September 28, 2005
Dark Side pataphysics’s new name for Ideology
Kind of metacomment / question:
Could Hyperstition be crudely but productively defined as 'Political Ontology' - a domain of virtual politically efficient objects, realized (in a circuit) through political operations?
Wondering, obviously, because the Anglosphere seems to broadly conform to this definition - and I take it be behind the (sd) insight into Kurzweil's loopy relation to Singularity.
(There's a whole Enochian angle to this as well, but I guess that should wait until our resident nommomaniac fiscal complexicon shows up ...)
Posted by: Nick at September 27, 2005 04:41 PM
“Why can’t I be king?”, pleads Eshun
What is so unreasonable about that proposal?
September 20, 2005
Brockbank's helpful reminder
Gracious thanks to Infinite Thought for the following link:
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 07:44:28 -0500
Reply-To: "Discussion of J-F-Lyotard, Alain Badiou,the Event"
[THEORY-LYOTARD-BADIOU-EVENT@MAILTALK.AC.UK]
Sender: "Discussion of J-F-Lyotard, Alain Badiou,the Event"
[THEORY-LYOTARD-BADIOU-EVENT@MAILTALK.AC.UK]
From: "sdv@krokodile.co.uk" [sdv@KROKODILE.CO.UK]
Subject: : Mark Poster @ Middlesex on 'Identity Theft'
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
FYI
Subject: Mark Poster @ Middlesex on 'Identity Theft'
THE DIGITAL SELF AND IDENTITY THEFT
Special lecture by PROF. MARK POSTER of the University of California,
Irvine.
Monday 3rd October, 2005 at 6:30pm
B Hall, Bevan Building, Trent Park, Middlesex University.
Mark Poster will be talking on 'The Digital Self and Identity Theft' in
a special lecture organised by Middlesex University's Media, Culture and
Communication group.
Admission is free and open to all. Details of how to get to Middlesex's
Trent Park campus (10 mins walk from Oakwood tube station - there is
also a regular shuttle bus from the tube station) can be found at:
http://www.mdx.ac.uk/campus/tp.htm
About the speaker:
Mark Poster is Professor of History and Director of the Film Studies
Programme at the University of California, Irvine, USA. He is an
internationally renowned writer on the social and cultural theory of
electronically mediated information.
His books include The Mode of Information (Polity Press, 1990), The
Second Media Age (Polity Press, 1995), Cultural History and
Postmodernity (Columbia University Press, 1997), The Information Subject
(G+B Arts International, 2001) and What's The Matter With The Internet
(University of Minnesota Press, 2001). He is also the editor of Jean
Baudrillard: Selected Writings (Oxford: Blackwell, 1988) and co-editor
of University of Minnesota Press' Electronic Mediations series. He is
currently working on a new book entitled Information Please: Culture and
Politics in a Digital Age (Duke University Press, 2006).
All enquires to Gary Hall
Media, Culture and Communications, School of Arts, Middlesex University,
Trent Park Campus, Bramley Road, London N14 4YZ
email: g.hall@mdx.ac.uk
--
Dr Gary Hall
Co-editor of Culture Machine http://www.culturemachine.net
My website http://www.garyhall.info
====
This e-mail is intended solely for the addressee. It may contain private
and confidential information. If you are not the intended addressee,
please take no action based on it nor show a copy to anyone. Please
reply to this e-mail to highlight the error. You should also be aware
that all electronic mail from, to, or within Northumbria University may
be the subject of a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000
and related legislation, and therefore may be required to be disclosed
to third parties.
This e-mail and attachments have been scanned for viruses prior to
leaving Northumbria University. Northumbria University will not be
liable for any losses as a result of any viruses being passed on.
