Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 08:47:44 +0000
From: "steve.devos" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk>
Subject: Re: what is the posthuman ?


Eric

We have many different potential understandings of what constitutes the 
posthuman, the initial identified difference was between a posthumanism 
based on an understanding of information and technology, and one based 
on a critique of humanism structured around an understanding of the 
damage done by enlightenment humanism, with all the exclusions and 
inclusions built into this. There are other variants which have not been 
mentioned at all and given the diversity of the various conceptions I 
can't see how we can merge them all into a singular concept - in that 
sense the concept has the coherence of other umbrella terms.

Frankly Eric I don't have a position on this - I'm merely working my way 
around the posthuman and unpacking it to understand what it looks like, 
in the process seeing what you and others on the list think....

regards
steve

Eric wrote:

>Steve,
>
>Given that the book I quoted was copyrighted a year after Lyotard died,
>it seems hard to understand how Lyotard would have critiqued it. 
>
>Furthermore, as I said in my last posting, Hayles shares a good deal in
>common with Lyotard on this precise issue. Both argue for the importance
>of the body against those who are urging a posthuman transcendence
>through information and development alone. 
>
>So yes, under the circumstances, I think you do need to repeat Lyotard's
>critique and show how it differs from Hayles.  At this point your
>position is totally unclear to me and I'm not even sure you understand
>Hayles' position 
>
>You seem to take a very idealistic position regarding the posthuman. Are
>you seriously trying to maintain that that only the formulations of
>religion and state matter in defining the human and posthuman; that
>economics and technology (for the two today are obviously deeply
>intertwined today) have only marginal importance? Why should this
>discussion of the human be limited in scope solely to the concerns of
>church and state?  
>
>As to your question "Is the post-human as presented in the Hayles
>position merely an acceptance of the current socio-economic as nature?"
>I would answer simply no, of course not. 
>
>Given that Hayles' book "How We Became Posthuman" is a fairly dynamic
>history of the development of cybernetics with literary illustrations
>from science fiction it seems hard to follows just how this is to be
>construed as a reification of nature.  
>
>Are you really attempting to argue that an anti-human reaction to the
>Enlightenment's development of instrumental reason is the only valid
>formulation of the posthuman possible and that any consideration of
>technology must automatically be construed as reactionary on a priori
>grounds?  
>
>I'm very confused by the position you are arguing for here.
>
>eric  
>
>---
>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.524 / Virus Database: 321 - Release Date: 10/6/2003
> 
>
>  
>