[...] men looking at the elephant='lgc'>]
="prgrph">-="trms">situatedness is ="trms">different than ‘="trms">positionality’='lgc'>: a way of ="trms">systematic error correction
="prgrph">-(resolving) ="trms">specificity of vision ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> ="trms">scientific objectivity (is achievable)
="prgrph">-="ppl">="ppl">Haraway expresses her informed dissatisfaction with (the ="trms">="trms"nttrm="metaph,metamorph,metabol,metal">metaphysical substrate that supports) ‘="trms">social constrctivism’ and ‘traditional realism’ ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> re="trms">presentationa="trms"nttrm="listen,alist,ilist,llist,olist,ylist,ulist">list belief in the power of the words to mirror preexisting ="trms">phenomena. they both believe that ="trms">scientific knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge (in its re="trms">presentational formats='lgc'>: theoretical concepts, graphs, particle tracks, photographic images, etc.) mediates our access to the ="trms">material ="trms">world, whether it re="trms">presents “="trms">nature” or “objects” of ="trms">science both groups are subscribed to re="trms">presentationalism.
focus on the ="trms">nature and production of ="trms">scientific knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge ='lgc'>--(shift to ="trms">science studies)='lgc'>='lgc'>--> dynamics of the actual practice of ="trms">science ='lgc'>}='lgc'>='lgc'>--> on ongoing pattern of ="trms">situated activity

="prgrph">-(dis="trms">embodied ="trms">scietific) objectivity='lgc'>: that only certain people are allowed to have no body (Gender, race, etc.) and that high ="trms">science in practice is not acting on text="trms">book objectivity at all.

absent referents, deferred signifieds, split subjects, and the endless play of signifier

="ppl">="ppl">Haraway is feeling nervous with two views on objectivity='lgc'>:
(1)the ‘="trms">social constructionist’ view on this='lgc'>: getting to know the ="trms">world ‘effectively’ by practicing the ="trms">sciences ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge is knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge-game (on an agonistic power field) ='lgc'>='lgc'>==> ="trms">science is ="trms">rhetoric ='lgc'>: artifacts and facts are parts of the powerful art of ="trms">rhetoric ='lgc'>='lgc'>~=  practice is persuasion. ='lgc'>{this view will use the nasty tools of ="trms">semiology and deconstruction to insist on the ="trms">rhetorical ="trms">nature of truth.='lgc'>} ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> ="ppl">="ppl">Haraway calls this ‘The imagery of force fields’ (also an imagery of high-tech military fields and of automated academic battlefields) ='lgc'>{will to power='lgc'>} (for ="frds scrmbld">Luiza)
="trms">epistemological electroshock therapy
(feminists protecting their) sense of collective ="trms">historical subjectivity and ="trms">agency and our “="trms">embodied” accounts of the truth ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> these are just excuse not to learn
(2)Humanistic ="ppl">Marxism (structuring theory about the domination of ="trms">nature in the self-construction of man) (='lgc'>[young ="ppl">Marx, influenced by ="ppl">Feuerbach ='lgc'>=/= ="ppl">Hegelian idealism, saying that:='lgc'>] man's essential ="trms">nature is that of a free producer, freely reproducing their own conditions of life ='lgc'>[='lgc'>--however='lgc'>='lgc'>--> under capitalism individuals are alienated from their productive activity, etc.='lgc'>])

="large lg2" stl="font-size:112%"> ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> “chance for life”

="trms">science='lgc'>: Global ="trms">System, universal knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> ="trms">translation, convertibility, mobility
of meanings, and universality

money in capitalism ='lgc'>='lgc'>~= reductionism in ="trms">science

...when we are talking about genes, ="trms">social classes, elementary particles, genders, races, or texts

='strcls'>*vision='lgc'>: a sensory ="trms">system that has been used leap out of the marked body ='lgc'>='lgc'>==> a gaze from nowhere
="prgrph">-“Vision is always a ="trms">question of the power to see='lgc'>--and perhaps of the violence implicit in our visualizing practices”
="prgrph">-also, the visual ="trms">="trms"nttrm="metaph,metamorph,metabol,metal">metaphor allows one to go beyond fixed appearances, which are only the end products. The ="trms">="trms"nttrm="metaph,metamorph,metabol,metal">metaphor invites us to investigate the varied ="trms">apparatuses of visual production (in="trms"nttrm="cluster,club">cluding='lgc'>: the prosthetic ="trms">technologies ="trms">interfaced with our biological eyes and brains.)

