From: "Glen Fuller" <g.fuller-AT-uws.edu.au>
Subject: Re: The Libidinal Economy of Cyborgs
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 12:22:18 +1000


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.


Hi,

Just as a sidenote, and claim to fame by association, one of my supervisors, Zoe Sofoulis (nee Sofia), gets a mention in Haraway's text for her unpublished thesis. Apparently they were chums.

I think it is necessary to reconnect Haraway's notion of the cyborg with its context of (post)feminist appreciations of technology: "the most terrible and perhaps the most promising monsters in cyborg worlds are embodied non-oedipal narratives with a different logic of repression... In the 'Western' sense, the end of man is at stake. "

There is an ironic interplay between the cyborg myth and the woman myth (where 'woman' is a non-subject, determined by others' desires). She uses the cyborg myth as a critical device for outlining the possibility of non-oedipal relationships between technology and gender. It is crucial to remember that her conception has a particular epistemological trajectory. She is enchanted by the notion of a liminal transgression, between organic and technological, somehow working to side-step phallocentric inscriptions.

Anyway back to work,
Glen.


----- Original Message -----
  From: steve.devos
  To: lyotard-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
  Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 5:46 AM
  Subject: Re: The Libidinal Economy of Cyborgs


  S

  I agree that the versions of the cyborg that you outlione below are different views of the cyborg myth - where I would differ however is in the suggestion that that the differences are as great as often proposed. Once the thought is made that the 'cyborg' does or can exist in one of the forms suggested ranging from Moravec at one extreme to Haraway on the other then we have to accept that we are living in a paradigm, perhaps even in a meta-narrative that I would suggest  cannot be falsified, and consequently it is necessary to refuse the thought until the proponents accept that it is a theory rather than a triumphalist story.  {most of the time the story is produced as a justification for research funds which I would refuse on principle...}

  Socially and politically I appreciate the question and thought that Haraway produces but the proposed paradigm shift is not in my view convincing - and until the theoretical proposal of a Haraway-Cyborg is produced that maintains that a cyborg is falsifiable with a defined un-relativistic barrier around it then we should treat all cyborg theorisations as non-scientific and non-philosophical concepts.

  On my desk in front of me is a Cyberman - if it could speak with me rather than at me with 'destroy earth' and 'emotion is a weakness'  then it would state that you are either a Cyberman or not . ( The little cyber-dog at it's feet is 'not'). Consequently then it is necessary to define what is within the boundaries of the theory of the 'Cyborg' and what isn't.  Whilst Haraway's  leaky boundaries have a social-political resonance  I can't escape from the thought that philosophically and scientifically it doesn't work. I do not agree that Haraway adequately rethinks "science" actually it appears to me that she adopts a post-Kuhnian position and is attempting ride a paradigm change, presnting the cyborg as an established fact rather than present a position which questions and presents the evidence. In a sense Haraway presents the Cyborg as something determined, overdetermined even, rather than presenting it as underdetermined in which case the evidence for it's existence could be understood and theorised in many different ways.

  (I agree about the Gray book - I'd sell it on but am reluctant to pass it on to an impressionable mind...)

  The problem with your comparative reading of Virillo and Haraway below is that Virillo's representation of science and technology is more open and more critical of the scientific and technological complexes than Haraway is. Isn't Hybridity and over used and perhaps the equivilant of Kuhn's paradigm - which is one of those reactionary concepts adopted more because of it's use to the military-industrial complex than it's accuracy or radical usefulness ?

