[...]f) process philosophy ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> a ="trms">system-builder mode of thinking ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> ='strcls'>*saying something (="trms"nttrm="righ,rigo,riga,rigi,trig,rign">right) about every single thing at once='strcls'>*
="prgrph">-process philosophy puts forward the will and desire for “change,” therefore it developes a resistant to change (='qstn'>?)
="prgrph">-it tend to be a ="trms">="trms"nttrm="metaph,metamorph,metabol,metal">metaphysics without physics ='lgc'>[='qstn'>?!='lgc'>] (when a ="trms">="trms"nttrm="metaph,metamorph,metabol,metal">metaphysics provoke less ="trms">interest for ‘-physics’ and more for the ‘="trms"nttrm="metaph,metamorph,metabol,metal">meta-’ /and why is that a problem='qstn'>?) ='lgc'>[='lgc'>='lgc'>==> ="ppl">="ppl">Barad is much more useful for me now='lgc'>]
="prgrph">-the real ="trms">question of the workshop remained “how to define what i like (such as ‘anarchive’) that it remains open at all time to the ‘more’ and ‘multi’='qstn'>?” ='lgc'><='lgc'>-- and they provide an elusive non-de="trms">finition of the term, impossible to pin down. because accourding to Manning when you pin down an idea/practice by its de="trms">finition it becomes “fixed,” and fixity is ="trms">categorically bad at all times ='lgc'><='lgc'>-- there is a desire to create a hygienic concept immune to corruption and hierarchy. Manning is alert to certain hierarchies ='lgc'>='lgc'>==> not acknowledging other hierarchies that precisely emerge out of that (='lgc'>='lgc'>--> preserve the ‘health’ of ='thdf'>the idea of anarchive. ='lgc'>[='lgc'><='lgc'>-- maybe we need to let concepts rot='qstn'>? ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> de="trms">compose='lgc'>])
Manning's elusiveness='lgc'>: (i have become hyper-conscious about qualities that endow in="trms">finite freedom of thought to human subjects...)
="lsts lst1">•elusive thought طفره (='lgc'>=/= volatile فرار) ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> Spiderman's mode of freedom (-you can never catch him ='lgc'>+ in="trms">finite flexibility ='lgc'>+ ) (the effect of Spiderman on himself is that his moves are “amazing”)
="lsts lst1">•elusive thought ='lgc'>~->='qstn'>? mystical
="lsts lst1">•elusive thought ='lgc'>=/= modest thought limited by curiosity
="lsts lst1">•
“hierarchy as the bad object” ='lgc'>='lgc'>==>
="lsts lst1">•to escape thinking about your own ="trms">agency (='thdf'>for example what your name and reputation does='qstn'>? what are the precise ="trms">responsible consequences of your particular ="trms">position='qstn'>? your ="trms">position involves not only the ="trms">book you ="trms">write or the argument you make, it involves also your name and reputation, the currency of your gender, your mode of charisma and ="trms">authority, your ="trms">affective ="trms">techniques, your ="trms">network enacted, and so on.)
="lsts lst1">•to escape naming the engineering talents and ="trms">skills that are necessary to assemble (for example the senseLab website)
="lsts lst1">•to escape ="trms">epistemological commitment (the ="trms">question of='lgc'>: ='strcls'>**how is my ="trms">vocabulary ="trms">crafted for whom='qstn'>?='strcls'>**)
="lsts lst1">•
it is not clear (but i can maybe guess about it, Manning's commitments are)='lgc'>:
="lsts lst1">•(learning from ="ppl">="ppl">Haraway='lgc'>:) what they have witnessed ='lgc'>[hierarchies='qstn'>? ='lgc'>==commit='lgc'>='lgc'>==> anti-archive='lgc'>]
="lsts lst1">•(learning from ="ppl">="ppl">Despret='lgc'>:) which bodies they care for ='lgc'>[the autists='qstn'>? ='lgc'>==commit='lgc'>='lgc'>==> elusive creativity='lgc'>]
="lsts lst1">•(learning from ="ppl">="ppl">Kenney='lgc'>:) where are their alliances پیوستگیها ='lgc'>[with multiculturalism='qstn'>? ='lgc'>==commit='lgc'>='lgc'>==> democracy's logos of ="trms">difference='lgc'>]
="lsts lst1">•(learning from ="ppl">Verran='lgc'>:) how their ="trms">="trms">equipments are ="trms">crafted ='lgc'>[by processual ="trms">="trms"nttrm="metaph,metamorph,metabol,metal">metaphysics='qstn'>? ='lgc'>==commit='lgc'>='lgc'>==> in="trms">finity='lgc'>]
="lsts lst1">•(learning from ="ppl">="ppl">Stewart='lgc'>:) how their ="trms"nttrm="righ,rigo,riga,rigi,trig,rign">rigor is built ='lgc'>[by conceptual description='qstn'>? ='lgc'>==commit='lgc'>='lgc'>==> non-habituality='lgc'>]

