[...] about the perpetuation of ="trms">society, about the perpetuation of ="trms">relations)


exchange wealth between two clan groups
wealth
="lsts lst1">•has an ="trms">aesthetic form
="lsts lst1">•has to be grown as well as exchanged
="lsts lst1">•must be accumulated privately and secretly
="lsts lst1">•must be revealed at the ='strcls'>*moment of transfer='strcls'>*
="lsts lst1">•has to take a proper form ='lgc'>~ recognized by others as appropriate


='lgc'>[='strcls'>*='lgc'>]="trms">aesthetic='lgc'> = a proper form (at the moment of revelation) that other people have to ="trms">respond
(='lgc'>--='not'>✕='lgc'>='lgc'>--> european notion of ="trms">aesthetic='lgc'> = eliciting a sense of appreciation of beauty)

="large lg2" stl="font-size:111%">
(my sister's wedding had/created) an appropriate form


='strcls'>**** exchange ="trms">situations ='lgc'>[shows, exhibitions, events, weddings, etc.='lgc'>] has to appear in a certain form, otherwise people will not recognize it, otherwise they fail to impress people ='strcls'>****
='at'>@="frds scrmbld">Foad

="prgrph">-what are ="nms">Tehran's contemporary contexts in which we can see exchanges working='qstn'>?

younger people are impressing one another in terms of ="trms">consuming or participation in sports, or mobile phones, or whatever ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> they create ="trms">different kinds of ="trms">relations (='at'>#telegram ="nms">iran='qstn'>?)
(how among my freinds we impress one another='qstn'>?)
younger people, invest value in ="trms">different things from what older people do


money does not have anything else but number

things that shine, things that g="trms"nttrm="listen,alist,ilist,llist,olist,ylist,ulist">listen, things that sparkle ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> a sense in which these objects ='strcls'>*give off a ="trms">presence='strcls'>* ='lgc'>[='at'>@="frds scrmbld">Janina='lgc'>] and people are ="trms">affected by this

='strcls'>*quality of shininess='strcls'>* indicates the successful ="trms">intervention of ="trms">ancestral spirits ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> a spiritual condition (acquainted with health)

they must display to be regarded as worthwhile

with mobile phones='lgc'>: what is going on here, what is their value, how are they circulating, how do people regard them='qstn'>?


="large lg1" stl="font-size:117%"> (ibn ebn ابن) people belong because their fathers belonged and so forth ='lgc'>+ what they give away, the (gift) shells, can be regarded as female ='lgc'>: items that have come into men's possessions (='lgc'>=/= ="frds scrmbld">Karin's gifts)
="prgrph">-so the shells are passive objects, women are/were (traditionally), classically regarded as objects in a similar way and were given the names of shells


='strcls'>***how to think about ="trms">vocabulary:='strcls'>***
="prgrph">-i cannot start using economics of the ="trms">market to describe what i am talking about
="prgrph">-in the ="trms">vocabulary of gift exchange (="ppl">Strathern) may be able to find the ="trms">vocabulary of analysis (like an artist choosing the color)
="prgrph">-="ppl">Strathern choice='lgc'>: the ="trms">vocabulary of gift exchange might give her the ="trms">vocabulary by which to start describing, is an ='strcls'>*artificial choice='strcls'>*. the ="trms">vocabulary of the gift economy gives her a lot of terms in which to understand. but those terms are only useful for the purposes of understanding that particular set of ="trms">data, and if i then leave that ="trms">data, and if i follow these objects as they move out of the highlands, and if they became, if they came into an art ="trms">market, then absolutely what we would be dealing with is commodities='lgc'>[...='lgc'>] ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> ="trms">situated knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edges ='lgc'>[='at'>#SK='lgc'>], ='at'>#import function


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

='strcls'>*="trms">literature='lgc'> = the ="trms">question of ="trms"nttrm="already,spread">reading='strcls'>* (='lgc'>=/= ="trms">matter of novels and ="trms">poems)

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

what is the ="trms">language of war='qstn'>?
(="ppl">Keenan > Weizman='lgc'>:) we need to understand war as discourse ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> ='strcls'>*war='lgc'> = a threatened discourse='strcls'>*
="prgrph">-The ="trms">language component of war exists in the gap between the level of destruction which is “possible” and the level of destruction which is “actually applied” in every given ="trms">situation.

when war is no longer a means but an end in itself(='qstn'>?) ='lgc'>='lgc'>-->='qstn'>? Hezbollah

deterrence='lgc'>: a means of controlling a person's behavior through negative motivational influences

“We are law-abiding, and we go ="trms">wild.”


violence stripped of ="trms">semiotics

The logic, the reason, of conflict is thus political ... for Clausewitz, politics is essentially logic, logos, discourse, people reasoning with one another, thinking and speaking, exchanging


='at'>@Luis, why conflict could be my concern='qstn'>? because it marks the breakdown of politics, when we can no longer have a conversation, engage in the game, where there is no possibility of further exchange, there is fighting

fai="trms"nttrm="failure,blur,plur,lurk,tallur,slur">lure ='lgc'>==> use of force

Saskia Sassen called the attacks of September 11 “A Message From the Global South”
she wrote that the attacks bore witness to a fai="trms"nttrm="failure,blur,plur,lurk,tallur,slur">lure in ="trms">communication or to a “="trms">translation problem”
for her the ="trms">language of September 11 attacks was clear
Sassen's d="trms"nttrm="danger,stranger">angerous and depraved rationalization of September 11='lgc'>: south is speaking in a ="trms">language that needs no ="trms">translation



