[-empyre-] Thursday, 19th: Hearing and Listening
ccox at hampshire.edu
Sat Jun 21 06:04:41 EST 2014
I agree with much of what Seth says.
As for much of what Salome says, a proper response would require a much
bigger contribution than I'm able to make right now and a different
forum than this one. Suffice it to say: (1) I accept a materialist
monism not because so-and-so says so, but because /the //arguments//for
that position are the most convincing/ (for reasons too many to number),
(2) that this position absolutely acknowledges the uniqueness of the
human (as a difference in degree, not of kind), (3) that it's a bizarre
stretch to suggest that this materialist position absolves human beings
of the responsibility for global warming (it's the exact reverse, I'd
argue), (4) that feminism and materialism are absolutely compatible
(see, e.g., Elizabeth Grosz, Luciana Parisi, Rosi Braidotti, perhaps
even Karen Barad, etc. etc.)
This forum seems to have fostered more misunderstanding than
illumination. My too-quick comments have no doubt contributed to that.
My apologies for that. Here's hoping for another occasion on/in which to
explore all of this more fully, more sonically, and with more generosity
and intellectual charity.
On 6/20/14, 3:04 PM, Salomé Voegelin wrote:
> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------
> On Jun 20, 2014, at 7:23 PM, Seth Kim-Cohen <seth at kim-cohen.com> wrote:
>> Why can't we accept our anthropomorphized and anthropomorphizing position without succumbing or surrendering to an anthropocentric privileging of the human (all too human)?
> I agree with the pickle most definitively, and to try to come out of it by pretending there is a equivalence and egalite because Nietzsche and Deleuze says so, kind of does not work for me. I have yet to see a monkey who is responsible for global warming for example, so there definitively is something terribly human about the current state of the world: human and non-human all together, up shit creek and no paddle in sight, but maybe we can hear one that we never dreamt of seeing.
> I am not so worried that we anthropomorphize in perception. I think as you say, Seth, what else can we do, we are human, it is rather how, with what awareness and ethical responsibility, we do the morphising that is important to me. Since the "what else" is more worrying as the options seem to focus on erasing the human (and with it his responsibility) by apparently "becoming" nature, non-human or whatever it is we want to be equivalent with without truly considering the power position we have leveraged ourselves into in philosophy, in art and in fact.
> There is a feminist argument here too in that I do not want man to become woman, I want woman to have her own voice not re-utter Nietzsche et all, to fit in at the margins.
> I think it is a bit late for pretending there is no bias to our carving visually or sonically!
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the empyre