Changes

Almost four decades ago''Les particules elementaires'', Michel Foucault dismissed "man" as Houellebecq's bestseller from 1998 which triggered a figure large debate all around [[Europe]], and now finally available in the sand that [[English]], is now being washed away, introducing the (then) fashionable topic story of the "death of manradical DESUBLIMATION, if there ever was one." Although Houellebecq stages this disappearance in much more naive literal termsBruno, as the replacement of humanity with a new posthigh-[[school]] teacher, is an undersexed hedonist, while Michel, his half-human speciesbrother, there is a common denominator between brilliant but emotionally desiccated biochemist. Abandoned by their hippie [[mother]] when they were small, neither has ever properly recovered; all their attempts at the two: pursuit of [[happiness]], whether through [[marriage]], the disappearance study of sexual difference. In his last works[[philosophy]], Foucault envisioned or the space consumption of pleasures liberated from Sexpornography, merely lead to loneliness and one is tempted to claim that Houellebecq's post-human society [[frustration]]. Bruno ends up in a [[psychiatric]] asylum after confronting the meaninglessness of clones is the realization of permissive [[sexuality]] (the Foucauldian dream utterly depressive descriptions of the Selves who practice [[sexual]] orgies between forty-somethings are among the "use of pleasures." While this most excruciating readings in contemporary [[literature]]), while Michel invents a solution is : a new [[self]]-replicating gene for the fantasy at its purest, the deadlock to which it reacts is post-[[human]] desexualized entity. The novel ends with a real oneprophetic [[vision]]: in our postmodern "disenchanted" permissive world2040, the unconstrained sexuality is reduced humanity collectively decides to an apathetic participation replace itself with genetically modified asexual humanoids in collective orgies depicted in Les particules - [[order]] to avoid the constitutive impasse deadlock of the sexual relationship (Jacques Lacan's il n'y a pas de rapport sexuel) seems sexuality - these humanoids [[experience]] no passions proper, no intense self-assertion that can lead to reach here its devastating apexdestructive rage.

We all know of Alan Turing's famous Almost four decades ago, Michel [[Foucault]] dismissed "imitation gameman" which should serve as a [[figure]] in the test if a machine can think: we communicate with two computer interfacessand that is now [[being]] washed away, asking them any imaginable question; behind one introducing the (then) fashionable topic of the interfaces"[[death]] of man." Although Houellebecq [[stages]] this [[disappearance]] in much more naive literal [[terms]], there is as the replacement of humanity with a new post-human person typing the answers[[species]], while behind the other, it there is a machine. If, based on common denominator between the answers we get, we cannot tell two: the intelligent machine from the intelligent human, then, according to Turing, our failure proves that machines can thinkdisappearance of sexual [[difference]]. - What is a little bit less known is that in its first formulationIn his last works, Foucault envisioned the issue was not to distinguish human [[space]] of pleasures liberated from the machineSex, but man from woman. Why this strange displacement from sexual difference to the difference between human and machine? Was this due one is tempted to Turing[[claim]] that Houellebecq's simple eccentricity (recall his wellpost-known troubles because human [[society]] of his homosexuality)? According to some interpreters, clones is the point is to oppose realization of the two experiments: a successful imitation Foucauldian [[dream]] of a woman's responses by a man (or vice versa) would not prove anything, because the gender identity does not depend on Selves who [[practice]] the sequences "use of symbols, while a successful imitation of man by a machine would prove that pleasures." While this machine thinks, because "thinking" ultimately solution is the proper way of sequencing symbols... What if, however[[fantasy]] at its purest, the solution deadlock to this enigma which it reacts is much more simple and radical? What if sexual difference is not simply a biological fact[[real]] one: in our [[postmodern]] "disenchanted" permissive [[world]], but the Real unconstrained sexuality is reduced to an apathetic [[participation]] in collective orgies depicted in Les particules - the constitutive [[impasse]] of an antagonism that defines humanity, so that once the sexual difference is abolished, [[relationship]] (Jacques [[Lacan]]'s il n'y a human being effectively becomes indistinguishable from a machinepas de [[rapport sexuel]]) seems to reach here its devastating apex.