unmarked body='lgc'>: the power to see and not be seen
objectivity in ="trms">scientific and ="trms">technological, late-industrial, militarized, racist, and male-dominant ="trms">societies

="large lg22" stl="font-size:125%"> (she asks for='lgc'>:)
“So, I think my problem, and “our” problem, is how to have ="trms">simultaneously an account of radical ="trms">historical ="trms">contingency for all knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge claims and knowing subjects, a critical practice for recognizing our own “="trms">semiotic ="trms">technologies” for making meanings, and a no-nonsense commitment to faithful accounts of a “real” ="trms">world, one that can be partially shared and that is friendly to earthwide projects of ="trms">finite freedom, adequate ="trms">material abundance, modest meaning in suffering, and limited happiness.”

="ppl">="ppl">Haraway asks for an ="trms">embodied objectivity that is able of accommodating ='strcls'>*paradoxes='strcls'>* ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> ‘="trms">situated knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edges’
="prgrph">-what does she mean when she says “All components of the desire are paradoxical and d="trms"nttrm="danger,stranger">angerous, and their combination is both contradictory and necessary.”

(="trms">instruments of visualization in multinationa="trms"nttrm="listen,alist,ilist,llist,olist,ylist,ulist">list, post="trms">modernist culture='lgc'>:) dis="trms">embodiment ='lgc'>: to distance to know
the visualizing ="trms">technologies (='lgc'>='lgc'>--> my amazon project)

a ="trms">perverse vision that has produced ‘="trms">techno-="trms">monsters’ (what does she mean by that='qstn'>?)
='lgc'>='lgc'>--> second birthing='qstn'>? transcendence='qstn'>?
='lgc'>[the frankenstein's ="trms">techno-="trms">monsters, is modeled after who='qstn'>? and who is modeled after it='qstn'>? wondrously, murderously walking around...='lgc'>]
(‘second-birthing’='lgc'>: one of the deadly ="trms">stories of killing='lgc'>: in the first-birthing we have merely birth to the earthly soil from the woman, and then the achievement of the tragically self-realized purpose of tragic consiousness, concretized and distilled by ="ppl">Sartre) “dire myths of self-birthing”... ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> we must resist the ="trms">stories of guilt laden knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge and consciousness

unrestricted vision
="trms">presented as utterly transparent

='strcls'>***particularity and ="trms">embodiment (of all vision) ='lgc'>[not necessarily organic='lgc'>]
usable and not innocent

“We need to learn in our bodies, endowed with primate color and stereoscopic vision, how to attach the objective to our theoretical and political scanners in order to name where we are and are not, in dimensions of mental and physical space we hardly know how to name.”

‘partial perspective’ (what does she mean='qstn'>?)
='lgc'>='lgc'>==> become answerable for what we learn how to see. (Helen ="ppl">Verran='lgc'>: accountability; ="ppl">Isabelle ="ppl">="ppl">Stengers='lgc'>: milieu thinking; ="ppl">="ppl">Latour='lgc'>: ground;)
(partial way of organizing ="trms">world)
unlocatable ='lgc'>=='qstn'>? ir="trms">responsible (knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge claims)
partial ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> possibility of webs of connections='lgc'>: solidarity in politics and shared conversations in ="trms">epistemology
="prgrph">-to un="trms">fold the problem of relativism='lgc'>: ‘the elephant parable’ promisses seeing equally and fully. “equality” of ="trms">positioning='lgc'>: relativism (another “god trick”) (!='lgc'>=/= single-vision, totalization) ='lgc'>=/= partial locatable='lgc'>] ='lgc'>[mythic cartoon of p="trms"nttrm="failure,blur,plur,lurk,tallur,slur">luralism='lgc'>] ='lgc'>[myth of exact knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edges, dream of perfectly known, and politics of closure='lgc'>] ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> ="trms">positioning is at stake here

“all eyes, in="trms"nttrm="cluster,club">cluding our own organic ones, are active perceptual ="trms">systems, building on ="trms">translations and ="trms">specific ways of seeing”

how to see ‘faithfully’... (what does she mean by that='qstn'>?)

appropriating the vision of the less powerful='lgc'>:
to see from the peripheries
to see from the depths

...this not unproblemat (why she uses double negation so often='qstn'>?)

“But how to see from below is a problem requiring at least as much ="trms">skill with bodies and ="trms">language, with the mediations of vision, as the ‘highest’ ="trms">techno="trms">scientific visualizations.”

“="trms">Science has been utopian and visionary from the start; that is one reason “we” need it.” (what does she mean='qstn'>?)
(“utopian,” “visionary,” other old ="trms">="trms"nttrm="metaph,metamorph,metabol,metal">metaphors in ="trms">science)

“Passionate detachment” requires more than ‘acknowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edged and self-critical’ partiality. (being acknowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edged and self-critical is not enough!!! how deos she mean='qstn'>?)
="prgrph">-‘perspective’ can never be known in advance ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge potent for constructing ="trms">worlds less organized by axes/axis of domination
="prgrph">-One cannot “be” either a cell or molecule='lgc'>--or a woman, colonized person, laborer, and so on. ‘passionate detachment’ is about the impossibility of entertaining innocent “identity” politics ='lgc'>: seeing from their perspective in order to see well.
="prgrph">-problem with “="trms">positionality”='lgc'>: ='lgc'>{testimony from the ="trms">position of ‘oneself'='lgc'>} We are not immediately ="trms">present to ourselves and the self is assumed finished and whole simply there and o="trms"nttrm="righ,rigo,riga,rigi,trig,rign">riginal and its (grounding) knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge is organized around the imagery of vision ='lgc'>--='not'>✕='lgc'>='lgc'>--> Self-knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge requires a ="trms">semiotic-="trms">material ="trms">technology to link meanings and bodies. ='strcls'>***Self-identity is a bad visual ="trms">system='strcls'>*** ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> ‘="trms">positionality’ (meaning='lgc'>: ‘acknowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edged and self-critical’ partiality) ='lgc'>[at best showing in which ways one is not unmarked='lgc'>] is therefore insufficient. ='lgc'>{Identity, in="trms"nttrm="cluster,club">cluding self-identity, does not produce ="trms">science!='lgc'>}
="prgrph">-instead we need a ='strcls'>*split and contradictory self='strcls'>* (one who can ="trms">interrogate ="trms">positionings and be accountable) ='lgc'>[='lgc'>='lgc'>~='lgc'>~/='qstn'>?-> shath شطح (='lgc'>=/= shar’ شرع, or even sharh شرح='qstn'>?), shathiat (شطحیات) in Tasavof (تصوف), rend رند, rendane رندانه='lgc'>]
="prgrph">-so, instead of “being” she proposes “splitting”='lgc'>: heterogeneous multiplicities that are ="trms">simultaneously salient and incapable of being squashed into iso="trms">morphic slots or cumulative ="trms"nttrm="listen,alist,ilist,llist,olist,ylist,ulist">lists. ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> The knowing self is partial in all its guises, never finished, never whole, stitched together imperfectly ='lgc'>[that is what she means by ‘split'='lgc'>] ='lgc'>='lgc'>==>  join with another (without claiming to ‘be’ another) ='lgc'>{if i am allowed i can map ="ppl">="ppl">Haraway's “partiality” ="trms">onto ="ppl">Deleuze's “="trms">schizophrenia” ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> ="trms">Greek for “split brain”  (Jonathan ="ppl">="ppl">Crary, Suspensions of Perception, p.38) ="trms">According to Beuler, “The selectivity which normal attention exercises among the sensory impressions can be reduced to zero, so that almost anything is recorded that reaches the senses.” One reason for the admiration which ="ppl">Deleuze and ="ppl">Guattari professed for the ="trms">schizophrenic must lie in this complete lack of inhibition (khod-dari خودداری).='lgc'>} (a confusion of voice and sight, rather than clear and distinct ideas) (='lgc'>[to discriminate message types:='lgc'>] ='strcls'>*to confuse ="trms">literal and ="trms">="trms"nttrm="metaph,metamorph,metabol,metal">metaphorical='strcls'>*, the ="trms">schizophrenic either does not know his ="trms">responses are ="trms">="trms"nttrm="metaph,metamorph,metabol,metal">metaphorical or cannot say so ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> the breakdown of his ="trms"nttrm="metaph,metamorph,metabol,metal">meta="trms">communicative ="trms">system ='lgc'>: does not know what kind of message a message is ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> the ="trms">schizophrenic looks for hidden meanings everywhere (assuming everything is ="trms">="trms"nttrm="metaph,metamorph,metabol,metal">metaphorical) or tend to accept every message as ="trms">literal) (="ppl">Lacan='lgc'>: ="trms">schizophrenia='lgc'>: breakdown in the signifying chain of ="trms">language ='lgc'>='lgc'>==> experience of pure ="trms">material signifiers ='lgc'>[='lgc'><='lgc'>-- personal identity is the effect of the temporal unification of ="trms">past and future with one's ="trms">present, and that such an active temporal unification is itself a function of ="trms">language.='lgc'>])

subjectivity is multidimensional ='lgc'>='lgc'>==> vision is multidimensional

(an ="trms">instruments of vision='lgc'>:) optics ='lgc'>: politics of ="trms">positioning ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> one ='thdf'>example of optical illusion='lgc'>: rationality (projected from nowhere comprehensivel)

(some perspective are more guilty ='lgc'>: master point of view)
No one ever accused the God of monotheism of objectivity, only of in="trms">difference. The god trick is self-identical, and we have mistaken that for creativity and knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge, omni="trms">science even. (self-identical ='lgc'>[having self identity='lgc'>] ='lgc'>=/=! creativity/knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge)

="trms">Technology='lgc'>: ="trms">skilled practices. (How to see='qstn'>? Where to see from='qstn'>? and so on.)

='at'>@="frds scrmbld">Sana, ‘observation’ and ‘="trms">technologies of ="trms">positioning’

how to see='qstn'>?
the ="trms">science ="trms">question in military
the ="trms">science ="trms">question in colonialism
the ="trms">science ="trms">question in capitalism
the ="trms">science ="trms">question in feminism
...

master theory ='lgc'>=/= webbed accounts
(what does she mean when she dichotomises theory and account='qstn'>?)
instead of (creating and mastering) ‘theory’ she proposes webbing ‘accounts’='strcls'>***
="prgrph">-‘webs’ can have the property of being ="trms">systematic
="trms">systematic='lgc'>: deep filaments and tenacious tendrils into time, space, and consciousness. ="trms">systems are dimensions of ="trms">world ="trms">history.


she sug="trms">gests to be accountable for (the intricacies of) visualization ="trms">technologies in which we are embedded that we will find ="trms">="trms"nttrm="metaph,metamorph,metabol,metal">metaphors and means for understanding
and ="trms">intervening in the ='strcls'>*patterns of objectification='strcls'>* in the ="trms">world.
='lgc'>='lgc'>--> politics and ="trms">epistemologies of location, ="trms">positioning, and ="trms">situating
partiality ='lgc'>=/= universality
='strcls'>*partiality='lgc'>: view from a body, always a complex, contradictory, ='strcls'>*structuring, and structured body='strcls'>* (what does she mean by ‘structuring and structured body’='qstn'>?)

='lgc'>--the ="trms">sciences and politics of ="trms">interpretation, ="trms">translation, stuttering, and the partly understood.

='strcls'>*Feminism='lgc'>: critical vision ='lgc'>==(consequent upon)='lgc'>='lgc'>==> a critical ="trms">positioning in unhomogeneous gendered ="trms">social space.

location ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> vulnerability ='lgc'>='lgc'>~='lgc'>~> (full of limits and contra="trms">dictions)

“rational” knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge ='lgc'>: to be free from ="trms">interpretation, to be free from being re="trms">presented ='lgc'>: to be fully self-contained (='lgc'>~ fully formalizable)
="prgrph">-no! let's make Rational Knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge a process of ongoing critical ="trms">interpretation among “fields” of ="trms">interpreters and de="trms">coders ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> a power-sensitive conversation
="prgrph">-accountability and ="trms">responsibility for ="trms">translations

. ="trms">Situated knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edges are about ="trms">communities, not about isolated individuals
(pinocchio and geppetto parable)

objectivity='lgc'> = ="trms">positioned rationality
='lgc'>=/= images of escape and transcendence of limits (filled in Hollywood and sci)

faithfulness of our accounts to a “real ="trms">world” (no ="trms">matter how mediated for us and no ="trms">matter how complex and contradictory these ="trms">worlds may be)

Sex is “resourced” for its re="trms">presentation as gender, which “we” can control

="trms">Situated knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edges require that the object of knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge be pictured as an actor and ="trms">agent
="prgrph">-which version of “realism” is she argueing for='qstn'>?

