Re: [-empyre-] Poetics of DNA II



Just some quick thoughts--

Eugene's insights (curmudgeonly or not) point to the gooey insistence of some essentialized difference between science and humanism--and as well to the the stubborn stickiness of the binary which sneaks its paradigms back in whether we like it or not.

The flat code could also be the very round code or the donut code of the Klein bottle code.

DNA is always and never what we make it--as John suggested the chemical is also a screen and point of focus occulting yet other processes and sites already envisioned as simultaneously scalar and inaccessible, repeating infinitely down the line.

Eugene is right--I am not accusing the "hard" sciences of being reductionist. I am suggesting that popularizations and science PR are symptoms of broad contemporary epistemologies that, though not shared by "experts," nonetheless hold large sway and sneak in now and then to processes of conceptualization. Note, for example, a continued unwillingness to separate sex and gender, or at least seriously consider why these are useful "categories" and the ways they both work and don't work in tandem.

I like the notion of a "biochemical Lebensphilosophie," and rue the fact that romanticizing complexity is its seduction. But as Jim suggested, gaps in education keep us at a Fischer-Price status quo.

Cheers

Judith

On Oct 4, 2007, at 7:09 PM, Eugene Thacker wrote:

Hi all...

Judith's opening remarks propose an intriguing reversal:

"If language and metaphor condition our understandings of DNA, then our
imaginary of DNA has started to condition our considerations of language and
metaphor.”


I like this because, first, it questions the assumptions that “we” as
humanities-based STS scholars might take when looking at the construction of
technoscientific artifacts. Not that I profess faith in the unqualified thing-
in-itself, however. But if metaphor and materiality are always intertwined, then
it would make sense to consider how DNA – which, we should remember, is a
compounded entity that is at once biological and informatic, wet and dry – is
not simply an example or a subset of metaphor, but itself a correlation of thing
and idea, the gooey “stuff” of life and all of its heightened significations.


That something like DNA is at once posited as such, and yet remains in some
sense hermeneutically inaccessible (e.g. in terms of what the book- of-life or
the code “means” etc.), then doesn’t this imply that DNA, that most loquacious
of molecules, is actually quite inert, mute, and silent?


What would a “negative theology” of DNA be like? Neoplatonic and early Medieval
thinkers often asserted a negative notion of the supernatural or the divine –
that one could not state positively what the divine was (God or Being is X or Y)
but could only signify that which was beyond signification by a process of
negation (God or Being is not-A or not-B, if A and B stand for attributes such
as “corporeal” or “temporal”).


How about this – negative DNA as something like a “flat code” – that is a code
that at once asserts its own informational verbosity and yet at the same time
withdraws into the arcana of “complexity” and the avalanche of numbers (e.g.
genomics as a data management problem).


-Eugene




---------------------------------------------- Eugene Thacker, Associate Professor School of Literature, Communication & Culture Georgia Institute of Technology

eugene.thacker@lcc.gatech.edu
http://www.lcc.gatech.edu/~ethacker
----------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
empyre forum
empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
http://www.subtle.net/empyre




This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and MHonArc 2.6.8.