Week 7 Question 2: Cyborg Manifesto

This article was very in depth though I agree with most of my peers that her thoughts could have been summed up in a few pages if she stopped talking or wasting her thoughts on negativity. She seemed to be very bitter/angry towards the traditional ways of dualism and the "natural ways", and was hoping to use propaganda to change the status quo. The three things that stood out to me most were:

1) Ideas of the Cyborg

2) Rejections of real or Natural Things

3) Myth and Tool

Cyborg (from what I understood) was a combination of nature and technology, man and machine that moves beyond limitations of gender, traditions, and etc. She is against the belief of chemistry and forces and believes we can move about in a better unrestricted way individually first, and then together as a whole.

She seemed to reject natural or things that were "so-called" real because she does not believe in it. For example she talked about how cyborgs wold not recognize The Garden of Eden "it is not made of mud and cannot dream of returning to dust". She goes against nature and history and thinks we have to power to change the status quo.

As far as myth and tool is concerned she explains them by saying things we imagine or predict in the future are myths and things we have in the present are tools. When talking about not being able to communicate across the world face-to-face, I don't think she was saying it was not going to be a possibility I just think she was against it and more for literally face-to-face communication.

I tried to understand her points as best as possible and overall this article had me thinking about how the world would be if things were the way she perceived or believed they could be.