[...]erpretation are playing part in a compound.
the ="trms">story captures the rays in their refracted re="trms">presentations, the ="trms">stories are ="trms">interpretive objects, objects of engagement

='lgc'>[Eva ="ppl">="ppl">Hayward='lgc'>]
='strcls'>***things do not have fully determinate boundaries or properties. Things happen ‘in’ and ‘by’ encounter='lgc'>--refraction is one critical mode of encounter='strcls'>***
="prgrph">-the object is always troubled by obscuration
="prgrph">-through refraction, the object is altered by ='strcls'>*scale='strcls'>* and ='strcls'>*encounter='strcls'>* ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> the altered scale allows the object to reveal its ="trms">specificity, its particularity; boundaries are rendered indeterminate and exist only to the extent that they are continually enacted.
="prgrph">-in ="nms">ajayeb we can see these forms of refraction in descriptive acts

="trms">agential ="trms">intra-acting='lgc'>: “="trms">phenomena do not merely mark the ="trms">epistemological inseparability of ‘observer’ and ‘observed’; rather, ='strcls'>***="trms">phenomena are the ="trms">ontological inseparability of ="trms">agentially ="trms">intra-acting ‘components’” that is, ="trms">phenomena are ="trms">ontologically primitive ="trms">relations='lgc'>--="trms">relations without preexisting ="trms">relata. (="ppl">="ppl">Barad)
='strcls'>*="trms">mutual constitution of entangled ="trms">agencies='strcls'>*

never complete, never whole, but deep in com="trms">position='lgc'>--="trms">materially and ="trms">semiotically='lgc'>--of conjoined forces that ="trms">matter.

“dynamic (re)configurings of the ="trms">world, ="trms">specific ="trms">agential practices/="trms">intra-actions/performances through which ="trms">specific ex="trms">="trms"nttrm="cluster,club">clusionary boundaries are enacted” (="ppl">="ppl">Barad)

(now ="trms">ontologically) ="trms">spectatorship ='lgc'>=/= re="trms">presentation ='lgc'>=/= referent
(still='qstn'>? in ="nms">ajayeb) ="trms"nttrm="already,spread">reader ='lgc'>~= re="trms">presentation ='lgc'>~= ="trms">citational non-evidence

="large lg2" stl="font-size:110%"> (="ppl">="ppl">Hayward='lgc'>='lgc'>-->) if we recognize that clear vision is always predicated on distorted, bent, and otherwise refracted (and diffracted) light, how might we reconsider theoretical investigations (filmic, philosophical, etc.) that ='strcls'>*rely ex="trms">="trms"nttrm="cluster,club">clusively on untroubled reflectivity='strcls'>*. yes, “clear” vision is secured by corrective ="trms">measures in the eye (and elsewhere) but conversely sight is always multiply altered and realtered by transmedium movement of light.

there is an embedded conceptual tension in refraction between ='strcls'>*lucidity='strcls'>* and ='strcls'>*degradation='strcls'>*

“as it is” ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> the object is always troubled by obscuration

='strcls'>***things do not have fully determinate boundaries or properties. things happen ‘in’ and ‘by’ encounter='lgc'>--refraction is one critical mode of encounter

object is altered by ='strcls'>*scale='strcls'>* and ='strcls'>*encounter='strcls'>* (through refraction)
='lgc'>='lgc'>--> “="trms">="trms">empirical perspective” ='lgc'>: the ='strcls'>*altered scale='strcls'>* also allows the object to reveal its ="trms">specificity, its particularity; boundaries are rendered indeterminate and exist only to the extent that they are continually enacted.