************************************************************************************
Distributed through Cyber-Society-Live [CSL]: CSL is a moderated
discussion list made up of people who are interested in the
interdisciplinary academic study of Cyber Society in all its
manifestations.To join the list please visit:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/cyber-society-live.html
*************************************************************************************
http://driftwork.info - Theory-Lyotard-Badiou-Event Web Home
September 09, 2005
Beyond Chutzpah
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 16:10:33 +0100
Reply-To: "Discussion of J-F-Lyotard, Alain Badiou,the Event"
[THEORY-LYOTARD-BADIOU-EVENT@MAILTALK.AC.UK]
Sender: "Discussion of J-F-Lyotard, Alain Badiou,the Event"
[THEORY-LYOTARD-BADIOU-EVENT@MAILTALK.AC.UK]
From: "sdv@krokodile.co.uk" [sdv@KROKODILE.CO.UK]
Subject: Long Sunday: the form
In-Reply-To: [BAY109-F3507F0EFF02C7E5C20FF1DF1A60@phx.gbl]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
all/infinite thought
A comment of Infinite Thoughts - raises an interesting question -
which is to say is the form of a blog with open comments and counter
papers, a better form than a email list or a virtual bulletin board ?
Please take a look at Long Sunday - is this a better form to encourage
discussion, thought and ultimately action ?
s
Infinite Thought wrote:
> Was my piece
> deemed to be interesting? (in which case why not respond in the
> comments on
> Long Sunday, or at least link to it so I could trace it via
> Technorati?), or is randomly aping the work of others (which in itself is
> no small labour) par for the course on the internet?
>
What matter who's speaking?
Quite understandably, logged-in members of the Theory-Lyotard-Badiou-Event mailing list would not have noticed anything out of the ordinary in seeing Brockbank’s email message header displayed thus:
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 11:41:34 +0100
Reply-To: "Discussion of J-F-Lyotard, Alain Badiou,the Event"
[THEORY-LYOTARD-BADIOU-EVENT@MAILTALK.AC.UK]
Sender: "Discussion of J-F-Lyotard, Alain Badiou,the Event"
[THEORY-LYOTARD-BADIOU-EVENT@MAILTALK.AC.UK]
From: "sdv@krokodile.co.uk" [sdv@KROKODILE.CO.UK]
Subject: humanism, antihumanism and posthumanism
In-Reply-To: [20050908020757.39946.qmail@web81705.mail.yahoo.com]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Whereas those unlucky enough not to be a member will have seen the following:
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 11:41:34 +0100
Reply-To: "Discussion of J-F-Lyotard, Alain Badiou,the Event"
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: "Discussion of J-F-Lyotard, Alain Badiou,the Event"
<[log in to unmask]>
From: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: humanism, antihumanism and posthumanism
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
What can it all mean, dear reader?
September 08, 2005
Nemesis
Battling technical difficulties to which fellow members of the Theory-Lyotard-Badiou-Event mailing list had proved strangely immune, Infinite Thought has finally pronounced upon this curious affair of pulled blogs and postmodern heutagogy.
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 12:45:59 +0000
Reply-To: "Discussion of J-F-Lyotard, Alain Badiou,the Event"
[THEORY-LYOTARD-BADIOU-EVENT@MAILTALK.AC.UK]
Sender: "Discussion of J-F-Lyotard, Alain Badiou,the Event"
[THEORY-LYOTARD-BADIOU-EVENT@MAILTALK.AC.UK]
From: Infinite Thought
Subject: Re: stealing...
In-Reply-To: [3584.80.241.72.42.1126087330.squirrel@www.krokodile.co.uk]
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Dear all,
As the author of the piece on humanism originally posted on Long Sunday (http://www.long-sunday.net/long_sunday/2005/08/humanism.html), I thought I would respond on this list (as a version of my piece was apparently also posted over here).
I must confess I am rather bemused by the whole thing. It does appear that the author of the 'zoo or letters not about things' blog produced a paraphrastic but recognisable version of my original piece and posted it without reference to its provenance (although the 'copy' has now been removed, and obviously a confession of sorts has turned up on this list).
It was not until the author of the sphaleotas blog emailed me (having come across the piece in some other search) that I knew anything about this - obviously I would have preferred a discussion of my piece that I was aware of (not least because I am extremely interested in the topics humanism/antihumanism/inhumanism etc. and others' reactions to them). Was my piece deemed to be interesting? (in which case why not respond in the comments on Long Sunday, or at least link to it so I could trace it via Technorati?), or is randomly aping the work of others (which in itself is no small labour) par for the course on the internet?
Obviously there is no question of 'copyright' here - I posted the original piece precisely 'without status' so to speak, in order to stimulate (hopefully) some kind of debate. Nevertheless, as a good, if cynical, rationalist, I also believe in the idea that 'I' indeed wrote it, that a link to the original would not have gone amiss, and, more to the point, that one is bound to be found out sooner rather than later, and it's probably more politic to admit where one is getting ideas from than not.
