Brief Notes: Grebowitz and Zakin, "On Promising and Destructive Monsters"
This is a response to the Lyotard I just read.
Gender difference as a "primordial explosion" "like the Big Bang [which] inaugurates a process of complexification by putting thought in motion." There are apparently good reasons to call Lyotard a "postmodern feminist" in particular in relation to Donna Haraway. (See also: I should read Donna Haraway.)
Technology as part of "a process of negentropy or complexification that has been underway since the earth began its existence" --- this essay is basically taking out all the good quotes for me that I didn't notice because I was too busy squeeing. (How useful!)
Wait what somebody is italicized here? Is this that kind of paper? Here's a good question, both in context and out of context when we look at the monster identification thing: "How are we to distinguish between promising and destructive monsters?" Italicized voice argues that Lyotard suggests we are becoming less human through the mechanism of complexification and that would put us opposite where Haraway would.
Page 18 is super Deleuzian.
Is the cyborg body asexual? Given what we learned from Parisi I would say no.
Lyotard apparently periodically breaks up essays into being written by hypothetical speakers of different genders. OK! That's an interesting strategy. I kind of want to try that now.
Page 20 on American versus French philosophy and gender as a feminist domain thing versus a fundamental epistemological question. Oooh, non-italicized voice points out that Lyotard doesn't mention that the "lack" of gender might be experienced differently by people of different genders. Good call.
They cite Major Tom. <3
"Lyotard's commitment is to the space kept open for thought, for invention, a commitment which feminism ought to recognize."
This entry was originally posted at http://rax.dreamwidth.org/52435.html.
Gender difference as a "primordial explosion" "like the Big Bang [which] inaugurates a process of complexification by putting thought in motion." There are apparently good reasons to call Lyotard a "postmodern feminist" in particular in relation to Donna Haraway. (See also: I should read Donna Haraway.)
Technology as part of "a process of negentropy or complexification that has been underway since the earth began its existence" --- this essay is basically taking out all the good quotes for me that I didn't notice because I was too busy squeeing. (How useful!)
Wait what somebody is italicized here? Is this that kind of paper? Here's a good question, both in context and out of context when we look at the monster identification thing: "How are we to distinguish between promising and destructive monsters?" Italicized voice argues that Lyotard suggests we are becoming less human through the mechanism of complexification and that would put us opposite where Haraway would.
Page 18 is super Deleuzian.
Is the cyborg body asexual? Given what we learned from Parisi I would say no.
Lyotard apparently periodically breaks up essays into being written by hypothetical speakers of different genders. OK! That's an interesting strategy. I kind of want to try that now.
Page 20 on American versus French philosophy and gender as a feminist domain thing versus a fundamental epistemological question. Oooh, non-italicized voice points out that Lyotard doesn't mention that the "lack" of gender might be experienced differently by people of different genders. Good call.
They cite Major Tom. <3
"Lyotard's commitment is to the space kept open for thought, for invention, a commitment which feminism ought to recognize."
This entry was originally posted at http://rax.dreamwidth.org/52435.html.