[-empyre-] a book, dna,code and ethics

[Judith Roof]

Steve,

WhiCh side?

I am laughing, too.

Judith


On Oct 21, 2007, at 6:54 AM, sdv at krokodile.co.uk wrote:

> judith,
> Actually I don't think that 'Badiou is the ethical turn par  
> excellance' actally he is the opposite and arguably the moment when  
> refusal of the ethical turn might be thought to begin. Obviously I  
> recognize that Badiou's work has had some positive effects on  
> ethicists like Critchly (Infinitely Demanding) but the ethics and  
> politics that results is not an improvement over parlimentary  
> democracy.
>
> In terms derived from your book Watson is very much a psuedo- 
> scientist, whilst for me he remains a scientist. I'd understand  
> what makes his position  particularly problematic as being  
> something along the lines of: a scientist who accepts that  
> scientific concepts and social concepts are supported by 'real  
> objects' to name a few: DNA, Gene, gender, sex, intelligence, race,  
> species. What this implies is that the scientist has some degree of  
> belief that the hypothesis that proposes these objects exist is true.
>
> But actually these concepts only exist in as much as they are  
> empirically adequate, that is to say they are 'supported with  
> respect to observable phenomena'(Van Frassen). But what we would  
> argue is that acceptance of a theory involves the recognition that  
> a theory is empirically adequate and provable. So if, as I do, you  
> accept the evidence offered that these social concepts have  
> primarily reactionary and oppressive purposes, then his  
> declarations in support of the concepts are both non-ethical and in  
> support of relations (in eugen's sense) that we are discarding.
>
> The very idea of placing a higher value on one side of a concept  
> rather than another is appalling. Now what was it that Deleuze  
> would call it in everybodies least favorite book AO? 'fascist'.
>
> Of course i'm not only an anti-humanist, but even more of an anti- 
> realist... laughs...
>
> best
> steve
>
>> Steve,
>> Actually, I've always wondered why the ethical turn is so central  
>> (if  it is and which postmodernity?).  What is it that pushes this  
>> ethical  turn anyway?  The ethical turn needs to be examined-- 
>> beyond Badiou  who is the ethical turn par excellence.  And  
>> conceptions of  resistance (which are always appended to the thing  
>> which is resisted)  cannot envision an apposition to ethics where  
>> ethics is not relevant  or itself seen as a disingenuous practice  
>> linked to oedipalism.  Who,  after all, gets to enjoy ethics?  Or  
>> wield it?  Is that an ethical  question?
>> As for Watson, what is it that determines the banality of his   
>> banality or the terribleness of his science?  In what way are  
>> these  declarations not ethical?
>> Cheers,
>> Judith
>
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre