[...] 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

="large lg2" stl="font-size:110%"> ="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'>==> ="trms">science is ="trms">rhetoric ='lgc'>: artifacts and facts are parts of the powerful art of ="trms">rhetoric ='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'>])

='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'>~= 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'>==> 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

(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'>==> 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'>~~/='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'>==>  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 an[...]