“='lgc'>[...='lgc'>] we are not in charge of the ="trms">world. We just live here and try to strike up noninnocent conversations by means of our prosthetic devices, in="trms"nttrm="cluster,club">cluding our visualization ="trms">technologies.”

in the rich feminist practice in ="trms">science (more than anywhere else) passive ="trms">categories of objects of knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge are “activated”

The biological female peopling ='lgc'>: When female “sex” has been so thoroughly retheorized and revisualized that it emerges as practically indistinguishable from “mind,” ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> the ‘="trms">difference’ is theorized biologically as ="trms">situational, not intrinsic, (at every level from gene to foraging pattern, thereby fundamentally changing the biological politics of the body.)
="prgrph">-(example='lgc'>: ="ppl">Emily ="ppl">Martin)

="large lg10" stl="font-size:130%">
="large lg1" stl="font-size:114%"> points in SK='lgc'>:
="lstsrd">1-="trms">finite partial perspectives
="lstsrd">2-split and contradictory self
="lstsrd">3-objectivity (='lgc'>='lgc'>--> ="trms">positioned rationality, object of knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge as an actor, ="trms">mutual and usually ='strcls'>*unequal='strcls'>* structuring, it is about taking risks)


how and why ="ppl">="ppl">Haraway as a feminist fights for a better Primatology='qstn'>?


(="ppl">="ppl">Barad on) ="trms">Situated Knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edges='lgc'>: are not merely about knowing/seeing from somewhere (as in having a perspective) but about taking account of how the ="trms">specific prosthetic ="trms">embodiment of the ="trms">technologically enhanced visualizing ="trms">apparatus ="trms">matters to practices of knowing
="prgrph">-(="ppl">="ppl">Haraway's) move from ='strcls'>*optics='strcls'>* ='lgc'>[a politics of ="trms">positioning, in ="trms">Situated Knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edges='lgc'>] to ='strcls'>*diffraction='strcls'>* ='lgc'>[an optical ="trms">="trms"nttrm="metaph,metamorph,metabol,metal">metaphor for the effort to make a ="trms">difference in the ="trms">world, in Modest_Witness='lgc'>]

="large lg10" stl="font-size:103%">
="ppl">Katie ="ppl">King='lgc'>: “="trms">apparatus of ="trms">literary production”='lgc'>: a matrix from which “="trms">literature” is born.
...the “facticity” of biological discourse that is absent from ="trms">literary discourse and its knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge claims. ='lgc'>-='lgc'>-='lgc'>='lgc'>--> Are biological bodies “produced” or “generated” in the same strong sense as ="trms">poems='qstn'>? (biological body ='lgc'>='lgc'>~= ="trms">poem)
“="trms">material-="trms">semiotic actor”='lgc'>: the object of knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge as an active, meaning-generating part of ="trms">apparatus of bodily production

bodies as objects of knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge are ="trms">material-="trms">semiotic generative nodes.
“objects” do not preexist as such ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> Their boundaries ="trms">materialize in ="trms">social ="trms">interaction. Boundaries are drawn by mapping practices.


="trms">world ='lgc'>=/= mother/="trms">matter/mutter
="trms">world ='lgc'>='lgc'>~= coyote (a figure of the always problematic, always potent tie between meaning and bodies. ="trms">world as ="trms">coding trickster.)

(feminism) movement rooted in ="trms">specification and ="trms">articulation (of ='lgc'>[="trms">different kinds of='lgc'>] ‘elsewhere’) ='lgc'>=/= (='thdf'>assumption of the ="trms"nttrm="righ,rigo,riga,rigi,trig,rign">right or ability to) identities and re="trms">presentation (of identities)


="large lg18" stl="font-size:123%"> ='at'>#workshop ="trms"nttrm="already,spread">reading SK (for ="nms">apass)
Which version of “realism” are you talking about='qstn'>? Recollecting truth and objectivity are activated whenever a ‘point of view’ is produced among other ="trms">="trms"nttrm="metaph,metamorph,metabol,metal">metaphors that we use in our practice and thinking in ="trms">techno-="trms">scientific ="trms">societies. In this group ="trms"nttrm="already,spread">reading session we are going to study one of the most stubborn and ="trms">pervasive phantasms in art and ="trms">sciences, the figure of objectivity, with the ="ppl">Donna ="ppl">="ppl">Haraway's 1988 essay ‘="trms">Situated Knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edges='lgc'>: The ="trms">Science ="trms">Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective’. This ="trms"nttrm="already,spread">reading focuses on politics and ="trms">epistemologies of location, ="trms">positioning, and ="trms">situating in our power-sensitive conversations, and what does it mean to become accountable and ="trms">responsible for one's own noninnocent ="trms">translations. We begin with her essay on the 2nd of February and talk about each of our practices in particular continuing on the 9th.


she wants to re-figure, not disavow, objectivity

“="trms">story-tellers exploring what it means to be ="trms">embodied in high-tech ="trms">worlds” ='lgc'>=/= ="trms">technophobia