Perhaps the best way to specify this role We all [[know]] of sexual love is through the notion of reflexivity Alan Turing's famous "imitation [[game]]" which should serve as "the movement whereby that which has been used to generate [[test]] if a system is made[[machine]] can [[think]]: we [[communicate]] with two computer interfaces, through a changed perspective, to become part asking [[them]] any imaginable question; behind one of the system it generates."<ref>N. Katherine Haylesinterfaces, How We Became Posthuman, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press 1999, p. 8.</ref> This appearance of the generating movement within the generated system as there is a rule takes human person typing the form of its opposite; sayanswers, in while behind the later stage of [[other]], it is a revolutionary process when Revolution starts to devour its own childrenmachine. If, based on the political agent which effectively set in motion answers we get, we cannot tell the process is renegated into intelligent machine from the role of its main obstacleintelligent human, then, of the waverers or outright traitors who are not ready to follow the revolutionary logic according to its conclusion. Along the same linesTuring, is it not our failure proves that, once the sociomachines can think. -symbolic order What is a little bit less known is fully established, the very dimension which introduced the "transcendent" attitude that defines a human being, namely SEXUALITY, the uniquely human sexual passion, appears as in its very oppositefirst formulation, as the main OBSTACLE issue was not to the elevation of a distinguish human being to from the pure spiritualitymachine, as that which ties him/her down but man from [[woman]]. Why this strange [[displacement]] from [[sexual difference]] to the inertia of bodily existencedifference between human and machine? For Was this reason, the end due to Turing's simple eccentricity ([[recall]] his well-known troubles because of sexuality in the much celebrated "posthuman" self-cloning entity expected his [[homosexuality]])? According to emerge soonsome interpreters, far from opening up the way point is to pure spirituality, will simultaneously signal oppose the end two experiments: a successful imitation of what is traditionally designated as a woman's responses by a man (or vice versa) would not prove anything, because the uniquely human spiritual transcendence. All [[gender]] [[identity]] does not depend on the celebrating sequences of [[symbols]], while a successful imitation of the new man by a machine would prove that this machine thinks, because "enhanced[[thinking]]" possibilities ultimately is the proper way of sequencing symbols... What if, however, the solution to this enigma is much more simple and radical? What if sexual life that Virtual Reality offers cannot conceal difference is not simply a [[biological]] fact, but [[the fact Real]] of an [[antagonism]] thatdefines humanity, so that once cloning supplements sexual differenceis abolished, the game is overa human being effectively becomes indistinguishable from a machine.

And, incidentally, with all Perhaps the focus on best way to specify this [[role]] of sexual [[love]] is through the new experiences [[notion]] of pleasure reflexivity as "the movement whereby that lay ahead with which has been used to generate a [[system]] is made, through a changed perspective, to become part of the development system it generates."<ref>N. Katherine Hayles, How We Became Posthuman, Chicago: The [[University]] of Virtual RealityChicago Press 1999, direct neuronal implants, etcp. 8.</ref> This [[appearance]] of the generating movement within the generated system as a rule takes the [[form]] of its opposite; say, what about new "enhanced" possibilities in the later [[stage]] of TORTURE? Do biogenetics and Virtual Reality combined not open up new and unheard-a revolutionary [[process]] when [[Revolution]] starts to devour its own [[children]], the [[political]] [[agent]] which effectively set in motion the process is renegated into the role of horizons its main obstacle, of extending our ability the waverers or outright traitors who are not ready to endure pain (through widening our sensory capacity follow the revolutionary [[logic]] to sustain painits conclusion. Along the same lines, through inventing new forms of inflicting is it) not that, once the socio- perhaps[[symbolic]] order is fully established, the ultimate Sadean image on an very [[dimension]] which introduced the "undeadtranscendent" victim attitude that defines a human being, namely SEXUALITY, the uniquely human sexual [[passion]], appears as its very opposite, as the main OBSTACLE to the elevation of a human being to the torture who can sustain endless pain without having at hispure spirituality, as that which ties him/her disposal down to the escape into deathinertia of [[bodily]] [[existence]]? For this [[reason]], also waits the end of sexuality in the much celebrated "posthuman" self-cloning entity expected to become reality? Perhapsemerge soon, in a decade or twofar from opening up the way to pure spirituality, our most horrifying cases will simultaneously [[signal]] the end of torture (say, what they did to is traditionally designated as the uniquely human spiritual transcendence. All the Chief-celebrating of-Staff the new "enhanced" possibilities of sexual [[life]] that [[Virtual]] [[Reality]] offers cannot conceal the Dominican Army after the failed coup in which the dictator Trujillo was killed - sewing his eyes together so fact that he wasn't able to see his torturers, and then for four months slowly cutting off parts of his body in most painful waysonce cloning supplements sexual difference, like using clumsy scissors to detach his genitals) will appear as naive children's gamesthe game is over.

