[...]he absurd

the irrational is ="trms">mimetic


='lgc'>=======================


“before-after” temporality ="trms">narrative

="large lg2" stl="font-size:110%"> ="ppl">Serres's ="trms">fabulous work on the effects of the style in ="trms">science
='lgc'>='lgc'>--> styles profile from (a ="trms">sort of) stability ='strcls'>*** -they inspire disciplines and furtilize fields of research, they seizes what is at stake in ="trms">sciences

who believes that the passage from local to global is always possible='qstn'>?!
="ppl">="ppl">Lucretius answer is immediately “no”

in ="nms">apass each of us is somehow busy with the critique of unidimensional platitude characteristics of our milieus. / Is that the global notion in our rese="trms"nttrm="search">arches='qstn'>?

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

='at'>#my ="trms"nttrm="already,spread">reading act with ="nms">ajayeb is like the practice of pencil monoprint on paper on a relief surface. The patterns of ="trms"nttrm="already,spread">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, ="trms">interactive ="trms">interfacial patterns of ="trms"nttrm="already,spread">reading="trms">writing with ="nms">ajayeb's textual corpus='strcls'>*


” ='lgc'>[...='lgc'>] the industrialized ="trms">world is frequently condemned to considering the concrete universe as its re="trms">presentation.”
="ppl">="ppl">Stengers ='lgc'>+ P="trms"nttrm="righ,rigo,riga,rigi,trig,rign">rigogine

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

which precisions can be achieved by other than ="trms">measurement='qstn'>?

="large lg1" stl="font-size:112%"> How not to ="trms">travel through the universe like free and self-determined gods='qstn'>? (='at'>#magicians)

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


the full and compact ="trms">nature, version of ="nms">ajayeb

='mywrk'>my work in ="nms">apass is on a theory of transformation among ="trms">languages (not about the best point of view ='lgc'>=/=> ="trms">system ="trms">integrated ='lgc'>=/=> ="trms">trajectories calculated)='lgc'>:
="lsts lst1">•="nms">ajayeb's ="trms">natural ="trms">language
="lsts lst1">•="trms">system ="trms">language of ="trms">differential logic
="lsts lst1">•english grammar and syntax
="lsts lst1">•organic and ="trms">intersubjective space of my peers
="lsts lst1">•old ="trms">farsi
="lsts lst1">•="trms">animal
="lsts lst1">•


“speak of” ="trms">science
“speak about” ="trms">science
“speak” ="trms">science
“speak” ="trms">="trms"nttrm="metaph,metamorph,metabol,metal">metaphysics

speaking the ="trms">language of dynamics


what is still at stake in ="trms">science='lgc'>: the description of a ="trms">world of processes

="display:block;white-space:nowrap;margin-bottom:-1em;overflow:hidden;">...................................

="ppl">Lezra
In the European ="trms">imaginary, the public struggle over the “better” word makes the city (the polis) ='at'>@="nms">apass

="brkr">
="ppl">Derrida calls for patience, take care ="trms"nttrm="already,spread">read on slowly. ="ppl">Kafka='lgc'>: all human errors are impatience. Radical patience, is the necessity to differ, but also to rush in precipitately, one has to make decisions='lgc'>: absolute urgency.

="trms">Literature for derrida, ="trms"nttrm="already,spread">reading in ='mywrk'>my works, is indis="trms">sociably bound up with ="trms">questions of politics, democracy and ="trms">responsibility, ="trms">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 un="trms">folding 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='qstn'>?

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

Every ="trms"nttrm="already,spread">reading is difficult, ="ppl">Shakespeare, maulwürfe, mathematics. The difficulty of ="trms"nttrm="already,spread">reading is in transforming the ways we are ="trms">obliged to think about those texts.

The transformation is crucially always al="trms"nttrm="already,spread">ready in the texts he ="trms"nttrm="already,spread">reads. Describing what happens when ="trms"nttrm="already,spread">reading a passage of anything. Everything is in ="ppl">Shakespeare, in ="ppl">Plato, in ="ppl">Kafka. The ="trms">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 ="trms">language and no more than a ="trms">language.

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

="ppl">Derrida always begins (wherever he happens to find himself) in a ="trms">specific context, which is to say in trying to engage with a ="trms">specific text or s="trms">cene of ="trms"nttrm="already,spread">reading.

(="trms">Writing is) is winking at someone (you like)  while ="trms"nttrm="listen,alist,ilist,llist,olist,ylist,ulist">listening to my favorite music.

