[...]ly a question of human relations and there is never an object as such

(Hobbes:) “man is wolf to other men" = man is a subject to objects

*the discovery of the object*
(that there is such a thing as) object is an old original political relation tale
-a scientific invention? -->{always ask, what are the objects and subjects of [(pre)historic] science?}

*** “Aphrodite-pleasure is born of the world and the waters. Mars is in the forum and in the armed crowd. Reduce your relations to a minimum and bring your objects to the fore. Reduce the intersubjective to a minimum and the objective to the maximum. With your back turned on politics, study physics.  [...]  Forget the sacred, that means: forget the violence that founds it and forget the religious which links men to each other. Consider the object, objects, nature.”
Serres*

...nevertheless the plague returns and there is violence

sacred --> division of space --> temple --> inside & outside --> a dichotomized space --> a boolean geometry, a two-valued ontology --> inside : religious , outside : profane --> inside : matter , outside : void -->? Atom

...................................

Origin of geometry, construction of geometric idealities, establishment of the first proofs, a Greek (or Egyptian priest) miracle
--Serres--> this is the same as asking: how one passed from one language to another, from one type of writing to another?

**we are always dealing with many languages**

one of my contracts: agreement on what is noise.
I never truly made an agreement with my audience on what we might collectively agree about noise and interference.
•mode of communication, meaning-making, language, transference, transformation,
•what is the intersection of our repertoire? (in apass, particularly; each of our mimetic preoccupations, dynamics of our violences, our mathematical sites, drawings on sand, modifiers, etc.)
==> dialogue

mathematics: (presents itself as) a communication maximally purged of noise

HRN: human relation-noise
=/= geometry


die agonal


to which degrees my work on ajayeb aligns or depends on the “new language” of the inexhaustible discourse of mathematics as inherented from the Greek geometry into the modern culture?

What are the inaugural relation of the geometric (metrological) ideogram to the CG? And to the Egyptian priest?
What is compared, modeled, simulated:
•flood
•fires
•celestial fire
•catastrophes
•violence of the elements
•


ajayeb: doxographies (, legends and allegories) composed in natural language (?)
=/= (the problem of) how to duplicate the cube ---,{thematized object of the complete intersubjective relation}
~=? alogon =/= logos: proportion, measured relation, discourse;
alogon prohibits speaking

crisis and recast, questions of archive


Luisa, Foad
(the space of the relation between) experience & abstract --> between sense & purity
(an inquiry line for Luisa: try to figure out the status of pure [which is impure? when history changes])

my allegorical covers

meaning of:
•non-disproportion
•nonviolence

Socrates: you are in crisis because you are ignorant of geometry

even: same
odd: other

برهان خلف borhane kholf, irrationality of the absurd

the irrational is mimetic


=======================


“before-after” temporality narrative

Serres's fabulous work on the effects of the style in science
--> styles profile from (a sort of) stability *** -they inspire disciplines and furtilize fields of research, they seizes what is at stake in sciences

who believes that the passage from local to global is always possible?!
Lucretius answer is immediately “no”

in apass each of us is somehow busy with the critique of unidimensional platitude characteristics of our milieus. / Is that the global notion in our researches?

I want to take it up, maybe fulfill, and modify the project sketched out in ajayeb al makhlughat 10 centuries ago.

#my reading act with ajayeb is like the practice of pencil monoprint on paper on a relief surface. The patterns of reading emerge as the pencil moves gently across the paper, pressing down or not. The paper, pencil, pressure, movement, the object behind, the touch of three elements, interactive interfacial patterns of readingwriting with ajayeb's textual corpus*


” [...] the industrialized world is frequently condemned to considering the concrete universe as its representation.”
Stengers + Prigogine

(?what do we have that helps us give up the idea of a) rational nature of the real
observation ==> generalization
measurement ==> precision

which precisions can be achieved by other than measurement?

How not to travel through the universe like free and self-determined gods? (#magicians)

Stengers > Leibniz @Luisa: “movement is produced within a full world, an interdependent world in which nothing can happen that has not been made possible by the state of the set of bodies according to a harmony that determines and checks at every moment the unfolding of the different movements.”


the full and compact nature, version of ajayeb

my work in apass is on a theory of transformation among languages (not about the best point of view =/=> system integrated =/=> trajectories calculated):
•ajayeb's natural language
•system language of differential logic
•english grammar and syntax
•organic and intersubjective space of my peers
•old farsi
•animal
•


“speak of” science
“speak about” science
“speak” science
“speak” metaphysics

speaking the language of dynamics


what is still at stake in science: the description of a world of processes

...................................

Lezra
In the European imaginary, the public struggle over the “better” word makes the city (the polis) @apass


Derrida calls for patience, take care read on slowly. Kafka: all human errors are impatience. Radical patience, is the necessity to differ, but also to rush in precipitately, one has to make decisions: absolute urgency.

Literature for derrida, reading in my works, is indissociably bound up with questions of politics, democracy and responsibility, religion, nationality and nationalism, identity and law.

E m foster, how can i tell what i think, till i see what i say.

What one finds repeatedly in derrida's work is the uncanny effect by which one is invited to sense the unfolding of all his thinking starting out from anywhere, from any idea, any word, any thought that happen to be at issue. Deconstruction is the name for this?

Derrida proceeds with patience and pleasure, to describe what is going on in a particular text or situation.

Every reading is difficult, Shakespeare, maulwürfe, mathematics. The difficulty of reading is in transforming the ways we are obliged to think about those texts.

The transformation is crucially always already in the texts he reads. Describing what happens when reading a passage of anything. Everything is in Shakespeare, in Plato, in Kafka. The relation between description and transformation is uncanny.

To talk about the logics of supplement is another way of attending the deconstructive effects of the and. To put into effect new discourses, new acts. This description and transformation is deconstruction, is more than a language and no more than a language.

There are always differences, tensions, paradoxes in the text, between what a text says and what a text does.

Derrida always begins (wherever he happens to find himself) in a specific context, which is to say in trying to engage with a specific text or scene of reading.

(Writing is) is winking at someone (you like)  while listening to my favorite music.

A writing that is not structurally readable -- iterable -- beyond the death of the addressee, would not be writing.

The supplementarity of digression, a fictional supplementarity. Freud is compelled to tell a story but in the act of doing so, he betrays the annulment or effe[...]