I'm not so sure I would describe the issue as one of 'intellectual property rights' - after all, I posted a piece online and not in a journal or book, but I am generally a little saddened by the idea of instigating a potentially fruitful debate, but being barred from viewing its outcome.
I would still not be adverse to such a debate, however, especially as I've now signed up to this list.
Best, Nina (aka Infinite Thought)
>From: Steve Devos
>Reply-To: "Discussion of J-F-Lyotard, Alain Badiou,the Event"
>
>To: THEORY-LYOTARD-BADIOU-EVENT@MAILTALK.AC.UK
>Subject: stealing...
>Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 11:02:10 +0100
>
>all
>
>recently i stole a text from a blog (infinitethoughts), an act which i
>have been told over the interveneing time, sometimes humourously sometimes
>not was an unethical act. This is possibly true but I'm really not sure
>that ethics and property rights can meet in this way.
>
>In amoungst the complaints and insults over this act of plagerism
>(stealing) that I've recieved since i posted the stolen text here on the
>list and by error on a blog (since made private which it was originally
>supposed to be ...). A number of curious things stand out which have some
>interesting consequences. Firstly - there is a surprising belief in
>intellectual ownership, which is to say in the intellectual property
>rights of the writer over the text. Secondly that the commentators do not
>appear to understand the extent to which objects/text etc are now being
>used in whatever way the reader chooses.
>
>In the first case - it is so long since I've lived in circles that
>believed in such things that I've been surprised by the extent of the
>belief. Is it your opinion that a text or other object on the net is
>'authored' or
>written in this sense ? In which case what is the ethical status of the
>downloading of objects ? Is there a difference between an individuals
>intellectual property rights and an institutions intellectual property
>rights ? This last case is surely a case of sameness not of difference ?
>
>The second case is practically even more interesting because by default
>the emails do not appear to understand the extent to which current
>educational practice is being affected by students stealing text and using
>it within essays, on the understandable basis that they will improve their
>marks.
>
>If the commentator differentiates the case of a student stealing a text,
>plagerising an essay, downloading an object and my own act of stealing -
>what is the meaning of this moral inconsistency ?
>
>I of course did the steal the text - and whilst I probably won't do it
>again, I do not really consider it as a straightforward issue - because of
>the implication (that has been raised to me) of merging the consideration
>of my ethical misbehavior with the demand that I respect intellectual
>property rights.
>
>s
>
>http://driftwork.info - Theory-Lyotard-Badiou-Event Web Home
September 07, 2005
by error on a blog (since made private)
Brockbank’s compelling response...
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 11:02:10 +0100
Reply-To: "Discussion of J-F-Lyotard, Alain Badiou,the Event"
[THEORY-LYOTARD-BADIOU-EVENT@MAILTALK.AC.UK]
Sender: "Discussion of J-F-Lyotard, Alain Badiou,the Event"
[THEORY-LYOTARD-BADIOU-EVENT@MAILTALK.AC.UK]
From: Steve Devos [sdv@KROKODILE.CO.UK]
Subject: stealing...
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
all
recently i stole a text from a blog (infinitethoughts), an act which i
have been told over the interveneing time, sometimes humourously sometimes
not was an unethical act. This is possibly true but I'm really not sure
that ethics and property rights can meet in this way.
In amoungst the complaints and insults over this act of plagerism
(stealing) that I've recieved since i posted the stolen text here on the
list and by error on a blog (since made private which it was originally
supposed to be ...). A number of curious things stand out which have some
interesting consequences. Firstly - there is a surprising belief in
intellectual ownership, which is to say in the intellectual property
rights of the writer over the text. Secondly that the commentators do not
appear to understand the extent to which objects/text etc are now being
used in whatever way the reader chooses.
In the first case - it is so long since I've lived in circles that
believed in such things that I've been surprised by the extent of the
belief. Is it your opinion that a text or other object on the net is
'authored' or
written in this sense ? In which case what is the ethical status of the
downloading of objects ? Is there a difference between an individuals
intellectual property rights and an institutions intellectual property
rights ? This last case is surely a case of sameness not of difference ?
