[...]al subject into the ="trms">fiction of the acting='strcls'>* ='lgc'><='lgc'>== ="trms">zoo="trms">morphism (='lgc'>=/= ="trms">anthropo="trms">morphism)


="trms">fable of the eagle and the raven
the ="trms">story of the raven that, having once watched with envy as an eagle snatched a lamb from the flock and carried it off, later attempts a similar feat. But a raven is not an eagle, and his claws get stuck in the fleece of a wether (not a lamb)='lgc'>: his prey becomes his ="trms">trap. He is captured by the shepherd, his wings are broken and taken from him, and he is given to the shepherd's ="trms">children as a plaything
="lsts lst1">•identity check
="lsts lst1">•the ="trms">bird begins the ="trms">fable without (knowing) its name
="lsts lst1">•establishment of the raven as an (ir)="trms">responsible ="trms">agent, one that can be called to ="trms">respond for itself ='lgc'><='lgc'>-- an “I” has a name and a choice about its action, because it could have done otherwise
="lsts lst1">•raven's errancy consists precisely in wandering away from its name ='lgc'><='lgc'>-- in the ="trms">past ='lgc'>=/= now (now I know well that i am a rauen) we can act ="trms">responsibly
="lsts lst1">•act in ="trms">accord with the fate prescribed for you by your name ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> restore the proper name ='lgc'>='lgc'>==> establishment of the ="trms">responsible ="trms">agent
="lsts lst1">•critical ="trms">system of “error ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> correction ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> I='lgc'> = name” ='lgc'>==fix='lgc'>='lgc'>==> the link between the order of cognition (whether false ="trms">supposition or true knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge) ='and'>& that of action (take a lamb / as
the eagle did)
="lsts lst1">•don't compare yourself with what you are not ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> ="trms"nttrm="already,spread">reader is you are asked to compare yourself with the raven (follow its example)
='lgc'>}='lgc'>='lgc'>--> ="trms">fable of ="trms">responsibility='lgc'> = a ="trms">story about ="trms">language and its d="trms"nttrm="danger,stranger">anger (raven may be like an eagle, but it is not an eagle) ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> “know your name ='lgc'>+ do what it say” ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> ='strcls'>*="trms">responsibility='lgc'>: the ="trms">response to the name by which one is called='strcls'>* ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> ='thdf'>the idea that ='strcls'>*="trms">supposing ='and'>& knowing='strcls'>* belong to one and the same homogeneous ="trms">system='strcls'>*

="large lg2" stl="font-size:111%"> (the art of) ="trms">supposition='lgc'>: disguise, false knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge (guess, surmise, premise)
='lgc'>--or='lgc'>='lgc'>--> ungovernable and unrecoverable force of ='strcls'>*="trms">positing='strcls'>* (="trms">position or im="trms">position)

(generation of the pure name in ="trms">fable of the eagle and the raven='lgc'>:)
non-="trms">symmetrical movement from nameless ="trms">bird ='lgc'>--to='lgc'>='lgc'>--> ="trms">birdless name (a wingless not-eagle)


why ="trms">fables are important='qstn'>? ='lgc'><='lgc'>-- others and their traces are always working within us al="trms"nttrm="already,spread">ready, in a space and time that cannot be reduced to that of consciousness (or self-="trms">presence)
="lsts lst1">•profound ="trms">linguistic or ="trms">rhetorical complexity of the call and ="trms">response

the raven resounds (it does not just start talking) ='lgc'><='lgc'>-- it starts with the others='lgc'>: eagle, wether, shepherd

Lacoue­ Labarthe ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> identification (the self-becoming of the Self) has always been thought as a ="trms">matter of examples (='lgc'>+ their appropriation) ='lgc'>--raven='lgc'>='lgc'>--> (paradoxical impera­tive) “imitate me in order to be what you are”

wolf in sheep's clothing (Aesop's “A Case of Mistaken Identity”)
a wolf thought that by disguising himself he could get plenty to eat. Putting on a sheep­ skin to trick the shepherd, he joined the flock at grass without being discovered. At nightfall the shepherd shut him with the sheep in the ="trms">fold and made fast all round by blocking the entrance. Then, feeling hungry, he picked up his knife and s="trms">laughtered an ="trms">animal for his supper. It happened to be the wolf.
='lgc'>='lgc'>-->  a character that does not belong to one can involve one in ="trms">serious trouble



