Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 20:29:54 +0000
From: "steve.devos" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.com>
Subject: Re: cyborg * Deleuze


Eric/All
I have fond memories of Deleuze and Guattari's third plauteax, the one 
staring the archetypical promethean scientist Conan-Doyles Professor 
Challenger.  Challenger was an interesting choice because in one of 
Conan-Doyle's texts he 'made the earth scream....'   A fascinating 
precursor to the representation of the  earth in the gaia theory. This 
seems relevant because of the appeal they are making to what is the 
ultimate non-human 'the earth' - this work seems to suggest that we can 
make the move beyond anthropocentric representation into the non-human 
in a way that enhances both. (Or at least, in  some sense or other stops 
us from continuing to be the cause of the biggest extinction event since 
the last asteriod hit...)  In this sense Lyotards work on the inhuman 
does fit within this frame....  If Lyotard and Bateson supply the 
anthropology - Lyotard the gendered difference and Bateson the 
cybernetic, systems approach - Deleuze and Guattari supply the screaming 
earth, the geology of difference.

regards
steve

Mary Murphy&Salstrand wrote:

>steve:
>
>I have read your comments in cyborg 1,2,3 and think you have done an
>excellent job of framing some of the central political and social
>issues.  I am in agreement with you in principle here. The specter of
>another so-called Master Race composed primarily of yuppie mall rats on
>the genetic equivalent of steroids scares the hell of me too.
>
>What I still find problematic is framing this dialectically between the
>transhumanism of the radical technogeek wing and the fundamentalist
>humanism of the the religiously dogmatic.  
>
>I recognize that my framing of the issues has been polemical and has
>unhelpful in the long run, but as this discussion continues have become
>aware that I really want to accomplish is a kind of philosophical
>anthropology, one that avoids the essentialism of either of the above
>forementioned groups. I would argue that Lyotard was groping towards the
>kind of anthropology I have in mind, even though I freely acknowledge he
>did not develop this, for a number of reasons. 
>
>I guess what I would like to ferret out is what this antropology might
>have been, had Lyotard lived to accomplish it.  Also, beyond Lyotard,
>what kind of antropology is necessary to avoid the false dilemma between
>either transhumanism or fundamentialist humanism.
>
>Unfortunely, today I don't have time to attempt going into the details
>of what I mean by this, but perhaps now that we are discussed Badiou's
>book in some detail (even though perhaps still not finished completely)
>we can explore this topic in greater detail, less in terms of the cyborg
>and more in terms of anthropology.
>
>It also occurs to me that Bateson and Deleuze as well as other might be
>useful in terms of this project.
>
>Does this sound like a viable approach to you?  
>
>eric
>
>