(="ppl">="ppl">Hayward > ="ppl">="ppl">Barad='lgc'>:)
="trms">Phenomena do not merely mark the ="trms">epistemological inseparability of “observer” and “observed”; rather, ="trms">phenomena are the ="trms">ontological inseparability of ="trms">agentially ="trms">intra-acting ‘components.’ That is, ="trms">phenomena are ="trms">ontologically primitive ="trms">relations='lgc'>--="trms">relations without preexisting ="trms">relata. ='lgc'>[='strcls'>*relatum='lgc'>: one of the objects between which a ="trms">relation is said to hold. ='strcls'>*="trms">relata='lgc'>: would-be antecedent (tabar تبار) components of ="trms">relations.='lgc'>]

="large lg1" stl="font-size:142%">
reverie of reflectivity ='lgc'>=/= refraction (='lgc'>='lgc'>--> makes explicit transforms the tendency of the image to orient re="trms">presentation, foregrounding the th="trms"nttrm="already,spread">readed visual space between the image and the ="trms">spectator.)

='strcls'>***dynamic (re)configurings of the ="trms">world, ="trms">specific ="trms">agential practices/="trms">intra-actions/performances through which ="trms">specific ex="trms">="trms"nttrm="cluster,club">clusionary boundaries are enacted='strcls'>***
(Kaja Silverman, the subject of ="trms">semiotics)

="trms">spectatorships ='lgc'>=/=! re="trms">presentations ='lgc'>=/=! referents
(="trms">ontological distinction='lgc'>: “='lgc'>=/=!”)

the surreal ="trms">techno="trms">scientific look ='lgc'>--='qstn'>?='lgc'>='lgc'>--> allowing wondrous but ="trms">material extensions into the ="nms">ajayeb domain

in creating a “look” for ="nms">ajayeb='lgc'>: whether or not a used/user ="trms">interaction can have ethical dimensions='qstn'>?


refraction is not framework, but a pathway. it engages patterns of ="trms">interference and exchange



the xeno-="trms">sensual in the ="nms">ajayeb
="trms">different ="trms">differences that are sensed and mediated

="display:block;white-space:nowrap;margin-bottom:-1em;overflow:hidden;">...................................

="trms">poetic ="trms">historiography
(="trms">historiography='lgc'>: the study of the ="trms">writing of ="trms">history and of ="trms">written ="trms">histories)

="display:block;white-space:nowrap;margin-bottom:-1em;overflow:hidden;">...................................

to begin ="trms">writing about ="nms">ajayeb with the ="trms">citational, ‘avardeand ke...’ (...آورده‌اند که)
="trms">citation, an important characteristic of ="trms">fables, is about ="trms">relational ="trms">histories.
absence of de="trms">finitive source (in my old ="trms">childhood favorite radio show, by bring an endless ="trms"nttrm="listen,alist,ilist,llist,olist,ylist,ulist">list of fantastic source and bodies of ="trms"nttrm="failure,blur,plur,lurk,tallur,slur">lures) allows ="trms">monsters to flourish and me the full range of my passionate ="trms">crafts. ="nms">ajayeb's compelling mystery ="trms">demands (from me) an unorthodox and omnivorous approach (hame-chiz-khar همه چیز خوار).

اما راویان اخبار و ناقلان آثار و طوطیان شکرشکن شیرین گفتار و خوشه چینان خرمن سخن دانی و صرافان سر بازار معانی و چابک سواران میدان دانش توسن خوش خرام سخن را بدینگونه به جولان در آورده اند که ...

="lsts lst1">•Mirabile dictu... (miraculous to say...)

towards ="ppl">="ppl">Despret's talking parrots
parrots (shekar-shekan) (and philosophers) really like to control the exchange, to keep control of a conversation ='lgc'>: their refusal to let another individual choose the topic of conversation
='strcls'>***(parrots have) a ="trms">pragmatic rather than a referential conception of ="trms">language
='lgc'>[am i also referential (='lgc'>=/= ="trms">pragmatic) in my conception of ="trms">language='qstn'>?='lgc'>]='lgc'>='lgc'>--> to teach a being to speak pre="trms">supposes not only a tolerance of but also ='strcls'>*a profound ="trms">interest in misunderstanding='strcls'>* (this ‘profound ="trms">interest in misunderstanding’ is precisely both cognitive and political aspect of what I am trying to bring forth) ='lgc'>~-> (how ="trms">language-learning with ="trms">animals can help us learn) restating and inverting the ="trms">question of control