='lgc'>[='strcls'>*='lgc'>]="trms">fable='lgc'>: (name of the) ='strcls'>*="trms">literary thing='strcls'>* that aime to ='strcls'>*teach ="trms">responsibility='strcls'>* ='lgc'>--="ppl">Keenan='lgc'>='lgc'>-->  self-understanding of the free subject (='lgc'><='lgc'>--="trms">fable='lgc'>--we are exposed to something in ="trms">language that troubles the possibility of that understanding)

='lgc'>[in my ="trms">lecture performances with='lgc'>] ="trms">fable ='lgc'>[I aim to='lgc'>] offer an allegory-of un="trms"nttrm="already,spread">reading, of ="trms"nttrm="already,spread">reading without limits and without guarantees ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> freedom

governmental concepts='lgc'>:
="lsts lst1">•subject
="lsts lst1">•="trms">agency
="lsts lst1">•will
="lsts lst1">•choice
="lsts lst1">•freedom
="lsts lst1">•="trms"nttrm="righ,rigo,riga,rigi,trig,rign">rights
='lgc'>}='lgc'>--deconstruction='lgc'>='lgc'>-->  limitation of ethico-political ="trms">responsibilities

for ="ppl">Keenan='lgc'>: ='strcls'>**="trms">question of ="trms">respon­sibility='lgc'> = ="trms">question of freedom='strcls'>**

the free ="trms">community of rational beings cannot simply be (regulatively) invoked

calculable ='and'>& programmable law

="trms">responsibility='lgc'>: (names the predicament in which) ='strcls'>*coincide the necessity/inevitability of action ='and'>& the fai="trms"nttrm="failure,blur,plur,lurk,tallur,slur">lure of law='strcls'>*

="lsts lst1">•politics (and ethics) ='lgc'>--name='lgc'>='lgc'>--> the urgency and necessity of a ="trms">response
="lsts lst1">•="trms">responsibility (and freedom) ='lgc'>--name='lgc'>='lgc'>--> the impossibility of ="trms">response with guarantee

      ethical ='lgc'>=/= actual
         |           |
impossibility ='lgc'>=/=  totality of what is

='strcls'>***impossible ='lgc'>=/= not-possible='strcls'>***
='lgc'>--="ppl">Derrida='lgc'>='lgc'>--> the impossible occurs at every moment (that belong to the effort of ="trms"nttrm="already,spread">reading)

“have we not acquired the ="trms"nttrm="righ,rigo,riga,rigi,trig,rign">right to say everything='qstn'>?” (Sade)

who ="trms"nttrm="already,spread">reads, and how, a text addressed to no one='qstn'>?
what status does it have='qstn'>?


='lgc'>[Lode Lauwaert='lgc'>]
for ="ppl">Blanchot Sade (libertine aristocrat nove="trms"nttrm="listen,alist,ilist,llist,olist,ylist,ulist">list) was the ="trms">writer par excellence
we should think about Sade in explicitly revolutionary terms ='lgc'>[Sade's work ='lgc'>='lgc'>~= ="frds scrmbld"nttrm="Robin,Robot,Robert,Robocop">Robespierre's Reign of Terror='lgc'>]
="lsts lst1">•Sade's ideal of ="trms">society is a reactive reality (it takes form ="trms">specifically in reaction to something external) ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> undertaken endlessly efforts against modes of ="trms">social organization that are based on an stable ="trms">internal point of reference
in Sade='lgc'>:
="lstsrd">1. selfishness has an ="trms">ontological (not a moral) meaning ='lgc'>: ‘the essence of man='lgc'> = negation of the value of the other's existence’ (='lgc'>+ a destruction of the ="trms">positive meaning other people have in normal life) ='lgc'>=/= being-for-the-other
="lstsrd">2. characters with theocentric universe (who deliver extended theological discussions)
="lstsrd">3. blasphemous passages (negation of God's existence) ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> Sade’s ="trms">specific philosophy of ="trms">nature (reference to ="trms">nature is enough for a proper understanding of reality)
="lstsrd">4. ='strcls'>*every type of destruction always ultimately serves ="trms">nature='strcls'>* ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> ="trms">nature (by virtue of her desire for optimum production) is forced to destroy her products continuously ='lgc'>[='lgc'>--then='lgc'>='lgc'>--> how to annihilates ="trms">nature='qstn'>?='lgc'>] ='lgc'>--(essence of Sade's ="trms">world)='lgc'>='lgc'>--> ='strcls'>**radical negation='strcls'>**

