[...]nents 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.”

="large lg2" stl="font-size:111%"> ‘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”

="large lg1" stl="font-size:128%"> 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)
[...]