[...]◾heritage-animals
•rescue-animals
•wards of guardianship
(my work on ajayeb and question of heritage has been exactly against that position)

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

**killing is not something mortal beings can avoid** (us or them)

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

killing your pet when she is too sick = a judgment in responsive relationship that is not equal

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

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

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

the politics of it all...

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

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

scientific research + artistic research + contemporary philosophical critical inquiry ==> *topographies of difference* [--> important for Goda's use of the term “privilege” flattening differences]
(“+” are exchange zones, i am learning their differences of idioms)

[apass = partners locked into mimesis]

(my problem with the idea of) privilege: a special right, advantage, or immunity granted to a particular group or individual --assume--> the only way for a particular demographic to advance is at the expense of another
•communism which was a form of collectivism (defined itself against privileges) wiped out large populations
•it is easier to politicize gender and sexuality --to--> demand change


@Leo: the question of (should this be the way of) ‘how do we inhabit our situation and to make connection with each other’ --> (?can i suggest to Leo) to drop the stance of comprehensive theoretical political position [without giving up the labor-intensive work of theory]


(to talk about...) as an abstraction of seriousness
*if one is really serious about the kinds of interupted and entangled abstractions it is no longer good enough to do it from the Greeks-on*
(not scolding post-colonial but actually) not to let philosophy or science or any other rest of it any longer be that unmarked set of categories
*situated ground: that we know something*
(not to let:) ‘not to know something’ (about living and arriving at the time of human-induced mass-extermination and mass-genocide) as the only way of being a serious person ~ extinguish abstractions in order to act
[learning from Haraway + Latour:] ‘to take something seriousness’ is not to run off and explain it by something else, is to be at risk to it's ‘thisness,’ to be available to it, to be undone and redone at encounter ~-> specualtive thought
(always asking) what other abstractions are to think with?
[my interest in the past -->] your head screwed backward, not so much looking for relevant novelty [and not in search for meaning] (not so of past but also) not quite so enamored of the new and of the creative
-extinctions are happening at extraordinary rate that are difficult to deal with the perceptual apparatuses of the bipedal hominid [--> for example sayinig ‘everything is collapsing’ is one of those categories, collapsology takes world's doom as a priori]
•knowledge =? production of novelty, product of novelty [that you need is not at all novelty for someone else]
•knowledge =? reduction of memory, production of memory
•knowledge =? cat's cradling each other
*what constitute flourishing?* [@collapsology =/= one is seduced, curious, interested, and intrigued ‘to what is going on there?']
[species are often] risks for your ongoingness
(work of) [*]hope: care not being possible out of the place of sheer joy

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

my issues with the commons
i have a problem with the conceptual and material apparatus called ‘resource’ that the commons takes uninterrogated. (and there is no way out of it because commons must take ‘a’ definition of resource for granted--and that makes it too easy to deconstruct). and it is too embedded within a political framework and vocabulary. and political is the most difficult syntax to start with, which won't allow it to access other literacies.
in this way the commons alone cannot properly address issues such as pollution, extinction, human-animal problems, rhetoric, inheritance, logic, alienation, and so on, that need multidisciplinary thinking.

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

•what is ‘feeling’ for Lili
•the issue of ‘similarity’ for Luiza
•zones of connectivity and presubjective singularities for Xiri. (what is even better than justice? kindness?)
(Xiri's use of the implicit element of ‘surprise,’ she is trying to communicate the ‘importance’ of her contents.) (trauma-story almost always silences other stories. -- she is compelled by her own storytelling --> baring witness to the injustice therefore resisting it.) --when the victimized personal veils the larger context of evil, the illusion of the true perpetrators - which is around you. (she stated the danger which is all around us.)
-the issue of immediacy for Xiri
-‘you can only heal what you have wounded’ (Wagner's Parsifal “only the weapon that made it will ever cure the wound.”)--what does this mean for our caring activities? @Sina: is this what you mean by western modern rationalization, and that is why you are thinking within the western/eastern philosophies, is the modern tools the antidote to themselves? (this is too soon for me to say and understand this question.)

what is my ‘will to’?
Xiri wants to abolish injustice?
Thiago, abolish selfishness?
Maarten, abolish weakness?
Aela, abolish entropy?
Sana,
Seba, abolish enmity?
Lili, abolish feelings?
Varinia, abolish obedience? [--what shortens our leash?]
Sina, abolish selfhood?
Vladimir, abolish non-disambiguity?

@Esta, her enunciated need for “framework” [~->? instruments of economization], could she be needing “pathway”: path instead of frame, and way instead of work. [frame =/=? overflowing (--> my method of script?); identity =/=? avidity, hers;]
interplay of scales
the scale of intimacy, (of skin, of shared heartbeats and feelings)
data and surveillance and seduction
intimacy: still an unpredictable force?
intimacy: the biological spring from which affect drinks?
how Esta's [...]