Re: <eyebeam><blast> Posthuman teleology?

[blast-agent <agent@blast.org>]

2 messages, from Carl Francis DiSalvo and Joel Weishaus


Katherine Hayles wrote:

'As I see it, one of the major driving forces behind the "posthuman" (or
whatever nomenclature you want to use that will be easier on your
eyeballs) is the desire to conceptualize human being, and human
cognition, in terms that allow it to be seamlessly articulated with
intelligent machines.  Very often, in practice, this means erasing the
importance of embodiment (as when Hans Moravec foresees human
consciousness being downloaded into a computer), because as soon as one
attends to embodiment, it becomes obvious that humans and computer are
built (and operate) very differently.  Far from wanting to simply
reinscribe the posthuman as it is currently formulated, I want in some
very specific ways to contest for it as a term, to draw into question
certain assumptions now associated with it.'


Carl Francis DiSalvo <disalvo@bitstream.net> writes:

If we are to investigate the conception of  and experiment with  the
"posthuman" I believe that we must address the issue of embodiment
exactly because "humans and computer are built (and operate) very
differently". This apsect of difference in essence of being does not
make impossible the "posthuman", it makes the"posthuman" what it is. By
the very differnece of essence (in an Artistoliean sense: the very
difference of the fundemental stuff of existence) between ourselves and
computer the possiblitiy of the"posthman" arises.

                           Carl Francis DiSalvo
                          disalvo@bitstream.net

    Cultural Engineering for Engineered Cultures

Interactive Media Design / Bitstream Underground, Inc.
                        http://www.bitstream.net


---------------------------------------------


Joel Weishaus <reality@unm.edu> writes:

But nomenclature _is_ important. It drives the gut, and can't be passed
off as "whatever...you want to use."  Plus the double irony (again), as
the human is "seamlessly articulated with intelligent machines" that
sh/e designed! Seems like a feedback loop to me. Thus, is this
"posthuman" any different than the human inscribing itself?

Katherine Hayles wrote:

"Very often, in practice, this means erasing the importance of
embodiment (as when Hans Moravec foresees human consciousness being
downloaded into a computer), because as soon as one attends to
embodiment, it becomes obvious that humans and computer are built (and
operate) very differently."

There must be something hidden here, because the computer is conceived
from the human mind. Perhaps we are emphasizing the physical
(embodiment/ dis-embodiment) too much, when it's the psychological that
needs investigation.

>Far from wanting to simply
>reinscribe the posthuman as it is currently formulated, I want in some
>very specific ways to contest for it as a term, to draw into question
>certain assumptions now associated with it.

You know that I feel that the term surrenders the field, that we are
only beginning to understand what it means to be _human_,  much less
what it means to be a mature, enlightened, human being.

Where are we going that we must rush to a so-called posthuman condition?


-Joel

Joel Weishaus
Writer-In-Residence
University of New Mexico
Albuquerque.
reality@unm.edu
http://www.unm.edu/~reality




-
-------------------------------------------------------------
a critical forum for artistic practice in the network
texts are the property of individual authors
to unsubscribe, send email to eyebeam@list.thing.net
with the following single line in the message body:
unsubscribe eyebeam-list
information and archive at http://www.eyebeam.org
Eyebeam Atelier/X Art Foundation http://www.blast.org
-------------------------------------------------------------