Does Jesus actually say anything like "there is no 'I' without desire, and no desire without the 'I'"? (248) It seems Hawk is referring to self-identity ("I"); I'm not sure of the link between her comment and Jesus, but surely it can be unpacked at length (by someone, but perhaps not us).
Does Echo transcend desires? (249) What about her relationship with Ballard? Can the "I" function at all without some sort of desire at work?
The last part of the paragraph at the top of p.250 is important. I like the sentiment, but I'm not sure I accept it.
No longer caught in the subject – object dyad, Ech enacted a truly queer relationship by allowing deeper penetration – unshackled to sexual reproduction or hegemonic heteronormativity – than is possible for any human subject. Her post humanity allowed for, and, indeed, necessitated, a rearticulation of the fulfillment of desire. She was able to transcend desires as well as the physical and mortal constraints of humanity by integrating the man she loved into her very self.Apple is posthuman, not only post-PC. Are our very being mapped onto social networks? I suppose.
These last two articles have been refreshingly complex and clever.