[...]ect/="trms">affectional

(="ppl">="ppl">Haraway on ="trms">writing the cyborg manifesto) SK
the physiological state of neutrality is an ="trms">affective state
(='thdf'>the notion that violent and passion counts as ="trms">affect and neutrality is without ="trms">affect is chemically bizarre) ='lgc'>-- ="trms">neuro-chemistry of a certain kind of self-collection
refusing the division between ="trms">material and im="trms">material
to call information-="trms">world im="trms">material is wrong
(this is the base of ='mywrk'>my work related to ="ppl">="ppl">Haraway)
in the case of vision='lgc'>: the ="trms">material and the ="trms">semiotic always implode ='lgc'>[the ="trms">apparatus and the flesh='lgc'>] ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> the effect of ='strcls'>*dis="trms">embodiment is a ="trms">technologically produced effect='strcls'>* (that is also always ="trms">affectional) (we have to get good at producing it)
='lgc'>[...so she was among (1983 ="ppl">Marxist) feminists (and the figure of cyborg is al="trms"nttrm="already,spread">ready in circulation for her='lgc'>--about the ="trms">questions of reproduction ="trms">technologies related to the ="trms">situation of women) without biological education='lgc'>--not only that, many of her feminist allies thought of biology as the enemy ='lgc'>[='lgc'>='lgc'>--> anti="trms">natural rejection of the ="trms">sciences in feminist the agreement “that ‘="trms">nature’ is our enemy and that we must control our ‘="trms">natural’ bodies ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> escalating logic of counterdomination='lgc'>] so her manifesto is all about that. biology is (a rich ="trms">fabulous practice and) never innocent, and it is something that ‘we mean’. in the sense of ‘what do you mean='qstn'>?!'='lgc'>] ='lgc'>[we are always telling knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge ="trms">stories that we need ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> noninnocent='lgc'>]

(something is) boring ='lgc'>=='qstn'>?='lgc'>=> (something is) wrong

why do i ="trms">joke='qstn'>? it has to do with ="trms">storytelling.
anything anybody tells me i tend to believe='lgc'>--what i learn from whores

="large lg2" stl="font-size:111%"> working within an ="trms">apparatus of thinking in order to get somewhere in a sustained way and not to drift into as="trms">sociations as fast as... ='lgc'>='lgc'>-->
i can't finish the sentence until i can pay attention to what ="trms">interrupts it. and if i syntactically require to come to the end of sentence, syntactically commits me to a ="trms">position i don't hold. the ="trms">technical requirement of clarity (and coherence='lgc'>--must learn how to do it). my ="trms">storytelling is about how not to reach the end of sentence. (that Peter noted as suspension)

='lgc'>['thinking pushed into syntax’ ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> ='mywrk'>my work ="trms">lecture-performances are about a thinking ="trms">excessing out of syntax. not all argumentation is made in syntax(= how a sentence must end), and turn it into a ="trms">skill of nonsyntactical ="trms">pragmatic ="trms">language ="trms">craft tradition, advocating the ='strcls'>*exceedingly ="trms">agential='strcls'>* ="trms">world ='lgc'>='lgc'>~= there is always ‘a whole lot is going on'='lgc'>]

the iterative and fractal quality of sentences
partial connections (of distinct entities) ='lgc'>='lgc'>~= analogy
analogy allows one part contaminate ="trms">systematically another part and vice versa

(="ppl">="ppl">Haraway on feminism)
feminist theory is especially good in getting at in particular ways doctrines of ="trms">nature's work to enforce ways of life on women, on people of color, on the enslaved, on those who do not possess the qualities of mind and self-possession, on those who are on the marked ="trms">categories to the unmarked. the feminist have been particularly good at getting how genre works. gender, in this regard. ='lgc'>[...='lgc'>] ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> that female by ="trms">nature is committed to the ="trms">species and the male by ="trms">nature committed to transcendence.
='lgc'>[our in="trms">herited binaries ='lgc'>='lgc'>-->='lgc'>] ="trms">formulations of ="trms">nature='lgc'>: executive/non-executive organs, immanence/transcendence, maintenance/novelty, catabolic(foru-sakht فرو ساخت, sukht سوخت)/anabolic(tarkib-saz ترکیب ساز) functions, ,,
="prgrph">-in ="ppl">Darwin's ="trms">writing, non-theological account of diversity on earth, we find both ="trms">interrupters and continuers of these particular notions of ="trms">nature

the ="trms">question of model, what is the model for what, what is similar to what='qstn'>?
='strcls'>****how do we do comparative thinking='qstn'>? comparative thinking depends on similarity  judgment and ="trms">difference judgment, and depends on good-enough models, and depends on a certain kind of ="trms">rhetorical work of ='strcls'>*="trms">crafting ="trms">tropes='strcls'>*
 ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> figures of similarity/="trms">difference='lgc'>:
  by similarity, or
  by contiguity, or
  by part-whole, or
  ...
(this is ‘building’ ='strcls'>*among='strcls'>* us)
(how do i decide to compare two things='qstn'>? Shirin and Ophelia, etc)

models are built ="trms">rhetorics
="trms">history of models
the power of models is that they are not the ‘same as’

circuits of meaning and power that flow through (="trms">materials and bodies)

mondial ='lgc'>~='qstn'>? ="trms">situated knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge
the idiom ‘="trms">situated’ makes people think ‘local’ (instead of global)
by ="trms">situated she means the ‘knot’ which always means some place and somewhere, but that someplace/somewhere could be in ="trms">materiality a distributed digital ="trms">network. the ="trms">situated is always open. the point is that it is not nowhere and no place.


