[...]thing, or place, as underneath it all.” (Leigh Star)
(@apass) locus for research: us who speak to each other is the changing, moving, complex web of our interactions, in light of the language, power structures, natural environments (internal and external), and beliefs that weave it in time


@Marialena, (strategies emerging from/for) ...feminists to begin with the heritage of names in a patriarchal voice


Museum of Comparative Zoology


* facts are theory laden --> theories are value laden --> values are history laden *

•animal model research is full of illogical shoddy evidence and special pleading (Lila Leibowitz & Ruth Bleier)
•relations of aggression and gender (Freda Salzman)
•similarities in sociobiology and biosociology (Marian Lowe & Ruth Habbard)
•lateralization in neurophysiology (Leigh Star)
•medicalization of moral-political issues through transsexual surgery (Janice Raymond)

•**everything is a cultural institution** (animal studies applied to humans, science is a cultural institution)
•upright stance and times of divergence between ape and hominid lines have been arenas of mortal combat in evolutionary theory more than once


how science becomes official

“evidence becomes a hero of mine”

the heavy hero's burden of telling the hard truth --> a story sold well in iran's intellectualism
(i have become interested instead in extended bibliographies, *to see our alternatives*)


خیس خیس

language plays a major role in generating reality --> what plays major role in generating reality and legitimator of new realities in iran?

research question of storytelling:
***what are the rules of interpretation that make any story unequivocally readable?


(Haraway shows) the epistemological and political problems of humanism and realism latent (or patent) in feminism


two things i am teaching myself (since 3 or 4 years):
1- how to hold someone else's speech --> دیگری چه گفت؟
2- how to sustain a discussion --> چطور بحث را عوض نکردن؟


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

*bad geography: insult, tohin, similar to trauma, they don't have an concret external object (yet they create them), it is a register of an event, affectual implosion of a percept
insult dones't exist out there, (tohin kardan vojud khareji nadarad), it is in the inside --> is that why tasavof works and labors with insult?

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

(also in apass, dancers and choreographers, are the children of modernism art of De Kooning) reaching inward to find within the body that sublime thing (Deleuze calls) the *figural* [=/= (iranian miniature's) sublimity of the infinite (<-- Aela testing this, under ‘mysticism'~-> state of constant openness ==> transformative relation between self and other)]

we can trace the (seductive power of) fana فنا in contemporary media art (Hoda's sublime digital-rhythmic embodiments? --> transcendental desires remain questionable)

doctrine of the minimal: smallest unit is the atom or point =/=
doctrine of Zaher/Baten: smallest unit is the fold*** ==> zoomorphic writing, infinitesimal

(mysticism:) a system of measurement based (not on the point, rather) on the fold

Star Trek --> extensive universe of the infinite =/=
tasavof --> intensive universe of the infinitesimal

apotropaic, turning away evil ~=
memory sticks, ward off the fear of data loss

...the letter ceases to be a *figure* and becomes a *field*

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

#comparative reading of Hedayat's The Benedictions (Afringan آفرینگان) and Sohrevardi's ghorbat gharbia (رساله غربةالغربیة)

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

@Ali's knowledge is like ‘face recognition’ (~ cannot say how he cognizes a “know” yet he does)
Ali: daneshe hozuri + politics (which is a secular knowedge, Sachlich, based on scales, measures, and divisions)
*intellect (? can never be merely:)
non-propositional knowledge ~= daneshe hozuri دانش حضوری
~-> the idea of non-mediation and direct awareness ~-> internal memory (~->? belief)
=/= descriptive knowledge, propositional knowledge, knowledge of propositions (“know-that”) ~-> explicit knowing <-- why am i practicing this? (i say things like “this is this...”) and yet not transfering without the ‘knowing subject’ (depending on close interaction, shared understanding, trust, and even love. in combination with my performances that are like that, thinking on the fly =/= storage and retrieval of conceptual knowledge) [in ajayeb.net i pretend i am coding articulated knowledge in explicit aggregation and appropriable without the ‘knowing subject’ but it is not. it is also part of something personal, distributive, and contextual], [my education in setar was tacit and cognitive apprenticeship, situated cognition,]
=/= “know-how”, procedural knowledge, tacit --> embodied characteristic of the expert who acts without explicitly reflecting on conditions of its involvement (body's nervous system + endocrine system دستگاه درون‌ریز)
“know-who” (knowledge of networks)


(Gibson's) affordance --> relational account of perception (=/= encoding of environmental features into the perceiver's mind), preconditions for activity

(effects =/=) effectivity: abilities that determines what one could do and the interactions that could take place

‘perceived affordance’: perception of an object's utility =/= object's itself

affordance <--?--> mental representations (models, schemata, etc.)

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

#idea for a performance for ghorbat gharbia
one performer eyes closed in a room or laboratory research lab speaking the text while engaging through touch (throwing, fixing, putting, dropping) with the different optics and technologies, objects and positioned tools in the room (color, catapult, optical systems, laser, array of transparencies and opacities, etc.)
performer: Sina
director: Foad

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

(prehistoric)
your mother: violence
your father: tool
==> human

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

Geroulanos on emergence of an atheism disengaged from humanism during the second quarter of the 20th century

1925 to 1950

...in nonsecular horizon of existence and thought
conceptual reorganization of human in atheism

(19th century was marked by) “death of god” = man after the era of catastrophe : the age of World War I, the rise of Nazism, Stalinism, World War II, and the immediate postwar period

(philosophical and political) centrality of man = a conception dating to Descartes and proceeding through the tradition of natural law, the Enlightenment, the French Revolution, and nineteenth-century liberalism and Marxism

rejection of central premises of post-Enlightenment, liberal, and socialist European thought

(how?) approach anew the codes addressing human life and significance

new nonhumanist atheism came to be expressed at different times in existentialist, hyper-ethical, or cynical terms, in nondoctrinaire socialist, reactionary, ultramodernist, or even downright antipolitical principles

(shift away from classical atheism and humanism <==) three movements:
1. an *atheism that would not be humanist* : an atheism mistrustful of secular دنيوى, egalitarian تساوى, and transformative commitments
2. a *negative philosophical anthropology*
3. *critiques of humanism*


(1)
(traditionally) atheism = secularism + humanism
absence of god in 19th century thinkers Feuerbach, Comte, Marx, Proudhon:
--> possibility of a good life and proper society
•Feuerbach's anthropotheism: “god = projection of human nature onto the heavens,” nothing more than man's representation of his own essence --> the task of the modern era was the realization and humanization of god : (transformation and dissolution of) theology --into--> anthropology
•Comte: positivist project for science and knowledge --> religion of humanity, explicitly religious atheism
•Proudhon: humanisme

{liberalism: humanism, and idealism had become moral and political expectations of the secular education projects}--> [*]humanism: what could reach, reveal[...]