The paradox - orAnd, ratherincidentally, with all the antinomy - focus on the new experiences of [[pleasure]] that lay ahead with the cyberspace reason concerns precisely the fate [[development]] of the bodyVirtual Reality, direct neuronal implants, etc. Even advocates of cyberspace warn us that we should not totally forget our body, that we should maintain our anchoring in the what [[about]] new "real lifeenhanced" by returning, regularly, from possibilities of TORTURE? Do [[biogenetics]] and Virtual Reality combined not open up new and unheard-of horizons of extending our immersion in cyberspace ability to the intense experience of endure [[pain]] (through widening our bodysensory capacity to sustain pain, from sex to jogging. We will never turn ourselves into virtual entities freely floating from one to another virtual universe: our "real life" body and its mortality is the ultimate horizon through inventing new forms of our existenceinflicting it) - perhaps, the ultimate, innermost impossibility that underpins the immersion in all possible multiple virtual universes. Yet, at the same time, in cyberspace the body returns with a vengeance: in popular perception, Sadean [[image]] on an "cyberspace IS hardcore pornography,undead" i.e. hardcore pornography is perceived as the predominant use [[victim]] of cyberspace. The literal "enlightenment," the "lightness of being," the relief[[torture]] who can sustain endless pain without having at his/alleviation we feel when we freely float in cyberspace (or, even more, in Virtual Reality), is not her disposal the experience of being bodylessescape into death, but the experience of possessing another - aetheric, virtual, weightless - body, a body which does not confine us also waits to the inert materiality and finitude, an angelic spectral bodybecome reality? Perhaps, in a body which can be artificially recreated and manipulated. Cyberspace thus designates a turndecade or two, a kind our most horrifying cases of "negation of negationtorture (say," in what they did to the gradual progress towards the disembodying Chief-of our experience (first writing instead -Staff of the "living" speech, then press, then Dominican [[Army]] after the mass media, then radio, then TV): failed coup in cyberspace, we return to which the bodily immediacy, but dictator Trujillo was killed - sewing his eyes together so that he wasn't able to an uncannysee his torturers, virtual immediacy. In this sense, the claim that cyberspace contains a Gnostic dimension is fully justified: the and then for four months slowly cutting off parts of his [[body]] in most concise definition of Gnosticism is precisely that it is a kind of spiritualized materialism: its topic is not directly the higherpainful ways, purely notional, reality, but a "higher" BODILY reality, a proto-reality of shadowy ghosts and undead entitieslike using clumsy scissors to detach his genitals) will appear as naive children's [[games]].

This notion that we are entering a new era in which humanity will leave behind The [[paradox]] - or, rather, the [[antinomy]] - of the [[cyberspace]] reason concerns precisely the inertia fate of the material bodiesbody. Even advocates of cyberspace warn us that we should not totally forget our body, was nicely rendered by Konrad Lorenz's somewhat ambiguous remark that we ourselves (should maintain our anchoring in the "actually existingreal life" humanity) are by returning, regularly, from our immersion in cyberspace to the sought-after intense experience of our body, from sex to jogging. We will never turn ourselves into virtual entities freely [[floating]] from one to [[another]] virtual [[universe]]: our "missing linkreal life" between animal body and man. Of courseits [[mortality]] is the ultimate horizon of our existence, the first association ultimate, innermost [[impossibility]] that imposes itself here is underpins the immersion in all possible multiple virtual universes. Yet, at the notion that same [[time]], in cyberspace the body returns with a vengeance: in popular [[perception]], "actually existingcyberspace IS hardcore pornography," humanity still dwells in what Marx designated i.e. hardcore pornography is perceived as the predominant use of cyberspace. The literal "pre-history[[enlightenment]]," and that the true human history will begin with the advent "lightness of being," the Communist society; relief/alleviation we feel when we freely float in cyberspace (or, even more, in Nietzsche's termsVirtual Reality), that man is just not the experience of being bodyless, but the experience of possessing another - aetheric, virtual, weightless - body, a bridgebody which does not confine us to the inert materiality and [[finitude]], an angelic [[spectral]] body, a passage between animal body which can be artificially recreated and overmanmanipulated. What Lorenz Cyberspace thus designates a turn, a kind of "meant[[negation]] of negation," was undoubtedly situated along these linesin the gradual [[progress]] towards the disembodying of our experience (first [[writing]] instead of the "[[living]]" [[speech]], then press, then the mass [[media]], although with a more humanistic twistthen radio, then TV): humanity is still immature and barbarianin cyberspace, it did not yet reach we [[return]] to the full wisdombodily immediacy, but to an [[uncanny]], virtual immediacy. HoweverIn this [[sense]], an opposite reading also imposes itselfthe claim that cyberspace contains a Gnostic dimension is fully justified: the human being IS in most concise definition of Gnosticism is precisely that it is a kind of spiritualized [[materialism]]: its very essence topic is not directly the higher, purely notional, reality, but a "passagehigher" BODILY reality," the finite opens into an abyssa proto-reality of shadowy ghosts and undead entities.