="large lg3" stl="font-size:111%"> the word ‘conflict’ (is coined as a discoursive necessity and) bears with itself an analysis of politics which sees it as a rational enterprise, a structured confrontation or conversation aimed at compromise or reconciliation, the exchange of ="trms">demands and the negotiation of outcomes ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> a ="trms">Greek tradition ='lgc'>: to protect politics from irrationality and persuasion, and that State's monopoly of law enforcement is the only legitimate violence ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> (as a term) ‘conflict’ carries with itself a telos of con="trms">sensus (etefagh-e ara اتفاق آرا Übereinstimmung), agreement ='lgc'>==> perfect understanding ='lgc'>='lgc'>~='lgc'>~='lgc'>='lgc'>--> (="trms">Greek ='lgc'>='lgc'>-->) democracy's dream of overcoming ="trms">internal opacities of mediation or signification, dream of a final unification, dream of a clear universal ="trms">language

(="ppl">Barthes’ ="trms">fable of) the woodcutter='lgc'>[='lgc'>='lgc'>~= an ="trms">agent of change='lgc'>] ='lgc'>==> ="trms">language='lgc'> = act (without mediation or image, operating ='strcls'>*an immediate transformation='strcls'>* ='lgc'>==> politic) ='lgc'>:
If I am a woodcutter and I am led to name the tree which I am cutting down ='lgc'>[j'abats='lgc'>], whatever the form of my sentence, I speak the tree, I do not speak about it. This means that my ="trms">language is operative, linked to its object in a ="trms">transitive way; between the tree and myself, there is nothing but my labor, that is to say, an act. This is a political ="trms">language='lgc'>: it ="trms">presents ="trms">nature to me only to the extent that I am going to transform it, it is a ="trms">language by which I act the object; the tree is not an image for me, it is simply the meaning of my action. But if I am not a woodcutter, I can no longer speak the tree, I can only speak of it, about it.
='at'>@="nms">apass ='at'>@="frds scrmbld">Femke

(="ppl">Barthes='lgc'>:) political='lgc'> = operative (='lgc'>~ active, transformative, destructive) ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> this is an important ="trms">fable for artists

talking about ‘conflict’ is also like this, is a “political” speech, an “operative” ="trms">language, it “="trms">presents” the object of my action to me, which is democracy, and not Colombia

="large lg4" stl="font-size:112%"> (some ="trms">figurative ‘violence of ="trms">language’ ='lgc'>=/= ='lgc'>[="ppl">Austin, ="ppl">Derrida, ="ppl">Butler ='lgc'>==>='lgc'>] i am talking about paying attention to) the ="trms">language used in a certain manner by certain ="trms">agents ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> studying in KHM media school teaches me to be careful with the erasure of distance, mediation, reference, re="trms">presentation, to be careful with the collapse of hermeneutic (in any discourse) ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> the labor of transparency ='lgc'>[='at'>@="frds scrmbld">Mona ='at'>@="frds scrmbld"nttrm="Alice,Shariati">Ali ='lgc'>]



(the very strange claim ='lgc'>[made by political leaders='lgc'>] that) force is a kind of ="trms">language, and not just any ="trms">language. It is one which solves the problem that seems endemic to all things ="trms">linguistic, namely='lgc'>: fai="trms"nttrm="failure,blur,plur,lurk,tallur,slur">lure, indirection, misunderstanding, drift. ='lgc'>[...='lgc'>]that the ="trms">language of force actively and successfully delivers its message ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> a ="trms">fable='lgc'>: “everybody understands the ="trms">language of force” (unlike ordinary, diplomatic, political ="trms">language) ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> the ="trms"nttrm="already,spread">readability or ="trms">communicative power of the utterance, violence is seen as continuous with discourse ='lgc'>--='at'>@="frds scrmbld">Mona
='lgc'>[='strcls'>*='lgc'>]violence='lgc'>: “speaking the (only) ="trms">language of the other” ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> (very strange ="trms">fable='lgc'>:) that violence is non="trms">interpretive direct(='lgc'>~ umediated) and nonanalytic, that it is unmisunderstandable, that it takes hold and transforms its ="trms"nttrm="listen,alist,ilist,llist,olist,ylist,ulist">listener ='lgc'>[='lgc'>='lgc'>--> fantasy of ="trms">affective ="trms">communication='lgc'>], hermeneutic and cognitive of the ="trms">language is effaced and what is left is only ='strcls'>*delivery='strcls'>* itself ='lgc'>[='at'>@="frds scrmbld"nttrm="Alice,Shariati">Ali's way of talking has a hint of this (a self-erasing speech,) he “delivers” his (political) message to me ='at'>#tattooing me ='lgc'>}='lgc'>='lgc'>--> the silencing/elimination of his ="trms">interlocutor, ='strcls'>**the little annihilatory ="trms">gestures='strcls'>** of my friends='lgc'>], that it ='lgc'>[violence='lgc'>] aspires to a ='strcls'>*pure ="trms">present='strcls'>*

="lsts lst1">•this is a ="trms">translational problem='qstn'>? ="ppl">Keenan
="lsts lst1">•how do we know when things cannot get any worse='qstn'>?
="lsts lst1">•when/where the ="trms">translation should stop='qstn'>? ='at'>@="frds scrmbld"nttrm="Alice,Shariati">Ali ='at'>@="frds">Sina ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> this is about the ethical risks (we are making all the time) in mistaking an annihilatory ="trms">gesture for a discursive or political one

="large lg5" stl="font-size:136%">
there is no ="trms">language which needs no ="trms">translation (not even violence)

='strcls'>*="trms">translation='lgc'>: an active ="trms">relation between an[...]