[...]ntrasts?)

this is not about trying to think like X, that would be transposition of a relational experience at another scale

(non-religious semiotic model)
bodily disposition ==(produces)==> perspective ==(produces)==> self

the beings in ajayeb (عجایب‌) are ‘alive’ because of their ability to ‘do things’ in the ways they come to represent and interpret through me

recruiting scores of new actants so as to render the theater of worldly interactions more complex and interesting


what is the sociocultural world we construct?


dream images, vivid mythical scenes,


form travels/passes through us

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

[Latour modes of existence]

(to distinguish types of)
incompatible truths

“truth"--is the expression of an encounter with forms of existence

to understand the others in the absence of a description of ourselves
(what is realistic?)

to direct attention towards the beings about which humans are interrogating themselves



عجایب‌ ajayeb is a ‘network’ more than anything else, in it “God” has no special privilege, is not located in addition to or beyond other beings

we are seeking to redefine the paths of beings that are unique to ajayeb without giving them substance and without jumping immediately into transcendence. (using Latour words) [transcendence is never gradual, in the places i come from, it is always a shock, happening, a truth-event]
-each word (God, Angle, Jinn جن, fog, etc.) brought into its own network,
-what are contrasts and of category mistakes particular to each
-and their crossings----and what is the vocabulary specific to each crossing

the network of associations necessary for the exercise of religion without bracketing off its ontological requirements.

explanatory rage (tavahoshe roshangari توحش روشنگری) --✕--> networks necessary for religious meaning

(the aim is) deploying the network (of ajayeb)
it is about grasping ajayeb's beings not as substances but as *trajectories*--and give them a more precise *direction.*

what is important in working these modes what kinds of possibilities are “afforded” to the investigator, myself. what kind of actor am i?

(specifications of the type of beings that the mode leaves in its wake)

**other beings necessary for its existence**
(my personal/public question, what other beings are necessary for my existence? and therefore for your existence as well.) ----> the heterogeneity of the actors needed for the pursuit of any course of action


*metamorphosis (a mode of existence first detected in psychogenesis?) what we encounter whenever we address the manner in which existents are transformed or transform in order to subsist (zist زیست)
-defined by a certain kind of continuity and obtained by a certain type of discontinuity
-metamorphosis is about crisis, possession, alienation,
-metamorphosis sharply contrasts *cure* (~= ritual)
-allowing for installing unconscious (states,) crush, posses, bewitch, kill,
-beings with specific properties that are invisible, changeable, powerful, favorable, unfavorable
-exploration of transformations
-cosmological specialties
-seniority and extension of metamorphosical beings (of elaborations carried out by all groups in met)

{that which addresses the “me,” the “ego” =/=? that which allows one to resist the forces of metamorphosis}

the iconoclastic episode we are in now, which we must work to make it as short as possible

(to specify) dualisms that make it extraordinarily difficult to maintain ontological pluralism

it is the moderns quasi-subjects (‘person’) who feel themselves to be **directly addressed,** (redressed and saved) --> to exist
(what art suffers now, that i should directly address the modern subject, and other mode of subjectivity or other kinds of addressee and addressing is brutally criticized and irrelativized)
-(love's type of address:) addressed to us ==> make us exist --> a person
(existing as person is the only way? no no no!) -- the emergence of persons is a local and historical phenomenon that we simply cannot extend to all collectives

(how to extricate ourselves properly from the) notions of Nature, Matter, Object, and Subject

to get around two major *obstacles: (the prevailing notions of) Society and (especially of) Economy (=/=? modes of existence's system of coordinates)

the same beings that made the author of ajayeb speak, got my/our ancestors excited,


*technology: that which we emphasize whenever we pay attention to the unexpected detours {the hiatus of the detour, the zigzag of invention, ruse, trajectory obtained by a certain type of discontinuity} by which existents have to pass in order to subsist. (=/= technological domain technical objects, material world, socio-technical networks,) (~ technically)
-fictional beings adds additional variety to technical beings --> aestheticization of techniques: obsolescence, ruin, adjustment, efficiency
-we must extend ‘fictional beings’ far beyond the narrow domain of art and culture, is to give a whole new meaning to the expression “material culture.”
-1- Technique's zigzagging motion assumes a know-how, a judgment, a constantly reprised evaluation of formidably demanding specifications;
-2- Technical beings leave behind them complex frameworks and combinations of associations which appear difficult to understand once left to themselves, without the folding motion and the detours which enabled them;
-3- relative fragility of technical beings: it establishes combinations and bridges between completely heterogeneous types of beings