The second case is practically even more interesting because by default
the emails do not appear to understand the extent to which current
educational practice is being affected by students stealing text and using
it within essays, on the understandable basis that they will improve their
marks.
If the commentator differentiates the case of a student stealing a text,
plagerising an essay, downloading an object and my own act of stealing -
what is the meaning of this moral inconsistency ?
I of course did the steal the text - and whilst I probably won't do it
again, I do not really consider it as a straightforward issue - because of
the implication (that has been raised to me) of merging the consideration
of my ethical misbehavior with the demand that I respect intellectual
property rights.
s
http://driftwork.info - Theory-Lyotard-Badiou-Event Web Home
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 17:31:44 +0100
Reply-To: "Discussion of J-F-Lyotard, Alain Badiou,the Event"
[THEORY-LYOTARD-BADIOU-EVENT@MAILTALK.AC.UK]
Sender: "Discussion of J-F-Lyotard, Alain Badiou,the Event"
[THEORY-LYOTARD-BADIOU-EVENT@MAILTALK.AC.UK]
From: Steve Devos [sdv@KROKODILE.CO.UK]
Subject: Re: Collage vs plagiarism
In-Reply-To: [3140.80.241.72.42.1126023704.squirrel@www.krokodile.co.uk]
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
actually a thought on this specific subject might be interesting
'stanislaw' -
oh and welcome, however temporarily you intend this to be..
s
> laughs...
>
>
>> Steve/all,
>>
>> I was wondering if the list had any thoughts on the possible difference
>> between collage works of 'texts intended to open discussion', and
>> cynical
>> plagiaristic paraphrase.
>>
>
http://driftwork.info - Theory-Lyotard-Badiou-Event Web Home
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 17:21:44 +0100
Reply-To: "Discussion of J-F-Lyotard, Alain Badiou,the Event"
[THEORY-LYOTARD-BADIOU-EVENT@MAILTALK.AC.UK]
Sender: "Discussion of J-F-Lyotard, Alain Badiou,the Event"
[THEORY-LYOTARD-BADIOU-EVENT@MAILTALK.AC.UK]
From: Steve Devos [sdv@KROKODILE.CO.UK]
Subject: Re: Collage vs plagiarism
In-Reply-To: [LISTSERV%200509061435554380.43D6@MAILTALK.AC.UK]
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
laughs...
> Steve/all,
>
> I was wondering if the list had any thoughts on the possible difference
> between collage works of 'texts intended to open discussion', and cynical
> plagiaristic paraphrase.
>
> I must confess to not having given the issue much thought in recent
> months,
> until I chanced upon the following links;
>
> http://blog.urbanomic.com/sphaleotas/archives/000754.html
> http://www.long-sunday.net/long_sunday/2005/08/humanism.html
> http://www.mailtalk.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0508&L=theory-lyotard-badiou-event&D=1&T=0&O=D&F=&S=&P=5571
> http://www.krokodile.co.uk/blogs/index.php?title=the_spectre_of_humanism_and_anti_humanis&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
>
> Fascinating, I think you'll agree.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Stanislas
>
> http://driftwork.info - Theory-Lyotard-Badiou-Event Web Home
>
http://driftwork.info - Theory-Lyotard-Badiou-Event Web Home
How sweet to be an idiot
http://www.cinestatic.com/hyperflow/2005/09/language-fiction-futurity.asp
[Mirror (2005-09-05)]
September 06, 2005
[log in to unmask]
All credit to Ray for this illuminating link from the archives of THEORY-LYOTARD-BADIOU-EVENT, Tuesday 23 August 2005:
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 15:09:17 +0100
Reply-To: "Discussion of J-F-Lyotard, Alain Badiou,the Event"
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: "Discussion of J-F-Lyotard, Alain Badiou,the Event"
<[log in to unmask]>
From: Steve Devos <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: human and anti-human
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Richard/all
Is the spectre of humanism badly raised or not...? I think my implied but unclear suggestion that Richard is merely repeating the errors of humanist critiques, with the implication that the human-condition is central needs some further clarification... so....