="trms">technophilia is ="trms">narcissistic ='lgc'>: ='thdf'>the notion that man invented himself and that man is involved in some kind of ="trms">narrative of ="trms">technological escalation whereby the objectification of human intentionality in the ="trms">world has finally surpassed itself, and man has achieved self-objectification in a machine that will finally name him obsolescence as he is and destroy him in a ="trms">technological apocalypse figured by the computer. (="ppl">="ppl">Haraway) ='lgc'>[we need better dog ="trms">stories ='lgc'>=/= (Iron Man='lgc'>:) man, made in the image of a vanished god, takes on superpowers in his secular-sacred ascent, only to end tragic='lgc'>]
“...man making himself (by realizing his intentions in his tools) yet again in the Greatest ="trms">Story Ever Told.” (your artwork doesn't need to be this kind of ="trms">story!)
or the ="ppl">Darwinist tale of “Mitochondrial Eve in a neocolonial Out of Africa”
we need ="trms">stories of companion ="trms">species, the “very mundane and ongoing ="trms">sort of tale, one full of misunderstandings, achievements, crimes, and renewable hopes.” (="ppl">="ppl">Haraway, ="ppl">La Guin, ="ppl">Tessa ="ppl">Farmer,)

="display:block;white-space:nowrap;margin-bottom:-1em;overflow:hidden;">...................................

='lgc'>[="ppl">="ppl">Haraway on ="ppl">="ppl">Ihde='lgc'>]

...="trms">technologies are not mediations='lgc'>--that is, something in between us and another bit of the ="trms">world='lgc'>--rather, ="trms">technologies are organs, full partners, in what ="ppl">Merleau-Ponty called “in="trms">foldings of the flesh.”

in="trms">folding ='lgc'>=/= ="trms">interface
="lsts lst1">•“What happens in the ="trms">folds is what is important.”
="lsts lst1">•="trms">Interfaces are made out of ="trms">interacting grappling devices.
="lsts lst1">•the in="trms">folding of others to each other is what makes up the knots we call beings or, perhaps better, following ="ppl">="ppl">Bruno ="ppl">="ppl">Latour, things.

“="trms">Technologies are always compound. They are ="trms">composed of diverse ="trms">agents of ="trms">interpretation, ="trms">agents of recording, and ="trms">agents for directing and multiplying ="trms">relational action. These ="trms">agents can be human beings or parts of human beings, other organisms in part or whole, machines of many kinds, or other ="trms">sorts of entrained things made to work in the ="trms">technological compound of conjoined forces.”

='strcls'>*="trms">animal (in ="trms">zoological terminology) ='lgc'>: a com="trms">posite of individual organisms, an enclosure of ="trms">zoons, a company of critters in="trms">folded into a one.

compound='lgc'> = com="trms">posite ='lgc'>+ enclosure
camera='lgc'>: the ="trms">technological eye ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> philosophical pretension and self-certainty (='lgc'>=/= ="frds scrmbld"nttrm="Christianson">Christian's camera)
='lgc'>-- camera as a black-box with which to register pictures of the outside ="trms">world in a re="trms">presentational, menta="trms"nttrm="listen,alist,ilist,llist,olist,ylist,ulist">list ="trms">semiotic economy

="large lg22" stl="font-size:131%"> ="display:block;white-space:nowrap;margin-bottom:-1em;overflow:hidden;">...................................

="ppl">Vinciane ="ppl">="ppl">Despret, ="ppl">Isabelle ="ppl">="ppl">Stengers, ="ppl">="ppl">Bruno ="ppl">="ppl">Latour, ”_how they make their subjects ="trms">interesting,_“
to tell the ="trms">story of their work of “="trms">translation,” of invention.

refuse all loyalty to my homeland and its values

='strcls'>*heuristic='lgc'>: mental shortcuts that ease the cognitive load of making a problem solvable
="prgrph">-trading optimality, completeness, accuracy, or precision for speed
it may ='strcls'>*approximate='strcls'>* the exact solution for the problem
="prgrph">-enabling discover or learn something for themselves. (a ‘hands-on’ or ="trms">interactive heuristic approach to learning)
='lgc'>[(in computing='lgc'>:) proceeding to a solution by trial and error or by rules that are only loosely defined.='lgc'>]
="prgrph">-from ="trms">Greek heuriskein ‘find’