*fiction: ...beings be grasped according to a particular relationship between materials and figures which cannot be detached without those two layers losing their specific form of objectivity. {fictionally : materials <--> figures}
fiction objects: everything that folds technical beings --> to derive from them a new type of *alteration* --(generates)--> another world (a world which has the particularity of not being able to be detached in any way from the materials [from which it appears to detach itself.])
*fictional beings:
 -they extract materials from forms, figures or small worlds that can neither be detached from these materials nor reduced to them.
 -khosh-yomn خوش یمن and shoom شوم (felicity and infelicity) --> pretense (vanemud وانمود); they depend on the always fragile maintenance of the relation between material and form
 -*specifications* of “fictional beings” (that leaves in its wake) ==> worlds (unlike fic all other modes fold for their own use by managing to extract from materials)

All continuations of a “course of action” suppose a discontinuity that must be overcome in order to define a trajectory. ==> gap, break

the mini-transcendence required for any definition of the being-as-other

(haven't we managed?) to allow several modes of existence to run, flow, pass, each one appearing indeed to possess its own conditions of truth and falsity and its own mode of subsistence

‘libido sciendi’: to recognize the branching that allows us to stop confusing the chains of reference it has to establish in order to ensure knowledge with the leaps that things have to make to maintain themselves in existence

*“beings of law,” : those beings that wake a judge up at night and force him to ask himself “Did I make the right decision?”


(feeling smashed by) ‘the task of mimicking the world’


*articulation* is an ontological property of the universe; a being is articulated (rather than being a silent presence, made immediate, persistent, given duration without existence).
-It is the articulation of beings that enables us to talk about them and to judge, that is to say, to monitor the risks they take in being “permitted by” and “promised to”. (modes of existence)
translation, discrepancy, displacement, interpolation,
(problem with “statement” [=/=? articulation] is that it must correspond to a ‘state of affairs’ [~=? politics])
==> to free science from: completeness, comprehensiveness, formality, expressibility, inscriptibility. (Vollständigkeit, Verständlichkeit, Formalität, Ausdrücklichkeit, Unbeschreiblichkeit.) [what is a science that is not describable? ~-> Sohrevardi {forms of enunciation}--> how to specify the Sohrevardi's felicity (sa'adat سعادت) conditions (of enunciation)? ---- (his) “equipped knowledge” (=/=? situated knowledge), awkward distributions, etc.] #(this is all about me trying to learn how to make room...)
knowledge moves around everywhere without our knowing how
“waiting to be known”


*translation =/= {transportation without deformation ~= description}
every transfer is translation
(political:) transfers of necessity
following the thread of modes
translation =/= displacement: merely a change of place
translation refuses the choice between being and non-being and rejects the principle of non-contradiction by which a thing cannot be, in the same respect, both itself and another.
translation: to be at the same time and in the same respect one thing and another --> this is the condition of being --> give place to mediators / “excluded middle”
(translation enjoys that) a being can be itself through the intervention of a being other than itself
(monitoring translations in ajayeb) --> and my treason/translation which brings about completely different trajectories, which allows itself to be grasped by surprise or action etc. / to trace a/its network
translation ~=? occasion ~~--> the essence of situation
-no one can simply (ever) “remain the same,” “without doing anything” --> one needs to pass ~= translation


*interest: a mediator that arises between two entities that do not know, before it arises, that they could be attached to each other. -->{
-‘object’: set of quasi subjects that are attached to it
-‘subject’: set of quasi objects that are attached to it}--> what new translation interest makes the (quasi) subject of a (quasi) object grow. --and vice versa--


radical position of *semiotics* on the issues of context, referent, and enunciation (that anthropology is able to escape)
(i am talking about a semiotics that is not obsessed with the search for “structure”)
{ (fictional beings ~=>) semiotic ~=? ontology }--> science of “sense” (=/= science of “signs”)
-the world itself is articulated
{ the study of sense =?=> extrication from language }--> this bifurcation (enshe'ab), as old as philosophy itself, used the discovery of “reference” as an opportunity to expel the referent to a position outside language.


