Posted by bison on March 01, 1997 at 15:22:37:
In Reply to: Re: ecstasy of vison posted by vr on March 01, 1997 at 00:56:50:
: a followup
it occured to me in conversation, that I might not have made it clear
of the inherent ideas I am dealing with here. And that is that "the other"
is a part of the self, but a part that is generally denied (and hence
fetishized). Our connection to this denied part of the self becomes a
fetish for its own sake. that is the where I see baudrillard's obsession with
the connection coming from.
That is where the cross-over the euridice metaphor crosses through
self and other.
And on another note, I think there some interesting work, as I progress through
the crary, about the self separate from technology in the photo-camera verses a
part of the tech in the obscura... and contrast/ compare this to haraway. Which
means, (come to mean for me) that there needs to be some certain conditions
previous to the making of a cyborg. That it is not just a construction of
the self and technology, but there needs to be a certain paradigm previous to
the connection that creates what we come to term the cyborg.
At first glance, it's a condition of otherness (but I think otehr factors are
involved here, too), which means that as technology continues to become familiar,
the term "cyborg" and all it means, all its cultureal equity that that phrase holds,
will be lost. It is an historically constrained term. One that we are certain
to lose. Because the otherness of technology, our separateness from it, will
disappear. We will re-become the fish that no longer see the water in the sense that
we will no longer see our powers as distinct from the technology (and all that
other good stuff cyborg theory brings with it), even
though we may still look at the technology itself opaquely, (as opposed to
transparently).