  An untidy set of thoughts.... (the companion species manifesto, I of course wholeheartedly approve of - as does George the Cat...)

  regards
  steve

  TheScuSpeaks wrote:

Steve,
would you lump the figure of the cyborg as seen by haraway with the
same cyborg seen by Stelarc (or even Chris Gray)?
Anyway, i clearly don't see it as being the same. Stelarc is
interesting, but too clearly situating himself into seeing cyborgs as a
possibility for immortality, and superhuman powers. Haraway several
times rejects the thirst for immortality (it's that part of her that
agrees with Heidegger, i would say. Though i have my own problems with
Heidegger) as being part of the "god-trick."
Gray (and i wish i could have a refund for buying cyborg citizen) is
clearly not doing the same thing Haraway is doing either (which is
strange, considering he was a student of hers, i believe. I certainly
know he was at santa cruz). Gray wants to take the cyborg figure as
literal, rather then a figure in an ironic political myth (that is, of
course, also material, and in that sense, not metaphorical). That is
why he spends so much time talking about "real cyborgs" and other such
sillyness.
Haraway wanted to invoke a figure that would serve as a bridge, or
better yet, to use her language, a hybird. She wants to take seriously
concerns of science (only a very curiousery look at her works outside
of the the cyborg manifesto will convince anyone that she is not saying
science is some sort of progressive curer of all ills, that she is
often deeply critical and suspecious of science) but at the same time
not end up like people like Mary Daly who reject science without
exploring what is going on (her reference to "I'd rather be a cyborg
then a goddess" is a clear attack on Daly). In short, Haraway wants to
rework, and rethink science, and her figuration of a cyborg was suppose
to show hope, and a belief that productions of patriarchy, capitalism,
and military can still be used in ways that betray the roots of where
they come from. Or to make it clear, Stelarc wants to embrace the
Cyborg myth in order to escape from the this world, get the fuck out
through fantises of immortality and space travel, Haraway wants to
invoke the cyborg myth for the opposite reason, to put us even more
firmly into this world. To find hope and the possibility for change
that does not invovle fantises of either mystic returns to nature (vis-
a-vis ecofeminism) or "god-tricks" of immortality. Rather hope is to
found through active (and often critical) engagements with the world
around us.
I think that it is the misunderstanding of the cyborg that has caused
Haraway to move away from it in her work. Look for example at her most
recent work, the companion specis manifesto.
Virilio is humane, and you are right, he is not an enlightment humanist
though. I am not sure i agree it is because he is working in
a "continental tradition" but rather because he is working in a
tradition pre-enlightment, he is a militant christian. This means that
he activily rejects capitalism and war. But it also means that he is
hung up on issues of purity (think for example his problems with
pornography and homosexuality). Haraway means the death of purity, to
be replaced with ethical and necessary hybirdity. It is no coincidence
that Virilio makes frequent references to the works of Augustine when
he laments the contempreroy virtual society.
Oh yeah, why is my name in quotes ;)?

Love
TheScuSaysThanksForTheThoughtsThisIsHelping

 
Shawn/all

The most direct reference to Haraway/Cyborg are in the interviews in
Virilo Live in Interview One. More specifically there are the
   
comments
 
explicit and implicit within the Open Sky text - esp in From Sexual
perversion to sexual diversion. It's worth stating that Virilo is not
suggesting that it is not a 'done deal' rather he is rejecting the
positive interpretation of the event, and in so doing insists on
locating the cybernetic and consequent cyborg event within the
   
history
 
of cybernetics. (See the references to cybernetics in The Art of the
Motor and The Information Bomb). Rather than placing it
   
retrospectively
 
and ahistorically in the synergy of humans and technology as others
   
have
 
done.

I would understand Virilo as a writer who is deeply humane, perhaps
   
even
 
a humanist in the best sense of term, whilst being in the continental
tradition deeply critical of the enlightenment humanism that
   
cybernetics
 
and the proponents of the cyborg myth such as Chris Gray and Stelarc
   
are
 
working within and on. What both Paul Virilo and John Gray accuse
   
them
 
of: is that in their gnosticism they are continuing the most
   
dangerous
 
aspects of the enlightenment humanist project. It is this which
interests me because the common understanding is that the the
   
positive
 
proponents of the cyborg myth are part of the post humanist project
(which has always been my thinking about the cyborg project up till
recently) whereas the ratioonale that underlies the Gray/Virilo
   
critique
 
is that it is the same (probably reactionary) humanist project.