The ongoing decoding This notion that we are entering a new era in which humanity will leave behind the inertia of the human body[[material]] bodies, the prospect of the formulation of each individualwas nicely rendered by Konrad Lorenz's genome, confronts us in a pressing way with the radical question of "what somewhat ambiguous remark that we are": am I that, ourselves (the code that can be compressed onto a single CD? Are we "nobody and nothing,actually existing" just an illusion of self-awareness whose only reality is the complex interacting network of neuronal and other links? The uncanny feeling generated by playing with toys like tamagochi concerns humanity) are the fact that we treat a virtual nonsought-entity as an entity: we act after "as if[[missing]] link" (we believe that) there is, behind the screen, a real Self, an between [[animal reacting to our signals, although we know well that there is nothing ]] and nobody "behind," just the digital circuitryman. HoweverOf course, what is even more disturbing is the implicit reflexive reversal of this insight: if there first [[association]] that imposes itself here is effectively no one out there, behind the screen, what if the same goes for myself? What if notion that the "I,actually existing" humanity still dwells in what [[Marx]] designated as " my selfpre-awareness[[history]], is also merely a superficial "screen" behind which there is only a "blind" complex neuronal circuit?<ref>It is, of course, and that the [[true]] human history will begin with the work of Daniel Dennett which popularized this version advent of the "selfless" mind - see Daniel C. Dennett[[Communist]] society; or, Consciousness Explainedin [[Nietzsche]]'s terms, New York: Littlethat man is just a bridge, Brown a passage between animal and Company 1991overman.</ref> OrWhat Lorenz "meant" was undoubtedly situated along these lines, to make the same point from although with a different perspectivemore humanistic twist: why are people so afraid of the air crash? It's humanity is still immature and barbarian, it did not yet reach the physical pain as such - what causes such horror are the two or three minutes while the plane is falling down and one is fully aware that one will die shortly[[full]] wisdom. Does the genome identification not transpose all of us into a similar situation? That is to sayHowever, an opposite [[reading]] also imposes itself: the uncanny aspect of the genome identification concerns the temporal gap which separates the knowledge about what causes a certain disease from the development of the technical means to intervene and prevent this disease from evolving - the period of time human being IS in which we shall know for sure that, say, we are about to get its very [[essence]] a dangerous cancer"passage, but will be unable to do anything to prevent it. And what about "objectively" reading our IQ or the genetic ability for other intellectual capacities? How will the awareness of this total self-objectivization affect our self-experience? The standard answer (the knowledge of our genome will enable us to intervene finite opens into our genome and change for the better our psychic and bodily properties) still begs the crucial question: if the self-objectivization is complete, who is the "I" who intervenes into "its own" genetic code in order to change it? Is this intervention itself not already objectivized in the totally scanned brain?an abyss.

The "closure" anticipated by ongoing decoding of the human body, the prospect of the total scanning formulation of each [[individual]]'s genome, confronts us in a pressing way with the human brain does not reside radical question of "what we are": am I that, the [[code]] that can be compressed onto a single CD? Are we "nobody and [[nothing]]," just an [[illusion]] of self-[[awareness]] whose only in reality is the full correlation between the scanned [[complex]] interacting network of neuronal activity in our brain and our subjective experience other [[links]]? The uncanny [[feeling]] generated by playing with toys like tamagochi concerns the fact that we treat a virtual non-entity as an entity: we act "as if" (so we believe that ) there is, behind the [[screen]], a scientist will be able to give real Self, an impulse animal reacting to our brain signals, although we know well that there is nothing and then predict to what subjective experience this impulsive will give rise)nobody "behind, but in " just the much digital circuitry. However, what is even more radical notion disturbing is the implicit reflexive [[reversal]] of bypassing the very subjective experiencethis insight: what will be possible to identify through scanning will be DIRECTLY our subjective experienceif there is effectively no one out there, so that behind the scientist will not even have to ask us screen, what we experience if the same goes for myself? What if the "I," my self- he will be able to READ IMMEDIATELY on his awareness, is also merely a superficial "screen what we experience. (There " behind which there is only a further proof "blind" complex neuronal circuit?<ref>It is, of course, the [[work]] of [[Daniel Dennett]] which points in popularized this version of the same direction: a couple of milliseconds before a human subject "freelyselfless" decides in [[mind]] - see Daniel C. Dennett, [[Consciousness]] Explained, New York: Little, Brown and Company 1991.</ref> Or, to make the same point from a situation different perspective: why are [[people]] so afraid of choice, scanners can detect the change in the brainair crash? It's chemical processes which indicates not the [[physical]] pain as such - what causes such [[horror]] are the two or [[three]] minutes while the plane is falling down and one is fully aware that one will die shortly. Does the decision was already taken - even when we make genome [[identification]] not transpose all of us into a free decision, our consciousness seems just to register an anterior chemical process... The psychoanalytic-Schellingian answer to it similar [[situation]]? That is to locate freedom (say, the uncanny aspect of choice) at the unconscious level: genome identification concerns the true acts of freedom are choices/decisions [[temporal]] gap which we make while unaware separates the [[knowledge]] about what causes a certain disease from the development of it the technical means to intervene and prevent this disease from evolving - we never decide (in the present tense); all period of time in which we shall know for sure that, say, we are about to get a suddendangerous cancer, we just take note of how we have already decidedbut will be unable to do anything to prevent it.) On And what about "objectively" reading our IQ or the genetic ability for other hand, one can argue that such a dystopian prospect involves [[intellectual]] capacities? How will the awareness of this [[total]] self-objectivization [[affect]] our self-experience? The standard answer (the loop knowledge of a petitio principiiour genome will enable us to intervene into our genome and [[change]] for the better our [[psychic]] and bodily properties) still begs the crucial question: it silently presupposes that if the same old Self which phenomenologically relies on self-objectivization is [[complete]], who is the gap between "myselfI" and the objects who intervenes into "out thereits own" will continue genetic code in order to be here after change it? Is this [[intervention]] itself not already objectivized in the completed self-objectivization.totally scanned brain?

