[-empyre-] Re: Ontological equality

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.

i don't mean to take away from Eugene and Judith's really great points for discussion, so i apologize for that, and won't follow this thread up with any more. but do look forward to the remaining discussion.
So, last set of attempts to try to understand what you're saying exactly here Steve:

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 ?"

OK... this sounds like what i was trying to express myself. Only i would still maintain a challenge to this "we" you're using here, as it seems to imply a larger homogeneous "humanity" that is seemingly equally invested in the benefits of domination.
But i would also ask if you really honestly believe that to be true? Has this question really shifted as you describe? Can you verify the existence of this new pragmatic world view in the minds of those shaping our environment? It sounds, in all honesty, like the shift you mentions coincides more with the development of public relations.

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.

And how is this different from the goals of eugenics? This is not new, it was taught in schools in the 30s in the US.
"We" have always been accountable, at least in the minds of some - what has changed? Are you holding up the post-human dream of getting rid of oppression by designing it out? As if it exists in our biological beings? Norplant was used to negatively effect the population of "welfare mothers". First Nations peoples in North America were sterilized. Toxic waste was located in predominately black neighborhoods (still the most reliable correlation between geography and toxic sites). How is what you're saying to be taken in the context of these realities?
To reiterate an earlier point, i don't see you addressing that this "choosing" that you point to will always be political and an expression of power. Who is allowed access to the decision making process is something that power can be made accountable for.
But i have to say that i don't understand the preoccupation with GATTACA-like narratives of a potential future, as if these developments are immanent, rather than political.

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 ?

i'm not sure what you mean by the "prioritization of the human over the non-human" here... if you mean we need to stop identifying our interests with other similar beings (i.e. i shouldn't align myself with my neighbors just because they happen to be human), i don't know where that takes us.
Equivalence isn't going to be found in "Nature" or a logical equation - it's a political decision. So will be whatever we do (or don't) to deal with a climate crisis.
i get the feeling that you're playing with absolutes in a zero-sum game of intellectual purity here, but maybe i'm wrong.

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.

OK - i'm with you here. i just don't see how you get here from everything else above. i thought i was clear before that i don't see "ethics" as a useful construct at all, in fact just the opposite.

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.

Please explain, if you can what the "necessity of renegotiating our relationship with the world" is. And why a politics that is global necessitates a move away from the "local"? Why are they not synthesized in your framing of the question? Can you define where the local starts/stops and global ends/begins? Is it in the political boundaries? The biological scale of gene flows? The subatomic movement of nano-particles? The cosmic scale of Near Earth Objects?
To be honest about what i think - i agree in that there is a desire for renegotiating our relationship with the world. But a necessity - how can there be a necessity? It's a political desire. And do i think that desire is shared by Venter and those developing the "genetic revolution"? Are you kidding? They're renegotiating their role in the world based on age-old paradigms, just with new stuff.
In short (hah) they are already radically reconceptualizing our relationship with the world. The problem is that they're making it more and more in their image - just as power has always done. That may lead to extinction. Or it may not, either way, it's bad for a lot of us. If it's a decision between the extinction of everyone and everyone but the powerful, who cares?
What is the point of rethinking our relationships to a world unless those thoughts have some hope for materializing? The 2 sides of your coin seem one and the same. If you do the former (save the world from mass extinction) without the latter (reconceptualizing), you end up with little hope of the latter having any influence. And if the latter isn't oriented towards addressing the problem of the former, what's the point?
And as a side note, if there's a severe energy crisis in the current context, see if you can still call someone who's prioritized the local an idiot.

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

And eugenics predates synthetic genomics and the "new economy" by over a century.
Again, i could have your arguments all wrong and i apologize if so.
best,
ryan
This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and MHonArc 2.6.8.