A ="trms">writing that is not structurally ="trms"nttrm="already,spread">readable ='lgc'>-- iterable ='lgc'>-- beyond the death of the addressee, would not be ="trms">writing.

The supplementarity of digression, a ="trms">fictional supplementarity. ="ppl">Freud is compelled to tell a ="trms">story but in the act of doing so, he betrays the annulment or effective impossibility of this ="trms">story. Sons murder of primordial father. O="trms"nttrm="righ,rigo,riga,rigi,trig,rign">rigin of morality='lgc'>: earliest moral restrictions in primitive ="trms">society have been explained by us as reactions to a dead which gave those who performed it the concept of crime.

The feeling that a text is especially ="trms">written ‘for’ derrida... As if waiting for him to come along and point it out.

="ppl">Freud's ="trms">story is less the ="trms">narration of an ="trms">imaginary event than the simulacrum of ="trms">narration. ="ppl">Freud's quasi event, is at once of ="trms">fictional ="trms">narrative and as ="trms">narrative as ="trms">fictive. It is the o="trms"nttrm="righ,rigo,riga,rigi,trig,rign">rigin of ="trms">literature at the same time as the o="trms"nttrm="righ,rigo,riga,rigi,trig,rign">rigin of law, derrida sug="trms">gests.

="ppl">Kant, ="ppl">Freud, ="ppl">Kafka, what makes important all these thinkers for ="ppl">Derrida has to do with how each in their ="trms">different way brings out a ghostly or virtual ‘="trms">narrativity and ="trms">fiction’ at the very core of legal thought.

Law is always an idiom. An idiom is an expression with a meaning that cannot be guessed from the meanings of the individual words='lgc'>: its door concerns only you. One's ="trms">relation to the law is singular.

The drama of naming (='at'>@Sonja naming the dance, dancing the name, is she dancing the name of the dance)

john ="ppl">Keats, prospective; Williams ="ppl">Wordsworth, retrospective. Prospective work consists of hopeful preparation, anticipation of future power rather than meditative reflections on ="trms">past moments of insight and harmony. Oriented towards the future.

="large lg3" stl="font-size:111%"> All i am doing today, like derrida, can be seen as a grafting (ghalameh zadan) or extension, supplement or prosthesis, an outgrowth from somewhere else, earlier on.

I will attach to the ="trms">story of maulwürfe like the shit on his head.

Recalling and reinventing ="ppl">Shakespeare, the idea is not to bring it from ="trms">past to ="trms">present, something that is al="trms"nttrm="already,spread">ready disjointed in time towards the future. I push the characters of ="ppl">King ="trms"nttrm="learn,clear,Clearl,Olearius">Lear to a future. The deconstructive ="trms"nttrm="already,spread">reading of the play has to do with the opening of the future itself. It is utterly important that you do something unpre="trms">dictable for yourself. If you are in the business of hate, ="trms">love suddenly, changing tracks brings the unexplainable to the ="trms">trajectory. Going in discipline is like riding a train on rails, i am not saying to go off the track and crash or stop, but to change track experimentally and to change gear. The tracks are built for us to move in the field of thought, they don't cover the whole surface, by moving along them we can witness the new to emerge from our ="trms">interdisciplinary run.

="ppl">Derrida shows, reminds, that we can never do anything ="trms">systematically.

="large lg4" stl="font-size:112%"> ="trms">Monstrosity in the ="trms">story Yal-o Ejdeha by ="ppl">Shamlu. ="trms">Monsters of the deep..

my aim was to show the ="trms">monstrosity of all the characters in ="ppl">King ="trms"nttrm="learn,clear,Clearl,Olearius">Lear not just Edmond. Edmond is the artist of the self. ="ppl">Shakespeare makes unacceptable characters. ="ppl">King ="trms"nttrm="learn,clear,Clearl,Olearius">Lear play is intolerable itself, an encounter with the opening of the future itself. Instead of giving in to the normalizing and legitimating re="trms">presentations which identity, recognize, and reduce everything too quickly, why not rather be ="trms">interested in theoretical ="trms">monsters, in ="trms">monstrosities which announce themselves in theoretical ="trms"nttrm="already,spread">reading.

The proper significance is simply and ="trms">categorically deferred forever, insistent strangeness of the force of deferral, (effecting what derrida has called) the singularity of the here and now.

“explained” is “explained away.”

unreasonable is not concealed necessarily.

="large lg5" stl="font-size:115%"> Duty to ir="trms">responsibility

any phantasmatic organization, whether collective or in[...]