='strcls'>*exchange can only be achieved when there is “a continous reprisal of ="trms">translations and betrayals of meaning”='strcls'>* ='lgc'>='lgc'>==> understanding itself is compromised
='lgc'>[='strcls'>*='lgc'>]="nms">ajayeb='lgc'>: a non-stop betrayal of ="trms">translations (of perspectives) and continuous redressal of meanings (of things)

“as if” has to do with misunderstanding

="large lg3" stl="font-size:112%"> “meanings are constructed in a constant movement of ‘attunement,’ which makes them emerge.”
(="ppl">="ppl">Despret, ="trms">animal breeding practices)

(='mywrk'>my work on ="nms">ajayeb is also much about) ='strcls'>*="trms">language-learning='strcls'>* ='lgc'>[...='lgc'>]in its ="trms">pragmatic function='lgc'>: it is an effective means of acting and of making others act


keep your end up

="large lg4" stl="font-size:110%">
='lgc'>[='strcls'>*='lgc'>]type='lgc'>: identifying ="trms">language use with modes of existence ='lgc'>[="ppl">Wittgenstein's mistake='lgc'>] (maybe useful to reanimate the ="trms">question of ‘becoming’ for ="frds scrmbld">Marialena)
the mode of existence of lions is subordinated to that of an essence “lioness,” guaranteed by the identity of the ="trms">species and the stability of its repertoire of behavior ='lgc'>='lgc'>==> a bur="trms">densome conception of the ="trms">naturalness of ="trms">animals
='strcls'>***the ="trms">question is not what ‘is’ a lion, but “how does one become a lion,” not only in lion ="trms">community and ="trms">species, but also in the work of ="trms">scientists, constructing what it is to be a lion.
='lgc'>='lgc'>--> this is about becoming='lgc'>: of that of which the ="trms">animal is rendered capable by the ="trms">apparatuses that ="trms">interrogate it

how can what I say about lions or baboons (or oceans or jinns) be ="trms">authorized by them='qstn'>?


='lgc'>[='strcls'>*='lgc'>]we='lgc'>: constituted by the assemblage of ="trms">different (="trms">animal-, nonhuman-, machine-, human-)beings ="trms">="trms">equipped with an ="trms">apparatus aimed at making them talk well ='lgc'>--='lgc'>{by taking an ="trms">interest in what constitutes the appropriateness of a ="trms">material ="trms">apparatus that transforms those it ="trms">interrogates='lgc'>}='lgc'>='lgc'>--> fully agreeing to ="trms">situate oneself in a regime of transformations and accomplishments ='lgc'>==='lgc'>{that mingle with and give form to='lgc'>}='lgc'>='lgc'>==> ='strcls'>*desires='strcls'>*
="prgrph">-rese="trms"nttrm="search">archer's desire is one the modes of their efficacity
="prgrph">-“our” problems are not a ="trms">priori

="large lg5" stl="font-size:140%"> a “we”='lgc'>:
='lgc'>+ “know full well”
='lgc'>+ “are ="trms">different”
='lgc'>+ “who work”

="trms">rhetorics of pronouns, acts of crude ="trms">generalizations='lgc'>: something is being ="trms">specified and something ="trms">generalized. ='lgc'>[='at'>@="frds scrmbld">Xiri's “I am the one who... your...” the ="trms">specificity and generality of “I” and of “you” in her text. how the ="trms">difference of “you” and “I” was envisaged in her ="trms">poem='qstn'>?='lgc'>='lgc'>-->='lgc'>{I, the effected by ='lgc'>=/= you, the haver='lgc'>} how can this I/you impose itself not as the effect of a strong-arm tactic='qstn'>? ='lgc'>=/=='qstn'>? I want to find out how to live together; refuse to deepen the contrast between “us” and “them"='lgc'>] ='lgc'>[in ="frds scrmbld">Xiri's ="trms">poem='lgc'>: who/what makes her pronouns='qstn'>?='lgc'>] ='lgc'>[to address people ‘as’ refugees, subjugated, poor, or victim, to recognize them by these identities, only repeats the process of ex="trms">="trms"nttrm="cluster,club">clusion(='qstn'>?) could [...]