(because of her immense intelligence she cannot be normal, but that doesn't mean she can prescribe normativity, and issue a command ='lgc'>[in terms of the “de-” or “anti-“='lgc'>] or order a claim of reality ='lgc'>[in terms of “an-” or “ab-“='lgc'>])

="prgrph">-Manning's “philosophy of event” (='lgc'>=/= multi="trms">species ethnography, i prefer working with the ="trms">animal idea, because there is no way you can make philosophy out of ="trms">animal, they always relentlessly ="trms">contingent and ="trms">historically ="trms">materially ="trms">specific)

="large lg2" stl="font-size:110%"> ="prgrph">-Manning's notion of impersonality ='lgc'>='lgc'>==> ‘people are exchangble’ ='lgc'>+ ‘the work is what is important and not “you”’ ='lgc'>[='lgc'>='lgc'>--> ='strcls'>*="trms">techniques of impersonality='strcls'>* has being used in sufism and ="nms">iranian mysticism. i have seen how the special effects of impersonality is used in political projects, making of soldiers, master-disciple ="trms">relationship, and so on
="prgrph">-look at the cool impersonality of the ="trms">scientific ="trms">language (depriving them of their own ideological status)
="prgrph">-early 19th century ="trms">modern public space was reinventing and operating with impersonality='lgc'>: individuals are ="trms">systematically habituated not to return the gaze of the other.
='lgc'>=/= i am actually very much attracted to persons. i am ="trms">interested in their personality. the “you” is what i fall in ="trms">love with, not the ‘abstract link'='lgc'>='lgc'>--> (Manning's) peripheral perceptivity ='lgc'>=/= (i am trying to learn) to describe what is in front of me (which is never easy)='lgc'>]

="prgrph">-Manning's notion of “the problem gives the ="trms">question to be asked of it” ='lgc'>=/= the ="trms">question problematizes

="prgrph">-focus on “sedimentation” (='lgc'>='lgc'>--> where is the coexistence of contrasts for them='qstn'>?)

“decontextualization”='lgc'>: their ="trms">technique of concept-making (='lgc'>='lgc'>==> claims of reality, of nunhuman, etc.)
='lgc'>[decontextualization is a very d="trms"nttrm="danger,stranger">angerous way of ="trms">crafting concepts. there are other ways, committed to the ="trms">contingencies of the ="trms">historical ="trms">material ="trms">world of multi="trms">species. ="trms"nttrm="righ,rigo,riga,rigi,trig,rign">rigor of conceptualization that i am learning from ="ppl">="ppl">Stewart is about the ='strcls'>*quality of an access to part of a ="trms">world='strcls'>* ='lgc'>=/= decontextualization='lgc'>]='lgc'>--so='lgc'>='lgc'>--> i say we need ‘concepts’ and not ‘philosophy’='lgc'>:
='strcls'>*philosophy (as practiced by M&M and ="frds scrmbld"nttrm="Alex,Alert,Aleph,Alessi">Alex)='lgc'>: claiming the ="trms">nature of reality
='strcls'>*concept='lgc'>: a figure you make in order to do a limited ="trms">situated work

“conceptualization='lgc'> = fortification” استحکامات
(to fortify one's own work with concepts ='lgc'>='lgc'>==> settlement)

Manning's af="trms">finity with in="trms">finitly, more, and multi ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> what is their ="trms"nttrm="righ,rigo,riga,rigi,trig,rign">rigor is doing for them='qstn'>? commits them to the nonhabitual. (resisting to name their habits, depriving them of thier habitual labors) ='lgc'>[='lgc'>=/= ='mywrk'>my work on descriptive practices='lgc'>]

