Date: Mon, 03 Apr 1995 21:06:08 GMT
From: rego-AT-mmand.demon.co.uk
Subject: Failed mail (fwd)



Forwarded message follows:

> From postmaster-AT-mmand.demon.co.uk Mon Apr 03 21:02:29 1995
> Date: Mon, 03 Apr 95 21:02:28 BST
> Message-Id: <1726-AT-mmand.demon.co.uk>
> From: MAILER-DAEMON-AT-mmand.demon.co.uk (Mail Delivery Subsystem)
> To: rego-AT-mmand.demon.co.uk
> Subject: Failed mail
> Status: R
> 
>   ===== transcript follows ====> 
> While talking to jefferson.village.virginia.edu:
> >>> DATA
> <<< 503 Need valid MAIL command
> 
>   ===== Unsent message follows ===> Date: Mon, 03 Apr 1995 20:21:18 GMT
> From: rego-AT-mmand.demon.co.uk
> Reply-To: rego-AT-mmand.demon.co.uk
> Message-Id: <1721-AT-mmand.demon.co.uk>
> To: technology-AT-jefferson.village.virginia.edu
> Subject: Re: human body transformation
> X-Mailer: PCElm 1.10
> Lines: 53
> 
> In message <950403004940_69740907-AT-aol.com> SBronzell-AT-aol.com writes:
> > som,
> > 
> > A couple times you type "morality."  Typo for "mortality?"  They do seem very
> > strongly linked though.  To be mortal seems very moral (not by way of moral
> > code but by way of being in the thick of it).
> 
> Thick of what -I still don't see the connection with the moral business.
> I don't know anything that has not a mortal 'life'. Yet I can think of little
> that has a 'moral' one.
> 
> >  Immorality seems often an
> > attempt to get out of the thick of it.  If I may put these thoughts in such a
> > manner.
> 
> I don't know -may you? I need a little more info.
> 
>  
> 
> > Let's see what the dictionary has to say.  "Liable or subject to death."  And
> > the entry goes on a bit, pretty interesting actually.  Mortal as "very" or
> > "extremely": "Never had she seen her sister look so mortal pretty."  Or in
> > other words, she's a killer.
> > 
> > When will we or anything cease to be subject or liable to death?  Let's say
> > we extend our lives with all kinds of technology, and even allow for a
> > seemingly endless life, moving the structure or info of self from place to
> > place, incarnation to incarnation, throughout existence.  That still seems
> > subject and liable to death.
> > 
> > It doesn't seem that we are just patterns; we are also the patterns in life,
> > meeting new challenges, etc.  Reshaping, transformation seems to be part of
> > our existence.  We just simply go through a lot.  All of this implies a sense
> > or at least taste of mortality.  In other words, experience is mortal.
> > Experience is subject.  And whatever forms we take it doesn't seem we'll ever
> > be in charge.  We did not invent ourselves in the first place.
> > 
> > That I end.  That I am not all.  
> > Seems very beautiful to me.  Ripe.
> > 
> > Sean
> > 
> > ****
> 
> My problem with much of this is the prioritization of "experience" [the way
> its used also implies a priority of consciousness -for, at least in Freud's
> discussion of them, 'my' 'I' 'our' is not a plausible discussion of the 
> system Uc's (as Freud calls the unconscious)], is that it just cannot function
> as central in this way. Without a conception of the "I" as central (a 
> questioning which started with -at least- Marx/Nietzsche/Freud), much of your
> central notion of mortality, which even in Heidegger happens to an individuated
> subject, needs to be questioned.
> 
> M
> 
matteo mandarini


     --- from list technology-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------