File spoon-archives/lyotard.archive/lyotard_2003/lyotard.0311, message 22


Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 09:18:32 +0000
From: "steve.devos" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk>
Subject: Re: what is the posthuman ?


Glen

Within a specific relationship, for example in the case of  the 
assemblage of person/car/road surface,  as with the earlier and older 
but still existing assemblage of person/horse/surface it does seem that 
the information metaphor simply fails to be able to address the 
complexity of the assemblage. The underlying failing is that the 
metaphor can have no more validity than the earlier metaphor of 
'clockwork' and it's associated 'mechanical universe'.  Even if we could 
believe that the much hyped theory of everything was true it would seem 
to be a mistake to apply this as a metaphor on and over the human 
condition. The current metaphor information-post-human is precisely 
located in the social and economic space of the G8 countries and should 
be understaood as having restricted use and acceptance within this 
social and economic sphere.

Is the 'unthought' external to rational understanding or is it simply 
that the rational model that you are referring to below is doomed to be 
incomplete ?

Have to go - Raoul Caneigem's 'A Declaration of the Rights of Human 
Beings' just arrived through the post...

regards
steve

Glen Fuller wrote:

>Steve,
>
>  
>
>>It is at this point that this becomes interesting- for N. Katherine 
>>Hayles is then introduced with the description that the posthuman as 
>>    
>>
>the 
>  
>
>>informatic pattern becomes more interesting than its material 
>>instantiation. "First, the posthuman view privileges informational 
>>pattern over material instantiation..."
>>    
>>
>
>I am trying to think through a similar constellation of issues at the 
>moment. For me it is road safety and their construction of the driving 
>subject. Road safety formed out of the social- and behavioural 
>psychologies and engineering, and it has privileged the 
>cognitivist 'rational' approach to perception and left the 'unthought' 
>off the map. I have found a few exploratory articles in research around 
>automated driving technologies where they have seemed to have a wall as 
>they can't escape the cognitive/rational driver model and can't fathom 
>why their models are having limited success in the 'real' world, and 
>all they could do is offer 'assitance' to human drivers. 
>
>Specifically what I am thinking through is the non-linear modulation of 
>the relation between the car-driver and the driving environment as a 
>field of potentialities that may be actualised in different ways. The 
>easiest example is the perception of an object that some may call 
>a 'hazard' which others may interpret as an 'opportunity' and then 
>perform a 'risky' (or otherwise) form of driving practice. Not only 
>does perception of the world change, but so does the relation to the 
>world, and therefore the world itself after action is taken. This does 
>not only apply in a driving context, but think it terms of economics 
>and 'having a punt' on the market. Any rule based 'program' I think 
>will fail to incoporate the 'unthought'.
>
>By the 'unthought' I mean in terms of the (later) Heidegger, Foucault 
>and D&G. Heidegger as in terms of a form of thought different from 
>Kantian (theoretical or practical) rationality. Or Foucault as 'thought 
>from the outside'. Or the relationship (or more correctly 'emergent 
>relation') of Deleuze's transcendental empiricism to thought. 
>
>I think this tendency towards a post-human in terms of the information 
>processing capabilities of cognition and the reduction of being to a 
>phantasmatic information 'avatar' can be understood as a kind of hyper-
>enlightenment ideal, the complete removal of the nastiness from 
>the 'human condition' (perhaps associated with 'the body') so it 
>becomes a 'matrix of inputs and outputs'. I don't think there is need 
>for dismay because of this abysmal appropriation of the 'post-human' by 
>positivists, they have just been knocked out of there comfortable orbit 
>and been forced to jump to another energy level (well that is my 
>perhaps delusional Empire-sque interpretation of it!).
>
>Just think of the trouble the robots had in the Matrix! The perfect 
>world didn't work. Of course the movie locates the human condition 
>in 'choice' and this is problematic, eh... but, Matrix 3 this week, 
>woohoo!
>
>Ciao, 
>Glen.
>
>
>  
>


--- StripMime Warning --  MIME attachments removed --- 
This message may have contained attachments which were removed.

Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.

--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- 
multipart/alternative
  text/plain (text body -- kept)
  text/html
---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005