="prgrph">-i want to know about their ="trms">="trms">empirical tools that make ="trms">translation-work visible (='lgc'>='lgc'>==> decom="trms">position), not their conceptual descriptions ='lgc'>[='lgc'>=/= textured description with ="trms">thick details ='lgc'><='lgc'>== i really think the devil is in the details!! ='lgc'>}='lgc'>='lgc'>--> art of noticing things='lgc'>]
="prgrph">-i want to know how Manning is compromised into desiring what she is doing. ='lgc'>[compromise='lgc'>: being exposed or made ="trms">liable to d="trms"nttrm="danger,stranger">anger, suspicion, or disrepute. ='lgc'>--the way she told the ="trms">story of her practice had a difficult sense of success in it, of being cool and correct at every turn, uncompromised. (='lgc'><='lgc'>-- why is this a turn-off for me='qstn'>?)='lgc'>]

for ="trms">aesthetic, political, ethical reasons i want Manning to address in their work='lgc'>:
="lsts lst1">•the ="trms">question of ="trms">apparatus ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> working within an ="trms">apparatus of thinking in order to get somewhere in a sustained way. i want them to name their ="trms">apparatus of ="trms">literary production. how they engage with the ="trms">interface, ="trms">data-set, grammar, and ="trms">literacy of their reservoir.
="lsts lst1">•the ="trms">question of infrastructure ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> how they balance the possible and the acceptable, the balance of action, tools, and the built environment
="lsts lst1">•the ="trms">question of ="trms">technology ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> how they take apart the tool from its context of involvements and referentialities
="lsts lst1">•the ="trms">question of political orientation ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> how they have accepted the democratization of knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge and multiculturalism (='thdf'>the idea of “knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge for everyone” ='lgc'>[='lgc'>='lgc'>--> there is a very thin line between the impulse to democratize and commodify knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge='lgc'>]; ='lgc'>--could multiculturalism be radical capitalism in action='qstn'>?! ...faking diversity to build more diverse companies ='lgc'><='lgc'>-- “lip service”='lgc'>: to just say something but not actually do it)
='lgc'>[='lgc'>='lgc'>--> the hegemony and ="trms">horror of “="trms">different experience” of the so-called ="trms">different cultures (a form of racism='qstn'>?)='lgc'>]
='lgc'>[multiculturalism ='lgc'>=/= trans-="trms">species='lgc'>]
='lgc'>[multiculturalism ='lgc'>=/= eurasia='lgc'>]
='lgc'>[='lgc'>='lgc'>--> the hegemony and ="trms">horror of “the completely ="trms">different” (='lgc'>='lgc'>==>='qstn'>? de="trms">skilled ="trms">society)='lgc'>]

Manning='lgc'>: “in senseLab we work with the people who don't use ="trms">language, don't ="trms">write, etc.” (='lgc'><='lgc'>-- what does that legitimates, conceals, or smuggles='qstn'>? what ="trms">sorts of hierarchies and ideologies of status emerge out of that='qstn'>?)

="prgrph">-as the philosopher of nonintentionality how did she ="trms">responded (="trms">paranoically='qstn'>?) to our intents when ="trms">questions where asked='qstn'>?
="prgrph">-as the philosopher of discord how did she ="trms">responded to disagreement='qstn'>?


(='qstn'>?how do you tell the tale of) ='strcls'>*your adventures سلوک and achievements کرامت='strcls'>* (karamat va soluk)
(why self-promoting is such a turn-off='qstn'>? it makes the ="trms"nttrm="listen,alist,ilist,llist,olist,ylist,ulist">listener into someone to convince or win over into the Förderung of the speaker. ='lgc'>[with ="ppl">Campbell:='lgc'>] self-="trms">marketing creates a ‘="trms">perverse knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge’ about the work of the speaker, that means you give information about ‘healthy’ parts of your practice, your achievements and moral/="trms">material awards, with ='thdf'>the ='thdf'>assumption that the ="trms"nttrm="listen,alist,ilist,llist,olist,ylist,ulist">listener is going to make a good decision about the ‘halo effects’ of the speaker, but in fact you are made ‘brand ="trms">literate’)
or ='lgc'>[it is seems elementary but neccesory to ask Manning:='lgc'>] what is the ="trms">difference between advertisement and knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge='qstn'>?


there are innumerable ways to adapt to the ="trms">world without creating a philosophical understanding of the ="trms">world

[...]