The paradox, of course, is that this total self-objectivization overlaps with its opposite: what looms at the horizon of the "digital revolutionclosure" is nothing else than anticipated by the prospect that human beings will acquire of the capacity total scanning of what Kant and other German Idealists called "intellectual intuition /intellektuelle Anschauung/," the closure of human brain does not reside only in the full correlation between the gap scanned neuronal [[activity]] in our brain and our [[subjective]] experience (so that separates (passive) intuition a [[scientist]] will be able to give an impulse to our brain and (activethen predict to what subjective experience this impulsive will give rise) production, i.e. but in the intuition which immediately generates much more radical notion of bypassing the object it perceives - the capacity hitherto reserved for the infinite divine mind. On the one hand, it very subjective experience: what will be possible, to [[identify]] through neurological implantsscanning will be DIRECTLY our subjective experience, so that the scientist will not even have to ask us what we experience - he will be able to switch from our READ IMMEDIATELY on his screen what we experience. (There is a further proof which points in the same direction: a couple of milliseconds before a human [[subject]] "commonfreely" reality decides in a situation of [[choice]], scanners can detect the change in the brain's chemical [[processes]] which indicates that the decision was already taken - even when we make a free decision, our consciousness seems just to another computer[[register]] an anterior chemical process... The [[psychoanalytic]]-generated reality without all Schellingian answer to it is to locate [[freedom]] (of choice) at the [[unconscious]] level: the clumsy machinery true [[acts]] of freedom are choices/decisions which we make while unaware of today's Virtual Reality it - we never decide (in the awkward glasses[[present]] tense); all of a sudden, gloves..we just take note of how we have already decided.)On the other hand, since one can argue that such a dystopian prospect involves the signals loop of a petitio principii: it silently presupposes that the same old Self which phenomenologically relies on the gap between "myself" and the virtual reality [[objects]] "out there" will directly reach our brain, bypassing our sensory organs:continue to be here after the completed self-objectivization.

The paradox, of course, is that this total self-objectivization overlaps with its opposite: what looms at the horizon of the "Your neural implants digital revolution" is nothing else than the prospect that human beings will provide acquire the simulated sensory inputs capacity of what [[Kant]] and other [[German]] Idealists called "intellectual intuition /intellektuelle Anschauung/," the closure of the virtual environment - gap that separates ([[passive]]) intuition and your virtual body - directly in your brain([[active]]) production, i. /e.the intuition which immediately generates the [[object]] it perceives - the capacity hitherto reserved for the infinite divine mind../ A typical 'web site' On the one hand, it will be a perceived virtual environmentpossible, through neurological implants, with no external hardware required. You 'go thereto switch from our "common" reality to another computer-generated reality without all the clumsy machinery of today' by mentally selecting s Virtual Reality (the site and then entering that worldawkward glasses, gloves..."<ref>See Ray Kurzweil), The Age since the signals of Spiritual Machinesthe virtual reality will directly reach our brain, Londonbypassing our sensory organs: Phoenix 1999, p. 182.</ref>

