File spoon-archives/lyotard.archive/lyotard_2003/lyotard.0306, message 50


Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 15:17:53 +1100
From: hbone <hbone-AT-optonline.net>
Subject: Re: The Matrix - Reloaded response to eric and hugh (part 2)


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--Boundary_(ID_sOREnjg8EeZRYklJcx80qw)

Eric/steve/All,

Theories, analyses, descriptions -  books and words -  ideological belief systems inspired postmodern authors to produce all the above.

By this analysis, the systems, not the nukes, missiles, armies, fleets and governments who indulge in mass murder, make empire possible.  

The system made George do it to Iraq.  God answered yes, yes, to his prayers.

Fukyama and Heidegger and Marx, and a whole stable of pos-modern French authors  might say it was all a function of History.

The system is supreme.  The politicians, the  oilmen and other corporations who finance them could not do other than what they did. They were not to blame. They deserve only praise.  By hearkening to the voice of God, they delivered us from evil.   Amen.

regards,
Hugh



  ~^*~^*^~*^~*^*^~*^^~*~^*^~*~^*^~*^~*^*~^


Steve,
 
Interesting that you quote Grundrisse..
 
Isn't this the ur-text for people like Negri who develop a version of Marxism radically different from the one you are advocating?  Why limit exploitation to the so-called third world?  Even here in the good ole USA, silicon valley and other hi-tech centers require janitors, cafeteria workers, assembly and production workers who have often given barely enough to squeak by on.  There is a whole underbelly of workers required to keep the system afloat in the midst of mystifications of such things as the virtual corporation.
 
Nick Dyer-Witherford says the following in his book "Cyber-Marx":
 
"Marx introduces the concept of the "general intellect" in a passage of the Grundrisse know as the "Fragment on Machines." In these pages he departs from his customary emphasis on the role of work in creating the surpluses needed for social progress. Rather, he suggests that at a certain point in the development of capital the creation of real wealth will come to depend not on the direct expenditure of labor time in production but on two interrelated factors: technological expertise, that is, "scientific labor," and organization, or "social combination." The crucial factor in production will become the "development of the general powers of the human head"; "general social knowledge"; "social intellect"; or, in a striking metaphor, "the general productive forces of the social brain." 
 
It is aspects such of these that Negri uses in "Marx beyond Marx," his own reading of Grundrisse, to develop a radical re-reading of Marx.  From this emerges his concept of immaterial labor, namely, the idea that in the conditions of highly developed capitalism, a new kind of social relationship develops whereby exploitation is no longer confined to the factory, but bursts through the walls to re-inscribe the entire order as a kind of social factory.  From this, the concept of multitude eventually emerges.
 
I don't think these ongoing developments of capitalism in our lifetimes can really be understood without concepts such as complexification, the cyborg, the distributed intellect and others because these go to the very heart of the current dynamic which pushes capitalism forward as a global world system beyond mere economics to transform human relationships through the development of intelligent interactive machines and continued domination.  What is important to remember is the system has a certain kind of autonomy, exactly as Lyotard describes, which creates its own agenda and constraint.  Capitalists don't do what they do merely because they as bullies, but because they too are bound by the reflexivity of the system.
 
I sometimes get the impression from your critiques that you somehow blame the current bad days on theory as if it was the postmodernists and poststructuralists themselves who are to blame.  It seems in your reading this theory is simply a kind of bad dream which is best forgotten so we can go back to the way things were before.  Why do you and Hugh want to return to a kind of logo-centrism which privileges the human and confines intelligence to the head? How is going back a step forward?
 
I think we need the conceptual tools I have been describing and others not merely to analyze what is occurring, but to develop ways of resisting. We live in a dynamic age and our concepts must be commensurate with the world. Otherwise, we are living in nostalgia on Phantasy Island. 
 
eric
 
PS - I am beginning to think that, just as with libertarianism, you have your own private definition of cyborg. If Neo is not a cyborg, but simply 'human' then when if ever does somebody become a cyborg, in your view?  Keep in mind the Neo is born into the Matrix, has special connecting prosthesis, interacts constantly in virtual environments, and yet he still retains his simple humanity???
 
My concern is that you are so concerned with critiquing the commodification of the cyborg, you can no longer see how this term can also be used by Negri, Haraway and others in progressive ways. Thus, you arrive at a strangely conservative position.  
 