='strcls'>*="trms">contingent='lgc'>: using it with ‘="trms">historical’ always produces ="trms">interesting ways ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> ="trms">contingency relates to a nonteleological ='lgc'>[a doctrine explaining ="trms">phenomena by their ends or purpose='lgc'>] and nonhierarchical multiplicity ='lgc'>[when i say ‘dud’ and ‘cauphing’ and ="trms">interupting ‘tracing’ i am asking for ="trms">contingent modes of relating and thinking. conceptualizing in terms of the o="trms"nttrm="righ,rigo,riga,rigi,trig,rign">rigin of the dud is about hierarchical ="trms">relations between ="trms">past and ="trms">present and teleological reasoning='lgc'>: where is the dud coming from. when i asked ‘who told the first ="trms">joke='qstn'>?’ i am trying to break and ="trms">joke with teleological mode of thinking about the ="trms">category of ‘o="trms"nttrm="righ,rigo,riga,rigi,trig,rign">rigin’.='lgc'>]
="trms">contingent ='lgc'>=/=='qstn'>? analytical (='lgc'>='lgc'>--> ="trms">Contingent pro="trms">positions depend on some kind of ="trms">epistemoloy, whereas analytic pro="trms">positions are true without regard to any facts about which they speak.) ='lgc'>{telos, ghasd قصد ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> ghaside قصیده ='lgc'>=/= ghazal غزل='lgc'>}
="prgrph">-We call a truth ="trms">contingent when it ='strcls'>*depends on something else='strcls'>* for its truth.
="prgrph">-has to do a lot with our ="trms">material ="trms">world
="trms">contingent ='lgc'>='lgc'>~= containing-="trms">agent='strcls'>*
='lgc'>--Tautological pro="trms">positions, which must be true
='lgc'>--Contra="trms">dictions which must necessarily be untrue
='lgc'>--possible pro="trms">positions

never use ="trms">contingency alone in a sentence ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> ="trms">historical ="trms">contingency
never use understanding stand alon in a sentence ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> better understanding ='lgc'>{'better’ opens ="trms">situatedness, for who and how “better,” etc.='lgc'>}

="trms">Rhetoric ='lgc'><='lgc'>--(has to do with)='lgc'>='lgc'>--> ="trms">Contingent
="ppl">Aristotle (in his work on ="trms">rhetoric) was against ="trms">contingency. He believed that the “unavoidable and potentially unmanageable ="trms">presence of multiple possibilities” or the complex ="trms">nature of decisions creates and invites ="trms">rhetoric. (='lgc'>=/= ="ppl">Plato saw ="trms">rhetoric as pure deceit ='lgc'>[gul='lgc'>] and ="trms">positioned it in politics. ='lgc'>[you can see he is terrified by the death of his teacher and mentor ="ppl">Socrates by civility.='lgc'>])
="trms">rhetoric ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> contigent ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> ="trms">epistemic='lgc'>: individuals make meaning through ="trms">language and determine what constitutes truth


="large lg3" stl="font-size:111%"> ='strcls'>*="trms">ontology is death-dealing ='lgc'><='lgc'>--='strcls'>** terrible violence is directed to the non-existing, the never having existed
='lgc'>-='lgc'>='lgc'>--> ='gtrw'>go to the root of exist ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> which modes of existence deserve our curiosity='qstn'>?

="display:block;white-space:nowrap;margin-bottom:-1em;overflow:hidden;">...................................

(i found a word for it,) my register of ='at'>@="frds scrmbld">Lili's scream='lgc'>: i see it as ‘non="trms">laughter’(='qstn'>?)
(='strcls'>*proposal='lgc'>: there is a number when we dial we can ="trms"nttrm="listen,alist,ilist,llist,olist,ylist,ulist">listen to her scream on the phone.) (='lgc'>='lgc'>--> stream, ="trms">technology, tele-, telephone, called,)
(for her) thinking ='lgc'>=='qstn'>? knowing (sending ='lgc'>=/= receiving)
(an SF scenario='lgc'>:) ="trms">imagine and describe an alien ="trms">world where its populace don't practice ‘knowing.’
='strcls'>**scream ='lgc'>==makes='lgc'>='lgc'>==> witnesses='strcls'>**
(fighting ='lgc'>==makes='lgc'>='lgc'>==> coordination)