On "Your neural implants will provide the other hand, there is the complementary notion simulated sensory inputs of the "Real Virtual Reality": through "nanobots" (billions of selfvirtual [[environment]] -organizing, intelligent micro-robots), it will be possible to recreate the three-dimensional image of different realities "out there" for our "real" senses to see and enter it (the soyour virtual body -called "Utility Fog")directly in your brain.<ref>Op/.cit., p. 183.</ref> SignificantlyA typical 'web site' will be a perceived virtual environment, these two opposite versions of the full virtualization of our experience of reality (direct neuronal implants versus the "Utility Fog") mirror the difference of subjective and objective: with the "Utility Fog," we still relate to the reality outside ourselves through our sensory experience, while the neuronal implants effectively reduce us to "brains in the vat," cutting us off from any direct perception of reality - in other words, in the first case, we "really" perceive a simulacrum of reality, while in the second case, perception itself if simulated through direct neuronal implantsno [[external]] hardware required. However, in both cases, we reach a kind of omnipotence, being able to change from one to another reality You 'go there' by mentally selecting the mere power of our thoughts - to transform our bodies, the bodies of our partners, etc.etcsite and then entering that world.: "With this technology<ref>See Ray Kurzweil, you will be able to have almost any kind The Age of experience with just about anyoneSpiritual Machines, real or imagined, at any time."<ref>Op.cit.[[London]]: Phoenix 1999, p. 188182.</ref> The question to be asked here is: will this still be experienced as "reality"? Is not, for a human being, "reality" ONTOLOGICALLY defined through the minimum of RESISTANCE - real is that which resists, that which is not totally malleable to the caprices of our imagination?

As to On the obvious counter-question: "Howeverother hand, everything cannot be virtualized - there still has to be is the one 'real reality,' that complementary notion of the digital or biogenetic circuitry itself which generates the very multiplicity of virtual universes!", the answer is provided by the prospect of Real Virtual Reality": through "downloadingnanobots" the entire human brain (once billions of self-organizing, intelligent micro-robots), it will be possible to scan recreate the three-dimensional image of different realities "out there" for our "real" senses to see and enter it completely(the so-called "Utility Fog") onto an electronic machine more efficient than our awkward brains. At this crucial moment<ref>Op.cit., p. 183.</ref> Significantly, a human being will change its ontological status these two opposite versions of the full virtualization of our experience of reality (direct neuronal implants versus the "from hardware to softwareUtility Fog") [[mirror]] the difference of subjective and [[objective]]: it will no longer be identified with (stuck the "Utility Fog," we still relate to) its material bearer (the brain reality [[outside]] ourselves through our sensory experience, while the neuronal implants effectively reduce us to "brains in the human body). The identity vat," cutting us off from any direct perception of our Self is reality - in other [[words]], in the first [[case]], we "really" perceive a certain neuronal pattern[[simulacrum]] of reality, while in the network of wavessecond case, whichperception itself if simulated through direct neuronal implants. However, in principleboth cases, can be transferred we reach a kind of omnipotence, being able to change from one to another material support. Of coursereality by the mere [[power]] of our [[thoughts]] - to transform our bodies, there is no "pure mindthe bodies of our partners," ietc.eetc. there always has : "With this [[technology]], you will be able to be some have almost any kind of embodiment - howeverexperience with just about anyone, real or imagined, if our mind is a software patternat any time."<ref>Op.cit., it should p. 188.</ref> The question to be in principle possible for it to shift from one to another material support (asked here is : will this not going on all the time at a different level: is the still be experienced as "stuffreality" our cells are made of ? Is not continuously changing?). The idea is that this cutting off of the umbilical cord that links us to a single body, this shift from having (and being stuck to) for a body to freely floating between different embodiments will mark the true birth of the human being, relegating "reality" ONTOLOGICALLY defined through the entire hitherto history minimum of humanity RESISTANCE - real is that which resists, that which is not totally malleable to the status caprices of a confused period of transition from the animal kingdom to the true kingdom of the mind.our [[imagination]]?