--Boundary_(ID_sOREnjg8EeZRYklJcx80qw)

HTML VERSION:

Eric/steve/All,
 
Theories, analyses, descriptions -  books and words -  ideological belief systems inspired postmodern authors to produce all the above.
 
By this analysis, the systems, not the nukes, missiles, armies, fleets and governments who indulge in mass murder, make empire possible. 
 
The system made George do it to Iraq.  God answered yes, yes, to his prayers.
 
Fukyama and Heidegger and Marx, and a whole stable of pos-modern French authors  might say it was all a function of History.
 
The system is supreme.  The politicians, the  oilmen and other corporations who finance them could not do other than what they did. They were not to blame. They deserve only praise.  By hearkening to the voice of God, they delivered us from evil.   Amen.
 
regards,
Hugh
 
 
 
  ~^*~^*^~*^~*^*^~*^^~*~^*^~*~^*^~*^~*^*~^
 

Steve,
 
Interesting that you quote Grundrisse=85.
 
Isn=92t this the ur-text for people like Negri who develop a version of Marxism radically different from the one you are advocating?  Why limit exploitation to the so-called third world?  Even here in the good ole USA, silicon valley and other hi-tech centers require janitors, cafeteria workers, assembly and production workers who have often given barely enough to squeak by on.  There is a whole underbelly of workers required to keep the system afloat in the midst of mystifications of such things as the virtual corporation.
 
Nick Dyer-Witherford says the following in his book =93Cyber-Marx=94:
 
=93Marx introduces the concept of the =93general intellect=94 in a passage of the Grundrisse know as the =93Fragment on Machines.=94 In these pages he departs from his customary emphasis on the role of work in creating the surpluses needed for social progress. Rather, he suggests that at a certain point in the development of capital the creation of real wealth will come to depend not on the direct expenditure of labor time in production but on two interrelated factors: technological expertise, that is, =93scientific labor,=94 and organization, or =93social combination.=94 The crucial factor in production will become the =93development of the general powers of the human head=94; =93general social knowledge=94; =93social intellect=94; or, in a striking metaphor, =93the general productive forces of the social brain.=94
 
It is aspects such of these that Negri uses in =93Marx beyond Marx,=94 his own reading of Grundrisse, to develop a radical re-reading of Marx.  From this emerges his concept of immaterial labor, namely, the idea that in the conditions of highly developed capitalism, a new kind of social relationship develops whereby exploitation is no longer confined to the factory, but bursts through the walls to re-inscribe the entire order as a kind of social factory.  From this, the concept of multitude eventually emerges.
 
I don=92t think these ongoing developments of capitalism in our lifetimes can really be understood without concepts such as complexification, the cyborg, the distributed intellect and others because these go to the very heart of the current dynamic which pushes capitalism forward as a global world system beyond mere economics to transform human relationships through the development of intelligent interactive machines and continued domination.  What is important to remember is the system has a certain kind of autonomy, exactly as Lyotard describes, which creates its own agenda and constraint.  Capitalists don=92t do what they do merely because they as bullies, but because they too are bound by the reflexivity of the system.
 
I sometimes get the impression from your critiques that you somehow blame the current bad days on theory as if it was the postmodernists and poststructuralists themselves who are to blame.  It seems in your reading this theory is simply a kind of bad dream which is best forgotten so we can go back to the way things were before.  Why do you and Hugh want to return to a kind of logo-centrism which privileges the human and confines intelligence to the head? How is going back a step forward?
 
I think we need the conceptual tools I have been describing and others not merely to analyze what is occurring, but to develop ways of resisting. We live in a dynamic age and our concepts must be commensurate with the world. Otherwise, we are living in nostalgia on Phantasy Island.
 
eric
 
PS =96 I am beginning to think that, just as with libertarianism, you have your own private definition of cyborg. If Neo is not a cyborg, but simply =91human=92 then when if ever does somebody become a cyborg, in your view?  Keep in mind the Neo is born into the Matrix, has special connecting prosthesis, interacts constantly in virtual environments, and yet he still retains his simple humanity???
 
My concern is that you are so concerned with critiquing the commodification of the cyborg, you can no longer see how this term can also be used by Negri, Haraway and others in progressive ways. Thus, you arrive at a strangely conservative position. 
 
 
--Boundary_(ID_sOREnjg8EeZRYklJcx80qw)--

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005