From: "fuller" <fuller-AT-bekkers.com.au>
Subject: Re: cyborg *
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 09:19:53 +0800


Shawn,

Yes, sorry, by sound I meant consistent. That is the ethical subject does
all s/he can to be as just as possible, but only within the constraints of
the event. And that is a process in which the self is always suspended,
besides as another player, or stake-holder, in the event, not the same as
any other(s) but no different either. I am still playing with Badiou.

Glen.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Shawn P. Wilbur" <swilbur-AT-wcnet.org>
To: <lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 1:58 AM
Subject: Re: cyborg *


> Glen,
>
> I suppose the point at which i have most questions about your post is this
> business of the "ethically sound." I think one of the points on which a
> number of our references here might be brought together identifies the
> ethical as always something other than "sound." Haraway's insistence that
> the cyborg isn't innocent has at least something in common with, for
> example, Derrida's claims that ethics can never be reduced to
> "technology" without ceasing to be ethics.
>
> There are lots of ways of coming at the quasi-dualism that's in play
> here. It's harder to know which is useful without knowing how
> "soundness" plays though.
>
> -shawn
>
> Shawn P. Wilbur
> www.wcnet.org/~swilbur  | lists.village.virginia.edu/~spoons
> www.wcnet.org/~paupers  | alwato.iuma.com
>
>