I’m struggling to find a position on Edwards Posthumanism relationship with Life Long Learning. If I see Posthumanism as a critique of humanism (in all its colours), what specific relation has Posthumanism with Life Long Learning? Don’t we need to bottom Posthumanism in relation to learning in general first? Or would we better identify Edwards Posthumanism / Life Long Learning debate, as an individuals reflexive life long relationship with matter.

Matter from Meaning / Form and Function – it’s not possible to separate Form and Function, but it is possible to play with that relationship (as may artists do), this is a basis of critical design. I’m beginning to think it’s not possible to separate matter from meaning – but is possible to play with that relationship. In that case reflexivity must be a key element, a bidirectional relationship with matter that becomes more commonplace – matter being a facilitator of experience (including learning) – now that relates and extends BabelFish in that I now have permission (due to Edwards) to play / manipulate relationships that connect matter with meaning. That now begs the question, what are the connectors? That jumps back to spacial mobility’s and semiotics (in previous posts), and my posts that have relation to Hayles.

“Distinction made by Latour between matters of fact/objects and matters of concern/things”

(Edwards, 2010, The end of lifelong learning)

This is a problematic (and/or uncomfortable) paper…

Surely “a thing, a gathering around a matter of concern” (Edwards, 2010) inherently produces ‘concern’? Asking the question, or am I under-thinking this? Is Edwards only concern, is that Posthuman inherently (for the time being) separates meaning from matter, because Posthuman is incapable of concern, object based – and being related to degrees of virtuality. Virtuality being the descriptor of the lost body of information (Hayles). Then asking us to consider the impact of this debate on Life-long learning? Edwards argument set in this context is not new, but is simply wrapped in new clothes, that being the element of concern. What has concern got to with life long learning debate? Concern being in relation to doubt.

(one argument) I understand a separation of ‘Edwards’ subjects and objects, but am struggling with that concept in relation to learning. If Edwards is considering Life-Long Learning as an educational ‘policy’ then I agree. Or, maybe one day, knowledge will be able to be imparted without cognition. But until that day the act of ‘learning’ will require understanding, therefore teaching (imparting) of knowledge. If object driven or subject driven, teaching and learning will still be valid, but would need more sophisticated methods of assessment.

(another argument) So, the post-human condition does away with ‘human’ altogether. No need to have human subjects, only objects. This argument must therefore do away with ‘understanding’, unless understanding (learning) is immediate, but then why call it understanding (learning)? This argument must make the assumption that posthuman (cognosphere) is all knowing (God head), and has developed to an extent that objects are self learning/understanding. What then do we humans do? Go on holiday? Ho no, I can’t go to Italy and learn about renaissance art anymore!!!!!

(yet another argument) Problem solving (as opposed to learning?) – learning in the context of being taught outside of experiential learning? Creating new knowledge? “How to live with doubt?”(Mol, 2002: 165, emphasis in original). This argument leans towards studio based practice in Art and Design (been around since the dawn of time). Tim Hartford extends this concept in the God Complex >> (Tim Hartford, ted.com). But then how does this fit Posthuman?