[...]roughly 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)


="large lg2" stl="font-size:111%"> 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'>~= ="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'>~= 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)


='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;">...................................
="large lg1" stl="font-size:135%">
='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 lg3" stl="font-size:112%"> ="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 lg4" 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'>~= 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 lg5" stl="font-size:152%"> ='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[...]