Comments on: Posthuman Pedagogy http://edc11.education.ed.ac.uk/kevinh/2011/12/08/posthuman-pedagogy/ part of the MSc in E-learning at the University of Edinburgh Fri, 09 Dec 2011 12:41:34 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.1 By: Jeremy Keith Knox http://edc11.education.ed.ac.uk/kevinh/2011/12/08/posthuman-pedagogy/#comment-258 Jeremy Keith Knox Fri, 09 Dec 2011 12:41:34 +0000 http://edc11.education.ed.ac.uk/kevinh/?p=432#comment-258 You highlight some of the significant issues that posthumanism raises for education here Kevin, and some really well chosen video clips. 'First we must agree on what the definition of a post-human should be'. I like part of what you imply in this point, but not sure that we need to *agree*. For me, agreement seems to imply that the posthuman should be pinned down, quantified, rendered ostensible, made generalisable, and I'm not sure that kind of tactic embraces the mutability and flexibility of the theory. Where assumptions about the rational and bounded human being are put into question, the posthuman seems to become an act of definition, but definition in the sense of a contextual and temporal specification. Posthumanism often embraces the idea that the human is performed, in a particular place and in a particular time, rather than being comprised of pre-existing stable foundations. What I mean here is that we might be able to define the posthuman in practice, but not in principle. *Agreeing* on a universal definition for posthumanism would seems to create the very foundational assumptions that the theory attempts to destabalise in humanism. If we consider the (post)human to be something that is persistently created through action and performance, it can have no foundation. Furthermore, the act of definition becomes a constant, integral process. The posthuman *is* the definition. We might say that the posthuman is 'unknowable' in principle, but 'knowlable' in practice. In this sense, I think your post highlights some fascinating ways in which the human (and hence the nature of knowledge) is culturally defined. It is interesting how knowledge is portrayed as quite alien and dangerous in these clips. In The Matrix, the knowledge associated with flying the helicopter is not only disembodied but transmitted from 'another world'. The other clips seem to reveal a fear of knowledge, is if it is something that can invade the 'mind'. Knowledge is viewed with great potential, but also as a significant danger, a view which appears to situate 'knowledge' as a kind of separate substance, upon which the superior 'rational' and 'moralistic' faculties of the mind can act. Dualisms abound... You highlight some of the significant issues that posthumanism raises for education here Kevin, and some really well chosen video clips.

‘First we must agree on what the definition of a post-human should be’.

I like part of what you imply in this point, but not sure that we need to *agree*. For me, agreement seems to imply that the posthuman should be pinned down, quantified, rendered ostensible, made generalisable, and I’m not sure that kind of tactic embraces the mutability and flexibility of the theory. Where assumptions about the rational and bounded human being are put into question, the posthuman seems to become an act of definition, but definition in the sense of a contextual and temporal specification. Posthumanism often embraces the idea that the human is performed, in a particular place and in a particular time, rather than being comprised of pre-existing stable foundations. What I mean here is that we might be able to define the posthuman in practice, but not in principle. *Agreeing* on a universal definition for posthumanism would seems to create the very foundational assumptions that the theory attempts to destabalise in humanism.

If we consider the (post)human to be something that is persistently created through action and performance, it can have no foundation. Furthermore, the act of definition becomes a constant, integral process. The posthuman *is* the definition. We might say that the posthuman is ‘unknowable’ in principle, but ‘knowlable’ in practice.

In this sense, I think your post highlights some fascinating ways in which the human (and hence the nature of knowledge) is culturally defined. It is interesting how knowledge is portrayed as quite alien and dangerous in these clips. In The Matrix, the knowledge associated with flying the helicopter is not only disembodied but transmitted from ‘another world’. The other clips seem to reveal a fear of knowledge, is if it is something that can invade the ‘mind’. Knowledge is viewed with great potential, but also as a significant danger, a view which appears to situate ‘knowledge’ as a kind of separate substance, upon which the superior ‘rational’ and ‘moralistic’ faculties of the mind can act. Dualisms abound…

]]>