="large lg4" stl="font-size:111%"> از طلبکار به طلبه (az talabkar be talabe)
///the (="trms">symbolic='qstn'>?) structuration of ‘="trms">demand’ in ="frds scrmbld">Lili's ="trms">presentation='lgc'>:
the ‘sujet ="trms">supposé savoir’ ='at'>#sss ='lgc'>[='lgc'>='lgc'>~= ="nms">Pir, (پیر always a paternal ="trms">="trms"nttrm="metaph,metamorph,metabol,metal">metaphor='qstn'>?) that Other whom you ‘call’ who holds (your) deepest truth ='lgc'>-='lgc'>='lgc'>--> ='gtrw'>go to the ="trms">="trms"nttrm="metaph,metamorph,metabol,metal">metaphorology of “depth” ='lgc'>=/= “skimming the surface"='lgc'>] (installed by ="ppl">Lacan) is a subject who is in a functional ="trms">position and one presumes that this subject knows or retains or holds the knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge (even vital and secret knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge ='lgc'>[this is knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge-talabkar طلبکار='lgc'>]) that you want. this subject is functionally established. one of the laws of our encounter is that puts the speaker/="trms">writer/analyst/text/etc in the (even architectural) center='lgc'>: the subject-="trms">supposed-to-know in ="ppl">Lacan the analyst who sits there as a tower of knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge that mostly withholds what s/he knows ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> ="trms">transferencial energy directed towards him/her ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> drama of identification (='lgc'>='lgc'>--> break-out of ="trms">narcissism for ="ppl">Freud)
="prgrph">-it is one of the (negative='qstn'>?) binding ="trms">transferential contracts in ="trms">relation to “the one who speaks”
='lgc'>[='strcls'>*="trms">anthropology of exchange='strcls'>* ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> ="trms">Transference='lgc'>: (for ="ppl">Lacan) Each time a man speaks to another in an authentic and full manner, there is, in the true sense, ="trms">transference, ="trms">symbolic ="trms">transference='lgc'>--something which takes place which changes the ="trms">nature of the two beings ="trms">present. Later ="ppl">Lacan ="trms">articulates the ="trms">transference in sujet ="trms">supposé savoir='lgc'>: ="trms">transference is the attribution of knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge to the Other, the ="trms">supposition that the Other is a subject who knows. “As soon as the subject who is ="trms">supposed to know exists ='strcls'>*somewhere='strcls'>* ... there is ="trms">transference.” (Seminar II, p. 232)='lgc'>] ='lgc'>[keep in mind that the (post='qstn'>?-)="ppl">Lacanian theory is about the ='strcls'>*constitutive function of the signifier in ="trms">relation to the subject.='strcls'>* ... for ="ppl">Lacan, What constitutes the person and its identity can now be ="trms"nttrm="already,spread">read as a text, and the ="trms">author is not the subject, but the ="trms">trajectory of the signifiers that re="trms">present the desire of those who occupy the place of the Other for the subject.='lgc'>]
='lgc'>[about ="trms">demand='lgc'>: ="ppl">Lacan argues that “="trms">demand constitutes the Other as al="trms"nttrm="already,spread">ready possessing the ‘privilege’ of satisfying needs,” and that indeed the ="trms">child's biological needs are themselves altered by “the condition that is imposed on him by the existence of the discourse, to make his need pass through the defiles of the signifier.” ... The subject has never done anything other than ="trms">demand (since infancy!)='lgc'>] ='strcls'>*='lgc'>{="trms">question ='lgc'>=/= ="trms">demand='lgc'>}='strcls'>*='lgc'>='lgc'>--> ="ppl">Nancy
='lgc'>[the use of ‘="trms">transference’ is a way to account for the ="trms">relationship between ="trms"nttrm="already,spread">readers and texts. the emphasis in ="ppl">Lacan is on the ‘="trms">supposed’ and not on the ‘know’. ="trms"nttrm="already,spread">reader assume that the text ‘knows’. ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> What ="ppl">Lacan's understanding of the ="trms">transference points to is the fact that we must see the meaning of any given text not within the text itself but as a reconstruction between ="trms"nttrm="already,spread">reader and text.='lgc'>] ='lgc'>[in other words, ="trms">transference is ‘a re="trms">presentation of the ="trms">past’ (="trms">childhood and etc.) to the ="trms">present ='lgc'>]
a pedagogical problem='lgc'>: rapid ="trms">transferencial turn-over='lgc'>: going from one subject-="trms">supposed-to-know to the other (='lgc'>=/= ="trms"nttrm="already,spread">reading)
='at'>#the kind of ‘="trms"nttrm="already,spread">reading’ ='lgc'>[encountering a text, artwork, speech, ourselves, etc.='lgc'>] that i am talking about is not about this ="trms">transferencial energy directed towards the sujet ="trms">supposé savoir. this practice of ="trms"nttrm="already,spread">reading is about to ="trms"nttrm="already,spread">read together and to ="trms"nttrm="already,spread">read ourselves ="trms"nttrm="already,spread">reading, to an atentiveness to the way we are ="trms"nttrm="already,spread">reading or not-="trms"nttrm="already,spread">reading or abe[...]