each individual negation involves affirmation (of the other, humanity, God, ="trms">nature) ='lgc'>--="ppl">Blanchot='lgc'>='lgc'>--> (Sade's oeuvre =) a movement of radical negation that is nothing but its ='strcls'>*negative power='strcls'>* (it never affirms something)

Sade='lgc'> = permanent resistance ='lgc'>+ radical negation (of the other)

“nothing resembles the virtue as a great crime.”
(="ppl">Blanchot > Sade)

="ppl">Blanchot's ="trms">interpretation of the Terror ='lgc'>+ French Revolution (='lgc'><='lgc'>== ="ppl">Hegel)
revolution ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> freedom (formerly ="trms">situated in a divine sphere) operates from a purely immanent perspective
='thdf'>the idea of efficacy of the freedom ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> destroys what is given radically ='lgc'>--='not'>✕='lgc'>='lgc'>--> old regimes
='lgc'>--(understood absolutely)='lgc'>='lgc'>--> Saint-Just and ="frds scrmbld"nttrm="Robin,Robot,Robert,Robocop">Robespierre ="trms">demanded that the new French citizens lived out their pure freedom in a radical way

break free from='lgc'>:
="lsts lst1">•(highly personal) pleasures
="lsts lst1">•(highly personal) affairs
="lsts lst1">•

="ppl">Blanchot ='lgc'>+ Sade ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> ='strcls'>*one cannot use one's freedom to establish a new political order='strcls'>*
freedom not contaminated by a particular creation ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> Reign of Terror='lgc'> = (a horrible state of) “between” the overthrow of the old ='and'>& the establishment of the new regime
(='lgc'>='lgc'>~='lgc'>~> contemporary ="nms">Iran's political state's endless resistance)
="lsts lst1">•endless resistance ='lgc'>=/= enduring constitution (='lgc'>='lgc'>~= institution)
="lsts lst1">•negation ='lgc'>=/= affirmation

Sade's three ="trms">different forms of inconvenience='lgc'>:
="lstsrd">1. cruel tableaux vivants ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> emotional inconvenience
="lstsrd">2. contradictory unreasonableness (for example “="trms">religion should be abolished  ='lgc'>='lgc'>==> a republican man to be a good husband and father” ='lgc'>+ “family should be destroyed, all women belong to all men”) ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> intellectual inconvenience
="lstsrd">3. (grotesque goal of) Sade aims at describing the whole of reality (seeking to say the last word about reality, ='strcls'>*to say everything='strcls'>*) ='lgc'>--="ppl">Blanchot='lgc'>='lgc'>--> ='strcls'>*the fury of ="trms">writing='strcls'>* or ='strcls'>*the revolt of ="trms">writing='strcls'>* (Sade='lgc'> = abundant prolific ="trms">excessive ="trms">writer, ='strcls'>*="trms">writing in an exuberant way='strcls'>* ='lgc'>[while in prison for 32 years='lgc'>]) ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> anesthetic inconvenience

