File spoon-archives/lyotard.archive/lyotard_2004/lyotard.0412, message 1


Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 05:13:57 +0000
From: "steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk>
Subject: Re: sideways - incapacity


eric

If what is 'just' is founded on an understanding that a given 'human' 
has more value than any non-human then I have to reject it. Such a 
notion has no more intellectual or emotional validity than arguing for 
the superior value of one human over another.  A value must be founded 
on something better than specist belief that 'we ' humans have more 
value than the non-human simply because of the universal accident that I 
was born human rather than a virus.  I agree  that  rationality and 
learned behaviour have emerged within humans,  but given that you appear 
to accept that these result in 'significant differences'  from the 
non-human which is not a position I can hold, and which I suggests that 
you regard a (any?) human as having a greator value than a non-human... 
I believe that you are suffering from the last and most virulant form of 
'humanisn'.

This is a a  scientific and historical point really, Western societies 
have been radically anthropocentric. That is to say that there is a 
seperation constructed between humanity and the natural world, most 
specifically between humans and animals and other hon-humans. It has 
been argued that the monotheistic account in which god grants man 
dominion over animals implies some duty of care - but this still remains 
a representation of the false consciousness at the heart of the western 
anthropocentricism. One which is maintained whenever a human maintains 
this difference as being more relevant to a decision making process than 
say the difference of our eye colour, as we've discussed before Lyotard 
reflects this specific problem in that at times he mistakenly suggests 
that there is a qualitative difference between humans and animals,  in 
for example the bizarre use of the cat in the inhuman,  the 
understanding of the human subject .

 Does this implicate a consciousness as false ? I rather suspect that it 
does.... For on the whole I tend towards the belief that from any sane 
perspective a given human life has no more value than the strange texan 
crow that was walking around outside the office this morning. Of course 
none of this is 'natural' but then this is a set of conventions, 
constructs and not anything to do with a western phantasy of the 
natural, the real... science, technology, knowledge are surely 
constructions...

best
steve



Eric wrote:

>Steve, 
>
>If humans really only have drives and instincts, then what hope is there
>of any alternative to this manic consumption before hummers overrun the
>world.  I personally think it is more complicated than you propose. It
>isn't just a choice of supernatural human versus nature with no
>in-between.  I am coming from the same Darwinian perspective as you, but
>I think there are enough shades of gray here that honest minds can
>disagree. 
>
>For one think, I have a have time agreeing that we must base our values
>simply upon what is natural and not upon what he judge to be just. The
>ants may be very resilient in the type of society they have
>institutionalized, but that doesn't necessarily mean humans should be
>required to imitate them?  I believe that forms of rationality and
>malleable learned behavior have emerged within humans and have become
>significant factors in who we are and what we may become. I don't think
>that makes us totally unique and separate from nature, but I think there
>are still significant differences.  
>
>Rilke wasn't a philosopher, but he did a good job of interpreting this
>in-betweenness of our situation in a non-theistic way. Not angels, Not
>gnats.  
>Although we can't step inside another animal's skin, it does seem like
>the very consciousness we have of our impending death serves to distance
>us from nature. 
>
>It interests me that even though Epicurus was a materialist and atomist
>philosopher, strictly speaking, he wasn't an atheist. For the pagan
>Greeks, the gods were organisms who resided within nature, not outside
>it.  They differed from human insofar as they were immortal and
>blissful. They thus served for humans as both a model and image of a
>higher state of more intense life.
>
>What also impresses me about Epicurus is that he already saw the way
>that leads out of our current trap of overconsumption. The path lay in
>becoming more like the gods, and living lives that are more blissful.
>This would be a welcome compensation for having less things.  Woman
>doesn't live from a hummer alone, In fact, she lives more intensely
>without one. 
>
>If you believe that what I am talking about here is merely false
>consciousness, then how do you think it emerged out of nature via the
>processes of natural selection?  Even though we may not be believers,
>isn't the whole panoply of such experiences something that must be
>explained?
>
>eric
>
>  
>
>
>  
>


--- 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