epidemic friendly

="large lg1" stl="font-size:145%"> the flow of disease are major ="trms">international research ="trms">matter

eco-feminism, veganism is for ="ppl">="ppl">Haraway is genocidal ="trms">position, a ="trms">position that advocates violence, a ="trms">position dedicated to the destruction of ways of life and living beings in="trms"nttrm="cluster,club">cluding ="trms">animals, ='lgc'>[a ="trms">position that='lgc'>] ='strcls'>*concise all working ="trms">animals to being nothing but evidence of the destructive and violating im="trms">position of human will on ="trms">natural stuff='strcls'>*, and “that domestic ="trms">animals of all kinds are victims and de="trms">monstrations of human hubris گستاخى, and they have been made into tools” ='lgc'>='lgc'>~= an extreme developemnt of liberal theory ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> the (work) ="trms">animals are not self-defining subjects, are violations and victims, and should not exisit, except as='lgc'>:
="lsts lst1">•="trms">heritage-="trms">animals
="lsts lst1">•rescue-="trms">animals
="lsts lst1">•wards of guardianship
(='mywrk'>my work on ="nms">ajayeb and ="trms">question of ="trms">heritage has been exactly against that ="trms">position)

the radical anti-food-industry ="trms">position is a radical liberal theory turns all working ="trms">animals into (at best) ='strcls'>*="trms">heritage-="trms">animals='strcls'>* ='lgc'>='lgc'>~= ="trms">animal to be preserved as much as possible separate from human use ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> “all human use is bad”
(='lgc'>--='not'>✕='lgc'>='lgc'>--> we know that the ="trms">question of use and ="trms">instrumentalism cannot for mortal ="trms">finite beings rid out of liberation theory and practice)
='lgc'>[='thdf'>for example the dis="trms">position of the film How to Train Your Dragon='lgc'>: The Hidden ="trms">World, where at the end dragons are better off their human partners ='lgc'>~ kabutar ba kabutar baz ba baz کبوتر با کبوتر باز با باز='lgc'>]

='strcls'>**killing is not something mortal beings can avoid='strcls'>** (us or them)

='strcls'>*the human beings have regularly and in complex ways produced other living entities as killable='strcls'>*
='lgc'>[="trms">category of killable='lgc'>: a killing that doesn't quite count as killing='lgc'>]

killing your pet when she is too sick='lgc'> = a judgment in ="trms">responsive ="trms">relationship that is not equal

to say that “meat culture everywhere and always are acts of violation” is wrong

“post-”, ='thdf'>the notion of ‘surpassing’ that is inevitability built into the “post-”, is in our way politically
the project of critique ='lgc'>: finding that point of violation where you can say “got you!”, ‘I nailed you’ ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> the practice of critique='lgc'> = to define what we are against ='lgc'>}='lgc'>=='lgc'>=> develop political movement that are fairly self-certain about what we are against ='lgc'>=='lgc'>=> you will find yourself (perhaps) property addressing a particular issue but having no ability ='strcls'>*to make political connection='strcls'>* (='lgc'>='lgc'>~= to think beyond the ="trms">category) ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> you find yourself crippled

posthumanist think of themselves as “better than”, more in possession of a “real” understanding of the ="trms">nature of contemporary ="trms">world, beyond the critique of ="trms">technology

the politics of it all...

='lgc'>[we have never been ='lgc'>='lgc'>-->='lgc'>] human ='lgc'>: being on the side of the one who developed ="trms">technology to realize intention of their mind in the ="trms">matter ='lgc'>[= The Iron Man='lgc'>]
='lgc'>=/= what it is to be people
we don't need fancy ="trms">epistemological justification (such as posthumanism), people know the ="trms">world in ordinary ways and we can learn from eachother, in all the (cultural, ="trms">historical, power, wealth) ="trms">differences among us ='lgc'>[='at'>@="frds scrmbld"nttrm="Leonardo">Leo='lgc'>] ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> ='strcls'>***partial ="trms">translations happen all the time='strcls'>***
to take the risk of making a mistake ='lgc'>--='lgc'>[the only way you can='lgc'>]='lgc'>='lgc'>--> affirm something ="trms">positive ='lgc'>: the ="trms">positive knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge pins on the possibility of mistake ='lgc'>--(='at'>@="frds scrmbld">Setareh; ="frds scrmbld"nttrm="Godard">Goda wants to avoid mistakes='qstn'>?)

(learning from ="ppl">="ppl">Foucault='lgc'>:) power='lgc'> = actual arrangement of the ="trms">world (and not something ‘out there’)
(learning from ="ppl">Derrida='lgc'>:) ="trms">responsibility is about the ="trms">excess of it all (and not the irony of it all ='lgc'>[='strcls'>*irony='lgc'>: incongruity of expectation and occurrence='lgc'>])
(learning from biology about='lgc'>:) ="trms">differences organize themselves by ="trms">ecologies (and not by binaries) ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> ="trms">ecologies have many scales (of temporality and physicality)='strcls'>***

="trms">scientific research ='lgc'>+ artistic research ='lgc'>+ contemporary philosophical critical inquiry ='lgc'>=='lgc'>=> ='strcls'>*topographies of ="trms">difference='strcls'>* ='lgc'>[='lgc'>='lgc'>--> important for ="frds scrmbld"nttrm="Godard">Goda's use of the te[...]