="large lg18" stl="font-size:100%"> ="ppl">Blanchot's Sade='lgc'> = ideal ="trms">writer
="lsts lst1">•we should not understand Sade's oeuvre in an intellectual way (there is no message or insight)
="lsts lst2">◦disappearance of meaning in the ="trms">materiality of ="trms">language ='lgc'>='lgc'>-->='lgc'>{death of content ='lgc'>==Saussure='lgc'>='lgc'>==> ‘the signifier'='lgc'>}='lgc'>='lgc'>--> ="trms"nttrm="already,spread">reading Sade='lgc'> = accessing the rough meaningless ="trms">materiality of ="trms">language itself
="lsts lst1">•we should not understood Sade's content as a reflection of an authentic self (un moi profond) ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> Sade as a person disappears into the background
="lsts lst2">◦we should not understood his ="trms">writing as an ="trms">instrument he uses to express content ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> ‘="trms">language='lgc'> = an independent reality’ (='lgc'>=/= Sade as a master of ="trms">language)

(="ppl">Hegel and) ="ppl">Sartre ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> ="trms">literary works must be engaged and should express the ="trms">author's involvement with reality
(for ="ppl">Sartre='lgc'>:) ="trms">writer='lgc'>: someone who thinks about the
current course of the ="trms">world and who wants to change the ="trms">world with his ="trms">literature
='lgc'>='lgc'>--> “="trms">language='lgc'> = a loaded gun” (="trms">literature should be understood by reference to the message)
='lgc'>=/= Alain ="frds scrmbld"nttrm="Robin,Robot,Robert,Robocop">Robbe-Grillet, Jean Ricardou, Eugène Ionesco
='lgc'>=/= Sade > ="ppl">Blanchot='lgc'>: ="trms">writing need to bring the ="trms"nttrm="already,spread">reader in touchwith the ="trms">materiality and the autonomy of ="trms">language


we never ="trms"nttrm="already,spread">read just once

logos='lgc'>: the word that names and relates properly ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> great truths are told in the light of day and discourse

Sade ='lgc'>--="ppl">Blanchot='lgc'>='lgc'>--> search of a new lucidity (pursued by clear assured decisive aifrma­tiom ='lgc'>=/= ="trms">interrogatory mode)

xxxxxxxx

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

='lgc'>[D='lgc'>+G='lgc'>]

the ="trms">intersection of concrete forms ='lgc'>='lgc'>==> abstract figure
='lgc'>[bringing objects close to each other produces ="trms">story='strcls'>*='lgc'>]

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

my engagement with other ="nms">apass participants, a form of critique as part of an ‘="trms">ecology of practice’ (="ppl">="ppl">Stengers)
="prgrph">-what are the ="trms">questions (i could ask) that make you the most ="trms">articulate='qstn'>?
="prgrph">-to feel what ="trms">questions, passions, modes of attention animate one another
="prgrph">-to find yourself moved by their concerns
="prgrph">-what we ="trms">articulate with our bodies='qstn'>? ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> what do our ="trms">gestures mean='qstn'>?
="prgrph">-what do they activate='qstn'>? ='lgc'>='lgc'>='lgc'>='lgc'>----> they don't always enact a precise ="trms">language ='lgc'>--(rather)='lgc'>='lgc'>--> ="trms">gestures as organs for feeding, feeling, and grasping='strcls'>***
="prgrph">-(sensing) the ="trms">trajectories, moods, and intensities the other ="nms">apass participants get caught up in, attached to, inhabit, to catch you in your acts,
(why knowing together='qstn'>?) ='strcls'>**="trms">worlds come together through collective action and how they attract, repel, enroll, animate, and in="trms">cite (tahrik تحریک, eghva اغوا) us. ='lgc'>[...='lgc'>] ="trms">worlds are “lived ='lgc'>[com="trms">positions='lgc'>] with tempos, sensory knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge, orientations, transmutations, habits, rogue force fields.” (="ppl">="ppl">Stewart)
="prgrph">-(engaging) in a form of critique that detour into descriptive eddies (گرداب کوچک مخالف) and attach to ="trms">trajectories
="prgrph">-(through this i am making myself ="trms">interested in) what (theoretical, philosophical, artistic,) ="trms">storytelling, as one ='strcls'>***consequential practice='strcls'>*** among many, make possible in the collective task of building and sustaining livable ="trms">worlds ='lgc'>='lgc'>='lgc'>='lgc'>----> taking texts as ="trms">worlds, taking people as ="trms">worlds
="prgrph">-(when talking about your project) you are teaching me what makes you move. ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> that means i need to learn how to be ="trms">affected ="trms">differently (other than my own projects terms) in order to ="trms">affect (others) ="trms">differently ='lgc'>[='at'># my bow and arrow ="trms">intervention='lgc'>] ='lgc'>='lgc'>='lgc'>---- to give intense attention to your ="trms">gestures (expressing desires, expectations, ="trms">affects) and to ="trms">respond to them in remarkable way.