Incidentally Shawn just so that we don't go down any irrelevant allys
   
I
 
do not disagree with "...But it's hard to imagine how we deal with
either invention or threat without something like the "cyborg myth" -
unless, of course, we simply ignore or patrol the "leaky boundaries"
   
of
 
a fairly vulgar humanism. I don't see this option as in line with
   
your
 
other concerns - the concern with the status of humans and animals,
   
for
 
example...." because I'm interested in prescisely what constitutes a
thought that is not-humanist - and I raised the spectre of Virilo etc
against the 'Scu' question.

Whilst Virilo's work is as you say alarmist and one-sided I don't
   
have a
 
particular problem or issue whith that = less so than with that idiot
Stelarc anyway...

regards
steve


   

 

HTML VERSION:

From: steve.devos

To: lyotard-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU

Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 5:46 AM

Subject: Re: The Libidinal Economy of Cyborgs

S

I agree that the versions of the cyborg that you outlione below are different views of the cyborg myth - where I would differ however is in the suggestion that that the differences are as great as often proposed. Once the thought is made that the 'cyborg' does or can exist in one of the forms suggested ranging from Moravec at one extreme to Haraway on the other then we have to accept that we are living in a paradigm, perhaps even in a meta-narrative that I would suggest  cannot be falsified, and consequently it is necessary to refuse the thought until the proponents accept that it is a theory rather than a triumphalist story.  {most of the time the story is produced as a justification for research funds which I would refuse on principle...}

Socially and politically I appreciate the question and thought that Haraway produces but the proposed paradigm shift is not in my view convincing - and until the theoretical proposal of a Haraway-Cyborg is produced that maintains that a cyborg is falsifiable with a defined un-relativistic barrier around it then we should treat all cyborg theorisations as non-scientific and non-philosophical concepts.

On my desk in front of me is a Cyberman - if it could speak with me rather than at me with 'destroy earth' and 'emotion is a weakness'  then it would state that you are either a Cyberman or not . ( The little cyber-dog at it's feet is 'not'). Consequently then it is necessary to define what is within the boundaries of the theory of the 'Cyborg' and what isn't.  Whilst Haraway's  leaky boundaries have a social-political resonance  I can't escape from the thought that philosophically and scientifically it doesn't work. I do not agree that Haraway adequately rethinks "science" actually it appears to me that she adopts a post-Kuhnian position and is attempting ride a paradigm change, presnting the cyborg as an established fact rather than present a position which questions and presents the evidence. In a sense Haraway presents the Cyborg as something determined, overdetermined even, rather than presenting it as underdetermined in which case the evidence for it's existence could be understood and theorised in many different ways.

(I agree about the Gray book - I'd sell it on but am reluctant to pass it on to an impressionable mind...)

The problem with your comparative reading of Virillo and Haraway below is that Virillo's representation of science and technology is more open and more critical of the scientific and technological complexes than Haraway is. Isn't Hybridity and over used and perhaps the equivilant of Kuhn's paradigm - which is one of those reactionary concepts adopted more because of it's use to the military-industrial complex than it's accuracy or radical usefulness ?

An untidy set of thoughts.... (the companion species manifesto, I of course wholeheartedly approve of - as does George the Cat...)

regards
steve

TheScuSpeaks wrote:

