matter since these notions have
already entered into imaginative collective discourse and reshaped the shifting
boundaries of what it already means to be human.=A0 As I see it, the very popularity of movies
like the Matrix make the strongest possible counter-argument
to your whole critique.
For who is Neo if not a cyborg who
straddles both the flesh meat world and the virtual realm? Both
human and avatar?
The latent fear the Matrix plays upon is
that machines now rule the world and there is no real place for humans except
in a subservient role as power serfs whose energy is required to keep the
machine world running. =A0How far is this from
those critiques of globalism that argue the system has its own agenda in terms
of the flow of capital and free markets to which human and ecological needs remain
merely secondary?=A0 How far is it from
Lyotard’s own arguments about complexification when he says:
“The pursuit of greater complexity
asks not for the perfecting of the Human, but its mutation or its defeat for
the benefit of a better performing system,=A0
Humans are very mistaken in their presuming to be the motors of
development and in confusing development with the progress of consciousness and
civilization,=A0 They are its products,
vehicles, and witnesses.=A0 Even the
criticisms they may make of development, its inequality, its inconsistency, its
fatality, its inhumanity, even these criticisms are
expressions of development and contribute to it.”
Since you’ve seen the Matrix-Reloaded
twice, don’t you agree the last past of this statement chillingly mirrors
exactly the theme that is presented at the end of the sequel?
Welcome to the desert of the real….
eric
p.s. – in his ethics, Badiou distinguishes
between what he calls the Immortal and the animal.=A0 Furthermore, he claims that one of the
conditions of an ethics of truth is that it must remain in a certain sense unnameable.
I think the burden is on you to show why this is so different from Lyotard’s
conceptualization of the Inhuman, especially when he quotes Adorno as saying: “Art
remains loyal to humankind uniquely through its inhumanity in regard to it.”