[...]ole, 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)

="large lg2" stl="font-size:112%"> ="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.

="large lg6" stl="font-size:102%">
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)


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'>]


="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 lg1" stl="font-size:134%">
='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

="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

="large lg3" stl="font-size:112%"> ='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 lg4" 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 lg5" stl="font-size:135%"> 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[...]