[...]='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'>==> ‘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'>]

="large lg2" stl="font-size:111%"> ="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'>==> 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'>==> 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'>==> decom="trms">position), not their conceptual descriptions ='lgc'>[='lgc'>=/= textured description with ="trms">thick details ='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'>==>='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'>?

="large lg1" stl="font-size:132%">
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'>==>='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 outside. but when, for example ="nms">iranians go to Europe, they never feel they are there for “adventure,” they are there to learn. the mode of adventure plays this role in the colonial dynamic of “going out there”

(my fundamental ="trms">difference with her is that) for Manning (and ="frds scrmbld"nttrm="Alex,Alert,Aleph,Alessi">Alex)='lgc'>: “philosophy is a ="trms">priori to ="trms">storytelling” ='lgc'>[='lgc'>=/= ="ppl">Serres='lgc'>]
[...]