At 5:05 PM 96.7.20, D. Diane Davis wrote:
> Karl Carlile wrote:
> >To even consider the possibility of accessibility to the human body as
> >matter independently of the rest of reality is nonsensical and at
> >most serves an ideological function.
>
> Bit terminology problem here. What do you mean "independent of human
> reality"? And what do you mean "all reality is human"? How does this
> relate to my comments about butler? I can't tell if we're agreeing or
> disagreeing or talkinga bout something else all together.
>
> Even if "all reality is human" (and who knows? The X-files makes me
> wonder), that doesn't mean all humans call the same fantasy "reality."
Isn't there also a question of accessing a form of (human) reality in the absence of the body, in the way, say, that Lyotard suggests in _The Inhuman_ - with the possibility of a trajectory of history and technology extending beyond the life of the sun? Or the kind of reality of blind vision generated inside Virilio's "vision machine"? X-file space-creatures rather more personify the human, I suspect, than evidence an extra-human reality. I thought that systems of discourse and power were the original "inhuman" - producing the "human" with its warm and runny connotations (ideological functions). The word is too saturated with such connotations to entertain with much seriousness the axiom "all reality is human."
Michael G
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Dr Michael Guest, Associate Professor, Department of Information Arts
Faculty of Information, Shizuoka University
836 Ohya, Shizuoka 422 Japan
tel: +81 54 238 4964 (Direct) fax: +81 54 237 0212
guest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx * http://kfpc3.la.shizuoka.ac.jp/Guest.html
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
> Karl Carlile wrote:
> >To even consider the possibility of accessibility to the human body as
> >matter independently of the rest of reality is nonsensical and at
> >most serves an ideological function.
>
> Bit terminology problem here. What do you mean "independent of human
> reality"? And what do you mean "all reality is human"? How does this
> relate to my comments about butler? I can't tell if we're agreeing or
> disagreeing or talkinga bout something else all together.
>
> Even if "all reality is human" (and who knows? The X-files makes me
> wonder), that doesn't mean all humans call the same fantasy "reality."
Isn't there also a question of accessing a form of (human) reality in the absence of the body, in the way, say, that Lyotard suggests in _The Inhuman_ - with the possibility of a trajectory of history and technology extending beyond the life of the sun? Or the kind of reality of blind vision generated inside Virilio's "vision machine"? X-file space-creatures rather more personify the human, I suspect, than evidence an extra-human reality. I thought that systems of discourse and power were the original "inhuman" - producing the "human" with its warm and runny connotations (ideological functions). The word is too saturated with such connotations to entertain with much seriousness the axiom "all reality is human."
Michael G
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Dr Michael Guest, Associate Professor, Department of Information Arts
Faculty of Information, Shizuoka University
836 Ohya, Shizuoka 422 Japan
tel: +81 54 238 4964 (Direct) fax: +81 54 237 0212
guest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx * http://kfpc3.la.shizuoka.ac.jp/Guest.html
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@