[...]s 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 lg2" stl="font-size:110%">
='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;">...................................

="large lg1" stl="font-size:136%"> ="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

='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


='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)

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'>~= ="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 [...]