(Aristotle's narrative : “the imitation of an action” -->) Ricoeur's three types of *mimesis:
1. prefiguration ()
2. configuration (kingdom of the “as if”)
3. refiguration (integration of the imaginative or “fictive” or “as if” into actual) of the field of action;

‘reading’ is configuration (Ricoeurian)

•use of symbols : being able to grasp one thing as standing for something else;
•narrative: competency in the temporal structures governing the syntagmatic order of “followability”


...empirical means to locate the boundaries of capitalism

(to enclose something -->) ontology of the Accounts Book --> Attar's Tazkirat al-Awliya's story of the boy, bird, butcher, accounts book, and the theme of repayment, quittance.
to place everything it does not take into account outside the enclosure and everything it does take into account and that properly belongs to him inside
--> origins of property

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

growing interest in *ecology* ==> growing interest in *theology* (--> granted a new relevant)

(Latour's notion of) ecotheology [~= ajayeb]


(how not to consider your self secretly--even under the self-reflectivity--as) the chosen people

renegotiation of values and features:
(if) recently european stopped having been modern ==> the ‘others’ have also stopped having been ‘other’

*the planet will no longer be modernized* (Latour shouting)

geopolitics of difference

“europe" = the modernist great narrative --or--> produce an alternative great narrative of what european cultures (and natures) have been
}--✕--> *contrasting *traits* (that have been elaborated in the course of european history)


“here is my *treasure*, here is my *heart*, if you deprive us of one of these contrasts, we are no longer humans”

to be sensitive to different original origins (=/= eurocentrism)
[different origins that speak also truthfully]

(Olearius drama:) dramatic encounter between the (early) anthropologist's gaze and the various cultures (and natures) he have discovered
...painful history of the anthropologist's gaze


[*]value: what one is ready to die for / what makes life not worth living if one is deprived of it

european history tied to the elaboration of:
•science as value (--✕--> apodictic truth, social construction, etc.)
•law as value (--✕--> power, rhetoric, etc.)
•politics as value (--✕--> [*]social: the name of what is assembled--associated)
•
•

scientific ties
legal ties
political ties
=/= social associates

so difficult to enunciate something religiously because of *the ease with which it is accounted for by other types of explanation* (especially social explanation)


in apass we need to practice saying: “I don't want to take that or this contrast into account any more” (because you want to do something else for a moment)
--> you return to a project --and--> i have been fighting so that (myself and) you **don't become modernist again** (~ that means you engage in the conflict of values that has characterized modernist history)
(with work on ajayeb) i am engaged in the project of ***disentangling the entire set of values that constitutes my rightful inheritance***

(the question of) “what treasure have we inherited? how can we claim it?” --> it is so dangerous to answer those questions alone, without each other ==> selfish identities and origins
(eurocentrism, or the former ‘others’ answering it for everyone, without you)


ecologizing

ecological consciousness =? your entire way of life must be modified or else you will disappear as a civilization


(not being the heir of) emancipatory tradition

(if) modernism is Promethean, then green bio economy and clean technology is Promethean even more

(the bad idea of and hype of) technological solution to ecological crises


*renewing everything here and now* is first of all a religious passion
?@Leo


-what modernism did to science is worse than what it did to religion
it deprived it of its energy, restricting it, to *mere furniture of the soul* [--> Iron Man's idea of technology-human relation]

modernism's politicization of science


speaking of science scientifically ==> a scientific ‘worldview’ is deployed
speaking of religion religiously ==> a vague assemblage of pious moral vacuities is taken as an ‘alternative worldview’
}--> they both accept an* unscientific science* and an *irreligious religion*


Latour (quickly dissolving nonsense that accrues as one opposes ‘knowledge’ and ‘belief’):
•science = reference chain (what allow access to the far away) [nothing is out of the reach of reference chain]
•religion = presence (what allow access to the near)

science ~/= concrete, worldly, matter-of-fact, present-at-hand, domain of knowledge (<-- political activism has to work with that kind of knowledge)


what use is it to save your soul, if you forfeit the world? --> sci-fi's real frontier & Noah's project


the transcendence and transubstantiation of science

when nature enters, religion has to leave. in two equally fatal exit strategies:
•to limit itself to the inner sanctum of the soul
•to flee into the supernatural --> that religion will try in vain to imitate scientific instruments (<-- The Magicians TV series) + misinterpreted science [==> taking Bible as if it were geology book (<-- look at the rising Hollywood films that scientifize the events of Bible) -- projects of connecting religion to the world]

‘exit religion’: it will have lost any pretence of influencing the course of events, its impact will only be decorative

(Descola:) ‘naturalism’ is only one of four ways in which connections between humans and nonhumans can be established


contrasts:
[...]