Steve,
would you lump the figure of the cyborg as seen by haraway with the
same cyborg seen by Stelarc (or even Chris Gray)?
Anyway, i clearly don't see it as being the same. Stelarc is
interesting, but too clearly situating himself into seeing cyborgs as a
possibility for immortality, and superhuman powers. Haraway several
times rejects the thirst for immortality (it's that part of her that
agrees with Heidegger, i would say. Though i have my own problems with
Heidegger) as being part of the "god-trick."
Gray (and i wish i could have a refund for buying cyborg citizen) is
clearly not doing the same thing Haraway is doing either (which is
strange, considering he was a student of hers, i believe. I certainly
know he was at santa cruz). Gray wants to take the cyborg figure as
literal, rather then a figure in an ironic political myth (that is, of
course, also material, and in that sense, not metaphorical). That is
why he spends so much time talking about "real cyborgs" and other such
sillyness.
Haraway wanted to invoke a figure that would serve as a bridge, or
better yet, to use her language, a hybird. She wants to take seriously
concerns of science (only a very curiousery look at her works outside
of the the cyborg manifesto will convince anyone that she is not saying
science is some sort of progressive curer of all ills, that she is
often deeply critical and suspecious of science) but at the same time
not end up like people like Mary Daly who reject science without
exploring what is going on (her reference to "I'd rather be a cyborg
then a goddess" is a clear attack on Daly). In short, Haraway wants to
rework, and rethink science, and her figuration of a cyborg was suppose
to show hope, and a belief that productions of patriarchy, capitalism,
and military can still be used in ways that betray the roots of where
they come from. Or to make it clear, Stelarc wants to embrace the
Cyborg myth in order to escape from the this world, get the fuck out
through fantises of immortality and space travel, Haraway wants to
invoke the cyborg myth for the opposite reason, to put us even more
firmly into this world. To find hope and the possibility for change
that does not invovle fantises of either mystic returns to nature (vis-
a-vis ecofeminism) or "god-tricks" of immortality. Rather hope is to
found through active (and often critical) engagements with the world
around us.
I think that it is the misunderstanding of the cyborg that has caused
Haraway to move away from it in her work. Look for example at her most
recent work, the companion specis manifesto.
Virilio is humane, and you are right, he is not an enlightment humanist
though. I am not sure i agree it is because he is working in
a "continental tradition" but rather because he is working in a
tradition pre-enlightment, he is a militant christian. This means that
he activily rejects capitalism and war. But it also means that he is
hung up on issues of purity (think for example his problems with
pornography and homosexuality). Haraway means the death of purity, to
be replaced with ethical and necessary hybirdity. It is no coincidence
that Virilio makes frequent references to the works of Augustine when
he laments the contempreroy virtual society.
Oh yeah, why is my name in quotes ;)?

Love
TheScuSaysThanksForTheThoughtsThisIsHelping

  

Shawn/all

The most direct reference to Haraway/Cyborg are in the interviews in
Virilo Live in Interview One. More specifically there are the
    

comments
  

explicit and implicit within the Open Sky text - esp in From Sexual
perversion to sexual diversion. It's worth stating that Virilo is not
suggesting that it is not a 'done deal' rather he is rejecting the
positive interpretation of the event, and in so doing insists on
locating the cybernetic and consequent cyborg event within the
    

history
  

of cybernetics. (See the references to cybernetics in The Art of the
Motor and The Information Bomb). Rather than placing it
    

retrospectively
  

and ahistorically in the synergy of humans and technology as others
    

have
  

done.

I would understand Virilo as a writer who is deeply humane, perhaps
    

even
  

a humanist in the best sense of term, whilst being in the continental
tradition deeply critical of the enlightenment humanism that
    

cybernetics
  

and the proponents of the cyborg myth such as Chris Gray and Stelarc
    

are
  

working within and on. What both Paul Virilo and John Gray accuse
    

them
  

of: is that in their gnosticism they are continuing the most
    

dangerous
  

aspects of the enlightenment humanist project. It is this which
interests me because the common understanding is that the the
    

positive
  

proponents of the cyborg myth are part of the post humanist project
(which has always been my thinking about the cyborg project up till
recently) whereas the ratioonale that underlies the Gray/Virilo
    

critique
  

is that it is the same (probably reactionary) humanist project.

Incidentally Shawn just so that we don't go down any irrelevant allys
    

I
  

do not disagree with "...But it's hard to imagine how we deal with
either invention or threat without something like the "cyborg myth" -
unless, of course, we simply ignore or patrol the "leaky boundaries"
    

of
  

a fairly vulgar humanism. I don't see this option as in line with
    

your
  

other concerns - the concern with the status of humans and animals,
    

for
  

example...." because I'm interested in prescisely what constitutes a
thought that is not-humanist - and I raised the spectre of Virilo etc
against the 'Scu' question.

Whilst Virilo's work is as you say alarmist and one-sided I don't
    

have a
  

particular problem or issue whith that = less so than with that idiot
Stelarc anyway...

regards
steve