Yup, the pants with the removable legs. The lightweight ones usually have cuff zips too so you don't even have to take off your boots to reconfigure your pants.
So I skimmed the first part of the essay in question (really not the best way to deal with the text, I know - apologies), because I'm supposed to be at work or something and I'm bad at that, and got an even stronger impression of Lyotard's anthropocentrism. My reading is that he is intentionally conflating "thought" and "human thought", and the subject of the essay is specifically whether or not human thought can exist outside the context of a human body. In that sense I think there's something there - namely that thought is an embodied process that will change as the body which is considered 'self' changes, and without a sufficiently human body (or a sufficiently detailed simulacra of a human body) it's unlikely that "human thought" (for sufficiently narrow definitions of "human") would happen. What I didn't read or didn't catch was whether or not Lyotard is also stating that all thought (or all worthwhile thought) is human thought; that's where my serious disagreement would start.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
regna
(no subject)
Date: 2013-02-12 07:16 pm (UTC)So I skimmed the first part of the essay in question (really not the best way to deal with the text, I know - apologies), because I'm supposed to be at work or something and I'm bad at that, and got an even stronger impression of Lyotard's anthropocentrism. My reading is that he is intentionally conflating "thought" and "human thought", and the subject of the essay is specifically whether or not human thought can exist outside the context of a human body. In that sense I think there's something there - namely that thought is an embodied process that will change as the body which is considered 'self' changes, and without a sufficiently human body (or a sufficiently detailed simulacra of a human body) it's unlikely that "human thought" (for sufficiently narrow definitions of "human") would happen. What I didn't read or didn't catch was whether or not Lyotard is also stating that all thought (or all worthwhile thought) is human thought; that's where my serious disagreement would start.