Re: [-empyre-] Ontological equality

["sdv@krokodile.co.uk" <sdv@krokodile.co.uk>]

Brian/Ryan

Ok let me start from here... and see where the experiment takes us. 
Perhaps the difference begins from the recognition that philosophically 
and politically we are precisely the highly privileged people who have 
to change.

The danger of Ryan's position is that the question which Latour asked 
Serres "So, then, science and technology remove the distinction upon 
which morals are based ?" is by implication answered "Yes" - whereas the 
more interesting and important answer is one that recognizes that the 
Cartesian philosophical question that emerged during the invention of 
capitalism and science of "How can we dominate the world ?" has been 
replaced (I like to think it happened in 1968 but it was probably later 
than this...) with the question of "How do we control our domination of 
the planet, how do we master our own mastery ?"  What this produces is 
the recognition that the modern scientific turns;  genetics, climate 
change, life, death and so on raise questions of control. And questions 
of control mean that we must accept our mastery and make those 
decisions.  From  now on then we are controlling things which previously 
controlled us,because we dominate the planet we become accountable for 
it.  If you have the ability to manipulate the genetic structures, 
gender, what is normal and pathological then you are going to have to 
decide every thing; gender, eye color, skin color, intelligence, 
Everything. And I mean Everything from choosing what is allowed to 
evolve to deciding what can become real.

For example – one of the obvious consequences of genetic manipulation 
will be the choice of a child's sex and possibly if the “gay gene” 
exists even of gender. Under those circumstances we will have to choose 
the sex of our children and we will have to regulate this power. The 
responsibility for this cannot be said to lie with Monsanto and Ventner 
for surely, nor even with capital for in pre-capitalist societies we all 
know it would be far worse. Rather we should accept that the human 
relationship to the world has significantly changed and that given our 
levels of accountability and our responsibilities an ethically based 
response, even those founded on utilitarian based approaches (Singer), 
phenomenological approaches (Levinas) or even those that derive from 
situation ethics fail – because they cannot address the absolute 
equivalence of value of any humans, let alone imagine that there is no 
justification any longer for prioritizing the human over the non-human. 
Why should there be ?

How do we think about this ? My  view as said is  that we cannot address 
this by reducing the discussion to an ethical problem. Rather what is 
required is to radically democratize our philosophical,  ontological 
structures to address the implications. The starting point for any 
acceptable philosophical position is an engagement with equality.

Recently whilst rereading the introduction to a collection of essays by 
Alain Badiou called 'Infinite Thought', in which Feltham and Clemens 
make the case for the strict separation politics and philosophy. If you 
wish to do politics they say "go become an activist, go decide what 
event has happened in your political situation..." and don't confuse 
politics and philosophy. But given the actual situation there is no 
alternative to engaging in such a radical rethinking, since the 
situation consists of on the side the mass-extinction event and on the 
other the necessity of renegotiating our relationship with the world 
which we are responsible and accountable for. But a politics has to 
think and act globally because without it how can we possibly master our 
mastery ? besideswhat kind of idiot prioritizes their immediate local in 
the 21st century... That way leads to extinction.

Oh and violence was first professionalized in the rennaissence, 
mercenaries predate the invention of modern-science and capital by some 
hundreds of years.

well its a beginning

steve