HereAs to the obvious counter-question: "However, however, philosophicaleverything cannot be virtualized -existential enigmas emerge againthere still has to be the one 'real reality, and we are back at the Leibnizian problem ' that of the identity of digital or biogenetic circuitry itself which generates the indiscernibles: if (the pattern very [[multiplicity]] of) my brain is loaded onto a different material supportvirtual universes!", which of the two minds answer is provided by the prospect of "myselfdownloading"? In what does the identity of entire human brain (once it will be possible to [[scan]] it completely) onto an electronic machine more efficient than our awkward brains. At this crucial [[moment]], a human being will change its [[ontological]] status "myselffrom hardware to software" consist, if : it resides neither in the will no longer be [[identified]] with (stuck to) its material support bearer (which changes all the time) nor brain in the formal pattern (which can be exactly replicatedhuman body)? - No wonder that Leibniz is one . The identity of the predominant philosophical references of the cyberspace theorists: what reverberates today our Self is not only his dream of a universal computing machinecertain neuronal pattern, but the uncanny resemblance between his ontological vision network of monadology and today's emerging cyberspace community in waves, which global harmony and solipsism strangely coexist. That is to say, does our immersion into cyberspace not go hand in hand with our reduction [[principle]], can be transferred from one to a Leibnizean monad whichanother material support. Of course, although there is no "without windowspure mind," that would directly open up i.e. there always has to external realitybe some kind of embodiment - however, if our mind is a software pattern, mirrors it should be in itself the entire universe? Are we principle possible for it to shift from one to another material support (is this not more and more monads with no direct windows onto reality, interacting alone with going on all the PC screen, encountering only time at a different level: is the virtual simulacra, and yet immersed more than ever into the global network, synchronously communicating with the entire globe"stuff" our cells are made of not continuously changing? ). The impasse which Leibniz tried to solve by way [[idea]] is that this cutting off of introducing the notion of the "preestablished harmony" umbilical cord that links us to a single body, this shift from having (and being stuck to) a body to freely floating between different embodiments will mark the monads, guaranteed by God Himself, true [[birth]] of the supreme, all-encompassing monadhuman being, repeats itself today, in relegating the guise entire hitherto history of humanity to the problem status of communication: how does each a confused period of us know that s/he is in touch with transition from the [[animal kingdom]] to the "real other" behind true kingdom of the screen, not only with spectral simulacra?mind.

More radically evenHere, what about the obvious Heideggerian counterhowever, [[philosophical]]-thesis that existential enigmas emerge again, and we are back at the notion Leibnizian problem of the "brain in identity of the vat" on which this entire scenario relies, involves an ontological mistakeindiscernibles: what accounts for if (the specific human dimension is not a property or pattern of the ) my brainis loaded onto a different material support, but which of the way a human being two minds is situated in his/her world and ex-statically relates to "myself"? In what does the things identity of "myself" consist, if it resides neither in it; language is not the relationship between an object material support (wordwhich changes all the time) and another object nor in the [[formal]] pattern (thing or thoughtwhich can be exactly replicated) in ? - No wonder that Leibniz is one of the predominant philosophical references of the worldcyberspace theorists: what reverberates today is not only his dream of a [[universal]] computing machine, but the site uncanny resemblance between his ontological vision of the historically determinate disclosure of the world-horizon as suchmonadology and today's emerging cyberspace [[community]] in which [[global]] [[harmony]] and [[solipsism]] strangely coexist... To thisThat is to say, one is tempted does our immersion into cyberspace not go hand in hand with our reduction to give a cynical outright answer: OKLeibnizean monad which, although "without windows" that would directly open up to [[external reality]], so whatmirrors in itself the entire universe? With Are we not more and more monads with no direct windows onto reality, interacting alone with the immersion PC screen, encountering only the virtual simulacra, and yet immersed more than ever into Virtual Realitythe global network, we will effectively be deprived synchronously [[communicating]] with the entire globe? The impasse which Leibniz tried to solve by way of introducing the notion of the ex-static being"preestablished harmony" between the monads, guaranteed by God Himself, the supreme, all-encompassing monad, repeats itself today, in-the-world guise of the problem of [[communication]]: how does each of us know that pertains to s/he is in touch with the "real other" behind the human finitude - but what if this loss will open up to us anotherscreen, unheard-of, dimension of spiritualitynot only with spectral simulacra?

Does, thenMore radically even, what about the obvious [[Heideggerian]] counter-[[thesis]] that the full formulation notion of the genome effectively foreclose subjectivity and/or sexual difference? When, on June 26 2000, "brain in the completion of a vat"working draft" of the human genome was publicly announced, the wave of commentaries about the ethical, medical, etc. consequences of on which this breakthrough rendered manifest the first paradox of genomeentire scenario relies, involves an ontological mistake: what accounts for the immediate identity specific human dimension is not a property or pattern of the opposite attitudes: on the one handbrain, but the idea is that we can now formulate the very positive identity of way a human being, what s/he "objectively is," what predetermines situated in his/her development; on the other hand, knowing the complete genome world and ex- statically relates to the "instruction book for human life," as things in it ; [[language]] is usually referred to - opens up not the way for the technological manipulation, enabling us to "reprogram" our relationship between an object ([[word]]) and another object ([[thing]] or[[thought]]) in the world, ratherbut the site of the historically determinate disclosure of the world-horizon as such... To this, others's) bodily and psychic features. This new situation seems one is tempted to signal give a cynical outright answer: OK, so what? With the end immersion into Virtual Reality, we will effectively be deprived of the whole series of traditional notions: theological creationism (comparing human with animal genomes makes clear ex-static being-in-the-world that pertains to the human beings evolved from animals finitude - we share more than 99 percent of our genome with the chimpanzee)but what if this [[loss]] will open up to us another, sexual reproduction (rendered superfluous by the prospect unheard-of cloning), and, ultimately, psychology or psychoanalysis - does genome not realize Freud's old dream dimension of translating psychic processes into objective chemical processesspirituality?

