Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 13:58:03 +1000
From: hbone <hbone-AT-optonline.net>
Subject: Re: cyborg *


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--Boundary_(ID_s4gAnpM/3fJ6I2A3K/d8IQ)

Glen/All,

You make a good statement.  Never saw it put quite that way.
That sort of "true" equates with what is life? and why is life? What does it mean to "know" etc.

On the frontiers of science people are working with molecules that have self-organizing capabiliites but are not called life. If they learn to make
life out of inanimate chemicals we'll hear about it.

regards,
Hugh





  Steve,
  
  So where did the idea that people are ever pre-cultural come from?
  
  What I am trying to focus on is what makes something *feel* real, so that you *know* it is real, or rather when something is true you don't really feel anything, it is when you encounter something that is utterly not-true (some form of the other, I am not too sure, not thought about that for now) that there is a fissure, a tear in your simulacra (and here I am inverting 'true' to mean anything that conforms and confirms your personal simulacra, ie 'true' to you). Not what is true, or how it can be communicated in the form of some language, or how it can be proven to other people, but what makes us know true is true (and exist accordingly). That is pre-cultural (or pre-ego based thought), for every living thing has a version, the tree bends towards light, ants follow the line, birds migrate, etc. I doubt any of these things would be having metaphysical debates about the nature of the god 'Fireball', or the evils of chaos and not following the 'Line', etc. It would be so non-true to be non-sensical, nonsense...
  I don't mean pre-cultural in the sense of a pre-organised social state, but in a kind of phenomenological effect following the event within the everyday. Perhaps pre-cutural is a bad way to express what I mean, instead of a pre-cutural state, how about an 'affected state'?
  
  Glen.
  
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: steve.devos
    To: lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
    Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2001 7:07 AM
    Subject: Re: cyborg *


    Glen/All


      (Perhaps there is hope for my volcanic rock after all).

      I would suggest it would return there first, like a boomerang;). The return gives meaning in a truth sense (but definitely not in a reason sense), and inertia to the differing perspectives, choices, etc.
    Pre-cultural?  since around 1960 - Western culture - that is the areas of the world that 'we' live in has finally begun to realise that non-human animals are also 'cultural beings' whether they are 'ethical' and capable of there own version of ethical behavior is a question for them not for us. (This was not a discovery of western scientists but Japanese). One of the questions that is not being considered in these discussions is whether the application of universalising concepts such as 'cyborg' is philosophically acceptable in these days of empire.

    (since the cat who is wandering around at the moment talking loudly to itself is according to Shawn and Gray a cyborg... i don't think its wise to ask him what he thinks of the idea...)

    So where did the idea that people are ever pre-cultural come from?

    regards
    steve

      Pre-cultural does not necessarily mean pre-that-thing-which-is-I. However ethics is certainly only a human trait (or a trait which is only capable to be performed by those capable of abstract thought), don't you think? We apply it to include other things. I did not mean that a pomo, cyborg subjectivity can never be ethical, but I created an opposition between mediation and meaning.
      
      An example of what I mean is when you return from the country to the city and the noise is deafening but after a while it loses its impact and your experience of the noise of the city returns to how it was pre-country. The filters that you created to hear in the city are of perception, somewhere between mind and body. The horror (angst, anxiety) you might have felt with the constant horns, shouts, motors, etc upon your return, recedes, and the peace and tranquility of the country becomes another imagined line of flight, just as the horror (angst, anxiety) becomes a parallel.
      
      Glen.






--Boundary_(ID_s4gAnpM/3fJ6I2A3K/d8IQ)

HTML VERSION:

 

Steve,

 

So where did the idea that people are ever pre-cultural come from?

 

What I am trying to focus on is what makes something *feel* real, so that you *know* it is real, or rather when something is true you don't really feel anything, it is when you encounter something that is utterly not-true (some form of the other, I am not too sure, not thought about that for now) that there is a fissure, a tear in your simulacra (and here I am inverting 'true' to mean anything that conforms and confirms your personal simulacra, ie 'true' to you). Not what is true, or how it can be communicated in the form of some language, or how it can be proven to other people, but what makes us know true is true (and exist accordingly). That is pre-cultural (or pre-ego based thought), for every living thing has a version, the tree bends towards light, ants follow the line, birds migrate, etc. I doubt any of these things would be having metaphysical debates about the nature of the god 'Fireball', or the evils of chaos and not following the 'Line', etc. It would be so non-true to be non-sensical, nonsense...

I don't mean pre-cultural in the sense of a pre-organised social state, but in a kind of phenomenological effect following the event within the everyday. Perhaps pre-cutural is a bad way to express what I mean, instead of a pre-cutural state, how about an 'affected state'?

 

Glen.

 

----- Original Message -----

From: steve.devos

To: lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu

Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2001 7:07 AM

Subject: Re: cyborg *

Glen/All

(Perhaps there is hope for my volcanic rock after all).

I would suggest it would return there first, like a boomerang;). The return gives meaning in a truth sense (but definitely not in a reason sense), and inertia to the differing perspectives, choices, etc.

Pre-cultural?  since around 1960 - Western culture - that is the areas of the world that 'we' live in has finally begun to realise that non-human animals are also 'cultural beings' whether they are 'ethical' and capable of there own version of ethical behavior is a question for them not for us. (This was not a discovery of western scientists but Japanese). One of the questions that is not being considered in these discussions is whether the application of universalising concepts such as 'cyborg' is philosophically acceptable in these days of empire.

(since the cat who is wandering around at the moment talking loudly to itself is according to Shawn and Gray a cyborg... i don't think its wise to ask him what he thinks of the idea...)

So where did the idea that people are ever pre-cultural come from?

regards
steve

Pre-cultural does not necessarily mean pre-that-thing-which-is-I. However ethics is certainly only a human trait (or a trait which is only capable to be performed by those capable of abstract thought), don't you think? We apply it to include other things. I did not mean that a pomo, cyborg subjectivity can never be ethical, but I created an opposition between mediation and meaning.

 

An example of what I mean is when you return from the country to the city and the noise is deafening but after a while it loses its impact and your experience of the noise of the city returns to how it was pre-country. The filters that you created to hear in the city are of perception, somewhere between mind and body. The horror (angst, anxiety) you might have felt with the constant horns, shouts, motors, etc upon your return, recedes, and the peace and tranquility of the country becomes another imagined line of flight, just as the horror (angst, anxiety) becomes a parallel.

 

Glen.