File spoon-archives/lyotard.archive/lyotard_2003/lyotard.0306, message 79


Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 10:49:19 -0400
From: Mark Nunes <mnunes-AT-gpc.edu>
Subject: Re: The Matrix - Reloaded



--Boundary_(ID_vyoaFDicwVuqCOvCsm/xBA)

Actually, metaphysics and physics don't have any real etymological 
connection. Rather, it refers to the writings of Aristotle. According to 
Oxford's Companion:

    The term 'metaphysics' originated...as a title given to some of
    Aristotle's works in the catalogue of the edition of them produced
    by Andronicus of Rhodes in the second half of the first century
    [BCE] (although it may have come from an earlier library
    classification). It meant simply the works which followed those on
    physics in the catalogue.

--mark


hbone wrote:

> steve,
>  
> a dictionary says metaphysics is the philosophy of "being" and "knowing".
>  
> I have thought of metaphysics as beyond physics.  In that sense, 
> lasers would have been metaphysical until discovered.  The search for 
> nature's secrets suggests going beyond what we know.  New discoveries, 
> perhaps the laser, are often side effects, not the goal that was sought.
> I don't think physicists can be physicisst without 
> considering potential, imagining various outcomes to experiments etc.
>  
> Never heard the idea that lasers might have occurred billions of years 
> ago.  How about H-bombs and eyeglasses.  If machines make us cyborgs, 
> how about the bow and arrow?
> If something walks like a duck and quacks like a duck its called a duck. 
>  
> If something talks like a secretary and answers your questions over a 
> phone like, its probably
> a cyborg, a metaphysical "being" that "knows" the answer to your question.
>  
> regards,
> Hugh
>  
> ~^*~^~^*~^~*^~*^~*^~*^~*^~*~^*~^*^
>
> > hugh
> >
> >         an interesting thought - but as far as I am aware there are 
> very
> > few examples of things actually invented by humans - i.e. things that
> > could not, or seem unlikely to  exist in the universe without human
> > agency. My personal favorite is the laser - as far as we (that humans
> > know) nothing lased in the un iverse un til about 60-50 years ago.  
> This
> > may as (Ian Hacking points out) deeply trouble some physicists who 
> argue
> > that 'potentially' this has existed for 14-30 billion years 
> depending on
> > the age of the universe. However when physicists talk about potential
> > its clear we are no longer dealing with physics but metaphysics.
> >         To apply the rationale to the notion of the cyborg it is plain
> > that the cyborg cannot exist without human agency - and that as we are
> > always talking of the potential of the cyborg rather than its actuality
> > we are dealing with metaphysics rather than the actuality. Could the
> > cyborg have evolved within nature ? The cyborg is a very specific
> > socio-cultural concept that probably only truly has temporary 
> meaning as
> > a result of the current cultural phantasies of a given socio-cultural
> > group. Consequently the answer is no, for like phrenology the idea will
> > most likely fade away, to become a historical curio. However the
> > actuality of the medical and social practices will remain but as we
> > become acclimatised to the practices we will have a less hysterical
> > ideological notion to support it...
> >       
> > personally I doubt that anybody will miss it...
> >
> > regards
> > steve
> > hbone wrote:
> >
> > >Steve,
> > >
> > >If we knew precisely what a cyborg "is" is, perhaps we could prove 
> that we
> > >are "not"
> > >cyborgs.  Could God or Nature create a cyborg without human 
> agency?  Or are
> > >living humans as mechanical as anything they can make?
> > >
> > >regards,
> > >Hugh
> > >
> > >*^*^^*^*^*^*^*^*
> > >
> > >I always think of the 'desert of the real' as precisely a reference to
> > >Zizek's published response to the 9/11 event and the Iraq war 
> tragedy - but
> > >within that text there is a deep critique of the dominance of cultural
> > >studies and the USA left by postmodern theory - with it's rejection 
> of it's
> > >own left history and it's replacement by the specifics of  postmodern
> > >theory - with the consequence that i'm never sure whether Eric is being
> > >'ironic' or not.  (Eric can answer that himself).
> > >
> > >In one of the articles on the history of the world social forum (In 
> NLR) an
> > >important  Brazilian radical (name forgotton for the moment) said 
> that he
> > >was very glad that American radicals did not arrivve in their 
> droves for the
> > >first WSF from the US NGO's - for he felt that they would have 
> worked hard
> > >to impose their own agenda on the Forum...  He was referring I 
> believe to
> > >the incorrect belief that the postmodern theory and expeience as 
> denounced
> > >by Zizek and others is in some sense an adequate response to the real
> > >socio-econocmic experience that people live in....
> > >
> > >(Given Eric's occasional desire to be cyborg - does this mean he is not
> > >human... laughs.  (Actually I almost worked on what would be called a
> > >'cyborg' project some years ago but couldn't afford the cut in 
> salary...))
> > >
> > >regards
> > >steve
> > >
> > >hbone wrote:
> > >
> > >Eric wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >Welcome to the desert of the real..
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >eric
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >p.s. - 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'
> > >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."
> > >
> > >You welcome me to the same desert you offer Steve.
> > >
> > >I think "the" real is what personal experience - senses/brain/mind  
> brings
> > >to the "is it happening".  Words on paper are real for you, even 
> though you
> > >name their content unnameable.
> > >
> > >In this instance, you define your "real" as your understanding of  the
> > >representations of
> > >a) Badious's  experience of the "Immortal" and the "animal"
> > >b) Lyotard's experience of reading
> > >c) Adorno's experience:  Adorno's reification of  an abstract force 
> named
> > >"Art".
> > >
> > >I think "the" real is what personal experience - senses/brain/mind  
> brings
> > >to the "is it happening".  Those words on paper are real for you, even
> > >though you name them unnameable".
> > >
> > >Like others' pain, we acknowledge others' beliefs, experiences, and 
> install
> > >them in memory as if they were actual, not representations.
> > >
> > >regards,
> > >Hugh
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> >
> > 



