> so you don't think that instrumentality forms even a virtual > or metaphoric "organelle" with the human gene-machine?? > maybe not, i'm not really that good with the whole > nature/culture, "rationality" thing but K.Siratori and I > guess & stuff like Tetsuo, and Cyborg theory at least forage > among the imbroglionic ganglia of that stickiness.. > and Stelarc.. I guess its still all metaphoric, I know that i > guess but it really seems like technology has a life of its > own at this point for better or worse..
It's (still) very much a point of discussion at this moment i think, although many consider the equal status of the machinic with the biotic a prooven reality. The Deleuzian take on it, inspired by Bergson and Simondon but distanciating itself explicetly from those as sources is still moving on (Brian Massumi, Keith Ansell Pearson in the UK, i'm going through Pearson's "Germinal life: the difference and repetition of Deleuze" now, falling asleep in it on my way to work mostly, so i 'm getting a near-dream vision off it, hard to render here...) and our own Isabelle Stengers keeps posting warnings against bio- and other reductionisms that are made too easily (in french, an older article from way back in 2005 here for instance: http://multitudes.samizdat.net/article.php3?id_article=1574) There definitely is a counterflow worth taking a look at, only it's sources and workings are very un-american, if you allow me the im-politeness of an awkward and hardly maintainable suggestion.A pre-emptive strike i guess, some irony for fear of being rebuked on a provincialism that would falsify some other clichés. Soit: from a philosophical point of view and in relation to my own work what interests me mostly here,is how various forms of fiction are caught in between these monologues currently being dialed through from science to art and backwards. The modems and modes through which this dialing happens are mainly bluntly technological still, although advancing rapidly to agree with the metaphors laid down on them. My experience with the IT world in its day-to-day workings has made me very critical of theories oversimplifying the cybernetic issues on a language basis or on a mathematical one for that matter, and when i watch with poetic scrutiny what the 'ibrolionic ganglia of stickiness' (í'd need Dutch to equal your phrase) actually refers to, well, i'm extremely hesitant. In a caricatural mode: i've been known (in Kessel-lo) to declare Baudrilliard sucks because reading him it's so obvious he doesn't know s*** about the reality of programming while building messy megamarkets of thought on grounds that would need at least some technical corroboration. Fiction engendering fiction is also an integral part of the Wolfram claim for a new science as i see it, but who am i to contradict such moves? I built Cathedrals, from theory i only take what i need, and the rest doesn't matter. Not there, the diy claim i exercise in exorcising my demons is prior to _any_ reality because its taking place as we speak. It's a fiction that doesn't collapse easily _either_. We're all doomed to some form of houdinism, it seems. > Alan is the expert on this stuff. We all know this.. > I just like to pretend alot. I do not pretend to know either, but i think i'd be disagreeing with Alan on this mostly and perhaps (probably - to all likelyhood) because i know much less. Any discussion with him on it at this point would be premature, as i am, and confusing for others as i continue to confuse myself... dv > > > his eloquently expressed > analogies with bio_meme_ôOrhetorics are exquisitely naârty > but rather obscuring because they inadvertently cover an > aesthetically pleasing but practically incorrect prehension > of machinic processes with further furry, ekphratic layers of > beautifully bleeding poetry >