I think that we could understand it through interesting philosophical perspectives on humanism and antihumanism, which is not to forget to mention the casual and frequently confused use of terms such as rights, anthropocentrism, humanitarianism and so on. These guarantee confusion about the status of the human and the non-human relative to other discourses and disciplines. For example how contemporary humanism relate to the various sciences ? Is science merely what modern and post-modern humans do, or is it instead a demonstration of difference which shows how unimportant humanity is at the level of the cosmos ? What might be it’s status in relation to the political ? We obviously can still speak of progressive emancipation in politics just as we can talk of the reverse, but at the same time this is haunted by the ludicrous neo-religious belief in an anthropocentric destiny?
It’s difficult to produce a clear separation of contemporary humanisms and antihumanisms but it’s feasible to suggest some important moments of contemporary humanism:
• a universalist commitment to human rights, whereby each individual is endowed with certain negative and positive freedoms.
• an existentialist proposition about human choice, that is often falsely presented as being a unique human possession.
• a scientific commitment to the capacities of technology and scientific research to provide benefits for humans but also to non-humans.
Antihumanism can be thought of as containing the following key concepts and results:
• Attempts to differentiate the human from the non-human are a sign of religious remnants that conrinue to haunt our understanding of the human, and which usually fail to point out that there is very little that differentiates one species from another (assuming you accept that species exist as meaningful concepts and differences)- genetically and pragmatically from other non-human-animals. (Key differences that have failed include: tool-use, war, sexual difference, sociality, politics, morality, aggression, symbolic communication, laughing, crying, language...)
• Any human thinking that poses the centrality of human needs and concerns is either a speciesism or it attempts to ignore the contingency of the human as a species. Most importantly it trys to ignore the glorious indifference that nature and the cosmos shows towards the human.
• The concept that links the idea of history and progress implies that human subjects or humanity is in some way the subject of history which does no provide an adequate account for the arbitrary nature of natural disasters and human-made events.
How is it possible to awaken from the nightmare of history when to be awake is proposed as to be merely human ?
steve
> Richard/all
>
> The implication of this humanist understanding of 'history' is that only
> human subjects can be understood historically. (humanist because it
> refuses the idea that the concept of history can be seperated from the
> individualhuman siubjects...) Superfically this idea seems to make
> sense because as Richard. Hugh and Eric have pointed out human history
> is the predominant means through which we understand how we arrived in
> this extraordinary situation...
>
> and yet...
>
> The focus on 'individuals', on individual human subjects, excludes the
> very work which is most useful in our attempts to understand the present
> - from Thompson's 'The History of the English Working Class ' (hardly
> possible to understand as an address of the history of individual human
> subjects ) to Lorraine Daston's 'The biography of scientific objects'
> --- These differing historical methods and understandings cannot be
> understood as history within the perspectives proposed.
>
> The side effect of emphasizing individuals is to exclude the non-human
> actors from history - or do you believe that the non-human is always
> already passive ? and that institutions are nothing but a grouping of
> individuals rather than this plus the inhuman nature of the institution
> itself ? I refer you precisely to Lyotard's essay's in The Inhuman'
> where he describes 'development' as acting inhumanly on human subjects....
>
> regards
> steve
>
>
>
>> The nightmare of history is entirely tied to the idea that "history"
>>lies in some separate dimension from individuals. The contemporary idea
>> of
>>the "subject" (as opposed to the idea of the individual) suggests this
>> idea
>>of something "up above" us, beyond human existence (the "Great Other") to
>>which everyone is obligated to submit.
>>
>>
>
> http://driftwork.info - Theory-Lyotard-Badiou-Event Web Home
>
http://driftwork.info - Theory-Lyotard-Badiou-Event Web Home
September 05, 2005
September 04, 2005
“We are always interested in buying Modern First Editions”
Steve Brockbank of Hertfordshire booksellers Krokodile Rare Books was so inspired by one of Infinite Thought’s recent essays that he single-handedly paraphrased 395 consecutive words within twenty four hours of its original publication. Sphaleotas investigates:
— Infinite Thought:
Is the question of ‘humanism’ badly posed?
– Steve Brockbank:
Is the spectre of humanism badly raised?
— Infinite Thought:
Current philosophical literature on humanism and antihumanism, not to mention constant casual and vague use of terms such as ‘human rights’, anthropocentrism, ‘humanitarianism’, entails confusion about the status of the ‘human’ relative to other disciplines.
