Re: [-empyre-] a book, dna and code

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

judith,

That is a nonsensical statement. Your reluctance to comment is becoming 
understandable, I asked because I was interested in seeing the 
analytical tools in operation. It seems that given the relationship to 
truth, value and fact that you maintain in the text, all that remains is 
an appeal to ethics and judgement.

But that's not what was asked - i'm not reading a text by an ethicist, a 
philosopher and so on, rather I'm reading a 'posthumanities' text which 
argues for 'certain kinds  of cultural work to be done'.

best
steve


Judith Roof wrote:
> Well, there goes that instant shift to ethics and judgment again.
> On Oct 18, 2007, at 4:21 AM, sdv@krokodile.co.uk wrote:
>
> > How then would you understand the current condemnation of Watson ?  On 
> > the one side condemned for racism and on the other for being a  bad 
> > scientist.  Where is the ambiguity here ?
> >
> > Curiously it reminds me of a statement of Chomsky's which argued  
> > that: even if it's proven that one group of people are more  
> > intelligent than another, this is of no more importance than if one  
> > person has green eyes and another brown eyes.
> >
> > steve
> > Judith Roof wrote:
> >
> > > Probably not.  In this view the real, whatever that is, is always   
> > > intricated with language and image.  Culture is no more "true"  than  
> > > empiricism, but my point is even more introductory than  that-- 
> > > language has a sneaky way of being ambiguous no matter what  its  
> > > referent is.
> > > Judith