What if this 'mastery of mastery' is really about whether there can really be a
nonhuman ethics, insofar as 'ethics' is bounded by either moral philosophy or
theology? I agree that Latour's nonhuman is, conceptually compromised, and all
the nonhumans are there 'for us.'
Instead of intervening in or manipulating nature, would the mastery of mastery
be something like the creation of new laws of nature (perhaps Venter would like
to see himself in this guise...)? Does this also describe somewhat paradoxical
attempts to instrumentalize self-organization, emergence, and complexity?
The title of Brian's post - 'ontological equality' - actually gets at the
problem quite directly. The absolute assertion of equality leads one to forms of
pantheism or mysticism...or, from the all-too-human vantage point, nihilism. But
then even the counter-assertion of 'difference' still requires some notion of
the common, or that within which difference differs. For some, Deleuze's
assertion of difference-in-itself simply reverts back to pantheism/univocity/
immanence.
Perhaps this is why Badiou begins from nothing, or the void. All of the
discussion on being and ethics presumes a notion of being-as-generosity,
positivity, presentation. But even Badiou will still assert an efficacy of the
subject (though radically retooled via set theory) with the notions of fidelity,
situation/event, and the generic. (I apologize for my shoddy reading of Badiou,
but at times I feel the lefty-May'68 subject furtively enters his discussion...)
What if, in addition to the problem of ontological equality, then opens onto
another problem, which is that of causality (ontological action)? Or maybe the
relation between equality and causality is itself the issue - that is, the
concept of 'relation' itself?...
But maybe this is a way to bring things back to Judith's notion of a poetics of
DNA. I take 'poiesis' here to be nonhuman, but not in the Latourian sense.
Poiesis has, at least since Aristotle, been about affectivity (pathos), and
there is no affectivity without circulation and relation.
-Eugene
Quoting Ryan Griffis <ryan.griffis@gmail.com>:
> 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_______________________________________________
empyre forum
empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
http://www.subtle.net/empyre
_______________________________________________
empyre forum
empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
http://www.subtle.net/empyre