[...]enney='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)

="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'>?)

="large lg2" stl="font-size:112%"> “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

="large lg1" stl="font-size:142%"> “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

(Manning) “we feel the force of form. this kind of beauty has nothing to do with an external ="trms">aesthetic judgment.” (='lgc'>='lgc'>--> how the personal judgment is not worthy of philo when a tsunami is coming or one is on the way of being gang raped='qstn'>?)


during the workshop Manning remains the center of command. she constantly “knows” (better). and she insists that through letting go of our critical thinking the participants can understand her notions ='lgc'>='lgc'>==>='qstn'>? how can she not build disciples='qstn'>?!

on production
replacing the name of ‘production’ with ‘but we must leave a trace’ (which exactly do let ='thdf'>the notion of production sneak back in under an other name)

(Manning on p.16 5th paragraph is an ='thdf'>example of an) unaccountable un="trms">situated abstract claim of reality='lgc'>:
="lsts lst1">•unaccountable ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> where do you stand saying this='qstn'>?
="lsts lst1">•un="trms">situated ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> for whom is this good='qstn'>?
="lsts lst1">•abstract ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> how you are saying it='qstn'>?

='thdf'>the notion of “care for the event”
='lgc'>=/= perspectives
='lgc'>=/= subjects
='lgc'>=/= persons

“occasion itself creates its subjects” (='lgc'><='lgc'>-- you are a subject inside the occasion, how can you stand out and say that='qstn'>?)

(Manning) creating a concept of care ='lgc'>=/= care as actually practiced in ="trms">different parts of the ="trms">world by people
(what is the politics of not caring='qstn'>?)

Manning's ="trms">rhetoric of reasoning='lgc'>: ‘virtuous’
telling soft wisdom tale with an emotional twist at the end and how she did the ="trms"nttrm="righ,rigo,riga,rigi,trig,rign">right thing and came out clean and cool ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> rectitude

her text has become all about the achievements of senseLab with a cover of high philosophical abstract conceptualization (='lgc'>~= fortification)
='lgc'>=/= taking ='strcls'>*risk='strcls'>* (='lgc'>=/= adventure) of talking about the real problems that you face in doing/thinking
='lgc'>=/= abstraction as the challenge of bringing ="trms">specificity and ="trms">imaginative traction

“adventure” is not the name of the game for me, for two reasons='lgc'>:
="lstsrd">1. Manning brought her concept of ‘adventure’ to Belgium='lgc'>: the land of Tintin, poster of the moderinst adventure ="trms">agency sold by the image of the individual blond univerasal truth-seeker exporting company who always wins by de="trms">finition, Tintin is the one who doesn't have a culture and always others have culture in his ="trms">stories
="lstsrd">2. i have been researching europeans who came for an “adventure” to ="nms">iran in the last millennium (such as ="ppl">Olearius), and it doesn't look good. when europeans go out of their center to east it is adventure (or ="trms">anthropology), that means othering and feeling the ="trms">differences of the other in order to feel [...]