--Boundary_(ID_vyoaFDicwVuqCOvCsm/xBA)

HTML VERSION:

Actually, metaphysics and physics don't have any real etymological connection. Rather, it refers to the writings of Aristotle. According to Oxford's Companion:
The term 'metaphysics' originated...as a title given to some of Aristotle's works in the catalogue of the edition of them produced by Andronicus of Rhodes in the second half of the first century [BCE] (although it may have come from an earlier library classification). It meant simply the works which followed those on physics in the catalogue.
--mark


hbone wrote:
steve,
 
a dictionary says metaphysics is the philosophy of "being" and "knowing".
 
I have thought of metaphysics as beyond physics.  In that sense, lasers would have been metaphysical until discovered.  The search for nature's secrets suggests going beyond what we know.  New discoveries, perhaps the laser, are often side effects, not the goal that was sought.
I don't think physicists can be physicisst without considering potential, imagining various outcomes to experiments etc.
 
Never heard the idea that lasers might have occurred billions of years ago.  How about H-bombs and eyeglasses.  If machines make us cyborgs, how about the bow and arrow?
If something walks like a duck and quacks like a duck its called a duck. 
 
If something talks like a secretary and answers your questions over a phone like, its probably
a cyborg, a metaphysical "being" that "knows" the answer to your question.
 
regards,
Hugh
 
~^*~^~^*~^~*^~*^~*^~*^~*^~*~^*~^*^

> hugh
>
>         an interesting thought - but as far as I am aware there are very
> few examples of things actually invented by humans - i.e. things that
> could not, or seem unlikely to  exist in the universe without human
> agency. My personal favorite is the laser - as far as we (that humans
> know) nothing lased in the un iverse un til about 60-50 years ago.  This
> may as (Ian Hacking points out) deeply trouble some physicists who argue
> that 'potentially' this has existed for 14-30 billion years depending on
> the age of the universe. However when physicists talk about potential
> its clear we are no longer dealing with physics but metaphysics.
>         To apply the rationale to the notion of the cyborg it is plain
> that the cyborg cannot exist without human agency - and that as we are
> always talking of the potential of the cyborg rather than its actuality
> we are dealing with metaphysics rather than the actuality. Could the
> cyborg have evolved within nature ? The cyborg is a very specific
> socio-cultural concept that probably only truly has temporary meaning as
> a result of the current cultural phantasies of a given socio-cultural
> group. Consequently the answer is no, for like phrenology the idea will
> most likely fade away, to become a historical curio. However the
> actuality of the medical and social practices will remain but as we
> become acclimatised to the practices we will have a less hysterical
> ideological notion to support it...
>       
> personally I doubt that anybody will miss it...
>
> regards
> steve
> hbone wrote:
>
> >Steve,
> >
> >If we knew precisely what a cyborg "is" is, perhaps we could prove that we
> >are "not"
> >cyborgs.  Could God or Nature create a cyborg without human agency?  Or are
> >living humans as mechanical as anything they can make?
> >
> >regards,
> >Hugh
> >
> >*^*^^*^*^*^*^*^*
> >
> >I always think of the 'desert of the real' as precisely a reference to
> >Zizek's published response to the 9/11 event and the Iraq war tragedy - but
> >within that text there is a deep critique of the dominance of cultural
> >studies and the USA left by postmodern theory - with it's rejection of it's
> >own left history and it's replacement by the specifics of  postmodern
> >theory - with the consequence that i'm never sure whether Eric is being
> >'ironic' or not.  (Eric can answer that himself).
> >
> >In one of the articles on the history of the world social forum (In NLR) an
> >important  Brazilian radical (name forgotton for the moment) said that he
> >was very glad that American radicals did not arrivve in their droves for the
> >first WSF from the US NGO's - for he felt that they would have worked hard
> >to impose their own agenda on the Forum...  He was referring I believe to
> >the incorrect belief that the postmodern theory and expeience as denounced
> >by Zizek and others is in some sense an adequate response to the real
> >socio-econocmic experience that people live in....
> >
> >(Given Eric's occasional desire to be cyborg - does this mean he is not
> >human... laughs.  (Actually I almost worked on what would be called a
> >'cyborg' project some years ago but couldn't afford the cut in salary...))
> >
> >regards
> >steve
> >
> >hbone wrote:
> >
> >Eric wrote:
> >
> >
> >Welcome to the desert of the real..
> >
> >
> >
> >eric
> >
> >
> >
> >p.s. - 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'
> >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."
> >
> >You welcome me to the same desert you offer Steve.
> >
> >I think "the" real is what personal experience - senses/brain/mind  brings
> >to the "is it happening".  Words on paper are real for you, even though you
> >name their content unnameable.
> >
> >In this instance, you define your "real" as your understanding of  the
> >representations of
> >a) Badious's  experience of the "Immortal" and the "animal"
> >b) Lyotard's experience of reading
> >c) Adorno's experience:  Adorno's reification of  an abstract force named
> >"Art".
> >
> >I think "the" real is what personal experience - senses/brain/mind  brings
> >to the "is it happening".  Those words on paper are real for you, even
> >though you name them unnameable".
> >
> >Like others' pain, we acknowledge others' beliefs, experiences, and install
> >them in memory as if they were actual, not representations.
> >
> >regards,
> >Hugh
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> >
>
>

--Boundary_(ID_vyoaFDicwVuqCOvCsm/xBA)--

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005