Does, then, the full formulation of the genome effectively [[foreclose]] [[subjectivity]] and/or sexual difference? When, on June 26 2000, the completion of a "[[working]] draft" of the human genome was publicly announced, the wave of commentaries about the [[ethical]], medical, etc. consequences of this breakthrough rendered [[manifest]] the first paradox of genome, the immediate [[identity of the opposite]] attitudes: on the one hand, the idea is that we can now formulate the very positive identity of a human being, what s/he "objectively is," what predetermines his/her development; on the other hand, [[knowing]] the complete genome - the "instruction book for human life," as it is usually referred to - opens up the way for the technological manipulation, enabling us to "reprogram" our (or, rather, [[others]]'s) bodily and psychic features. This new situation seems to signal the end of the [[whole]] series of traditional notions: theological [[creationism]] (comparing human with animal genomes makes clear that human beings evolved from animals - we share more than 99 percent of our genome with the chimpanzee), sexual reproduction (rendered superfluous by the prospect of cloning), and, ultimately, [[psychology]] or [[psychoanalysis]] - does genome not realize [[Freud]]'s old dream of translating psychic processes into objective chemical processes? Here, however, one should be attentive to the formulation which repeatedly occurs in most of the reactions to the identification of the genome: "The old adage that every disease with the exception of [[trauma ]] has a genetic component is really going to be true."<ref>Maimon Cohen, Director of the Harvey Institute for Human Genetics at the Greater Baltimore Medical Center, quoted in International Herald Tribune, June 27, 2000, p. 8.</ref> Although this [[statement ]] is meant as the assertion of a triumph, one should nonetheless focus on the exception that it concedes, the impact of a trauma. How serious and extensive is this limitation? The first thing to bear in mind here is that "trauma" is NOT simply a shorthand term for the unpredictable chaotic wealth of environment influences, so that we are lead to the standard proposition according to which the identity of a human being results from the interaction between his/her genetic inheritance and the influence of his/her environment ("[[nature ]] versus nurture"). It is also not sufficient to replace this standard proposition with the more refined notion of the "embodied mind" developed by [[Francisco Varela]]:<ref>See Francisco Varela, Evan Thompson, and Eleanor Rosch, The Embodied Mind, Cambridge: MIT Press 1993.</ref> a human being is not just the outcome of the interaction between genes and environment as the two opposed entities; s/he is rather the engaged embodied agent who, instead of "relating" to his/her environs, mediates-creates his/her [[life-world ]] - a bird lives in a different environment than a fish or a man... However, "trauma" designates a shocking [[encounter ]] which, precisely, DISTURBS this immersion into one's life-world, a violent intrusion of something which doesn't fit it. Of course, animals can also experience [[traumatic ]] ruptures: say, is the ants' universe not thrown off the rails when a human intervention totally subverts their environs? However, the difference between animals and men is crucial here: for animals, such traumatic ruptures are the exception, they are experienced as a catastrophe which ruins their way of life; for [[humans]], on the contrary, the [[traumatic encounter ]] is a universal condition, the intrusion which sets in motion the process of "becoming human." Man is not simply overwhelmed by the impact of the traumatic encounter - as [[Hegel ]] put it, s/he is able to "tarry with the [[negative]]," to counteract its destabilizing impact by spinning out intricate symbolic cobwebs. This is the lesson of both psychoanalysis and the [[Jewish]]-[[Christian ]] [[tradition]]: the specific human vocation does not rely on the development of man's inherent potentials (on the awakening of the dormant spiritual forces OR of some genetic program); it is triggered by an external traumatic encounter, by the encounter of the Other's [[desire ]] in its impenetrability. In other words (and pace Steve Pinker<ref>See Steven Pinker, The Language [[Instinct]], New York: Harper Books 1995.</ref>), there is no inborn "language instinct": there are, of course, genetic [[conditions ]] that have to be met if a living being is to be able to [[speak]]; however, one actually starts to speak, one enters [[the symbolic ]] universe, only in reacting to a traumatic jolt - and the mode of this reacting, i.e. the fact that, in order to cope with a trauma, we [[symbolize]], is NOT "in our genes."