– Steve Brockbank:
I think that we could understand the interesting philosophical perspectives on humanism and antihumanism, which is not to forget to mention the casual and frequently confused use of terms such as rights, anthropocentrism, humanitarianism and so on which guarantees confusion about the status of the human and the non-human relative to other discourses and disciplines.
— Infinite Thought:
How does humanism relate to science, for example? Is science just what ‘humans’ do, or do its results continually demonstrate how unimportant humanity is at the cosmic level?
– Steve Brockbank:
For example how contemporary humanism relate to the various sciences ? Is science merely what modern and post-modern humans do, or is it instead a demonstration of difference which shows how unimportant humanity is at the level of the cosmos ?
— Infinite Thought:
What is its status vis-à-vis politics? Can we still speak of progressive emancipation in politics, or does this imply an illegitimate quasi-religious belief in some kind of anthropocentric historical destiny?
– Steve Brockbank:
What might be it’s status in relation to the political ? We obviously can still speak of progressive emancipation in politics just as we can talk of the reverse, but at the same time this is haunted by the ludicrous neo-religious belief in an anthropocentric destiny?
— Infinite Thought:
Even engaging in a rough separation of contemporary humanisms and antihumanisms is no easy task. We can perhaps point to three broad moments of contemporary humanism:
– Steve Brockbank:
It’s difficult to produce a clear separation of contemporary humanisms and antihumanisms but it’s feasible to suggest some important moments of contemporary humanism:
— Infinite Thought:
1. A juridical, moral and universalist commitment to ‘human rights’, whereby each individual is endowed with certain negative and positive freedoms.
– Steve Brockbank:
• A universalist commitment to human rights, whereby each individual is endowed with certain negative and positive freedoms, both legalistic and ethical.
— Infinite Thought:
2. An existentialist belief (either religious or secular) in the ‘inescapable’ nature of human choice that is possessed by us alone among species.
– Steve Brockbank:
• The existentialist belief in the nature of human choice that is often falsely presented as being a unique human possession.
— Infinite Thought:
3. A scientific, or at least scientistic, commitment to the capacities of technology and scientific research to provide benefits to humanity (medical, technical, hygienic, alimentary etc.)
– Steve Brockbank:
• The scientific commitment to the capacities of technology and scientific research to provide benefits to humans and non-humans alike.
— Infinite Thought:
We can at the same time point to several contemporaneous manifestations of antihumanism:
– Steve Brockbank:
Antihumanism can perhaps be thought of as containing the following key concepts and results
— Infinite Thought:
1. The idea that all attempts to separate out man from animal are a post-religious hangover that neglect to point out that there is very little that differentiates us, either genetically or practically, from other animals, particularly other primates (none of the following are specific to humans: bipedalism, tool-use, war, sexual prohibition, sociality, politics, morality, aggression, symbolic communication, laughing, crying, etc.).
– Steve Brockbank:
• Attempts to differentiate the human from the non-human are a sign of the post-religious remains haunting our understanding of the human, and which usually fail to point out that there is very little that differentiates one species (assuming you accept that species exist as meaningful concepts and differences); genetically and pragmatically from other non-human-animals (remember that none of the following are human specific: tool-use, war, sexual difference, sociality, politics, morality, aggression, symbolic communication, laughing, crying, language and so on).
— Infinite Thought:
2. Any thinking that makes human needs and concerns central is either a form of speciesism, or a supreme arrogance that pays no heed to the contingency of emergence of the human as a species, and the indifference that nature/the cosmos surely has towards us.
– Steve Brockbank:
• Any human thinking that poses the centrality of human needs and concerns is either a speciesism or it pays no heed to the contingency of the human as a species. Most importantly it neglects the indifference that nature and the cosmos has towards us.
— Infinite Thought:
3. A continued belief in a teleological idea of history and progress (such that humanity would be the ‘subject’ of such a history) fails to account for the sheer senselessness of either man-made disasters (war, famines) or natural events (floods, diseases).
– Steve Brockbank:
• The concept that links the idea of history and progress which implies in some way that human subjects or humanity might be in some way the subject of history cannot account for the randomness of man-made disasters and natural events.
September 01, 2005
“On the left we have God, Humanism, the Left and double incontinence, on the right we have spandex, drum loops and a chance to begin again in the off-world colonies.”
Michigan posthuman anarchocapitalist makes good.