critical hedonism (="ppl">="ppl">="trms"nttrm="search">Archer)
='lgc'>='lgc'>--> refusal of the “="trms">embodied ="trms">anxiety”

="trms">affective economies (="ppl">Ahmed)
='lgc'>='lgc'>--> which ="trms">affective economies animate our own bodies as scholars/artist/... and as people



(asking) is this practice good for the subjects involved='qstn'>?
='lgc'>='lgc'>--> we create (involuntary) ="trms">differences, the ="trms">question is, is the ="trms">world enriched by these ="trms">differences='qstn'>? (by ="frds">Sina, ="frds scrmbld">Xiri, ="frds scrmbld">Aela, etc.)
="prgrph">-(also be careful with) “="trms">differences as raw ="trms">material” in a “delocalized cultural capitalism (geopolitics of knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge)” ='lgc'>--(="frds scrmbld">Renan in conversation with ="ppl">Peran)='lgc'>='lgc'>--> “="trms">internal colonialism,” “local ="trms">difference as an object of study and raw ="trms">material,” and “cooptation of ="trms">imagination in the ="trms">networks of information-connection.”
="prgrph">-(looking for other ="trms">="trms"nttrm="metaph,metamorph,metabol,metal">metaphors of) alignments ='lgc'>=/= operational references to co-production
(="ppl">Marti ="ppl">Peran) “The surplus of images has reached the maximum degree of pollution. In turn, the planetary connection ensures the exchange of images regardless of the visual regimes from which they come from. Images no longer speak anywhere. In this ="trms">situation, the political task is to return to the ="trms">linguistic battlefield. It won't be possible to do things ="trms">differently if we do not start talking ="trms">differently. The most urgent imperative is a ="trms">language inventiveness.”


(atomism)
="prgrph">-constant and precarious self-management of molecular projects in a horizon-less future
="prgrph">-artists in the operation of self-making ourselves


='at'>#the image i made for ="ppl">Sohrevardi; allegory of ="ppl">Sohrevardi; the image's discursive architecture and its diverse inventiveness; (being careful with being) seductive in ="trms">staging diversity; ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> “an ="trms">ecology of monologues”='qstn'>? (="frds scrmbld">Renan);
="prgrph">-“The monologue is a ="trms">linguistic space freed from negotiation.” ='lgc'>[...='lgc'>]  “Now, it seems that everything could be solved by the universal application of mediation, participation, collaboration processes ='lgc'>[etc.='lgc'>] without realizing that this entails the strengthening of the ="trms">social cohesion model that becomes universally in="trms">="trms"nttrm="cluster,club">clusive.” ='lgc'>[...='lgc'>] “The monologue, in this perspective, is a form of silence, a way of disappearing. One way to cease-to-be when we are forced to be.” (="ppl">Peran)

how can i stop and resist “self-exploitation”='qstn'>? ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> instead of thinking about transindividualism and commons, etc.

“An artwork executed from fatigue ‘exposes’ its intensity.” (="ppl">Peran)
A “tired” artwork

(="ppl">Marti ="ppl">Peran)
a minority that wishes to be a majority
the ="trms">semiotic body disciplined to daily exercise and beautification
fatigue, unlike melancholy's passivity, implies performativity.
a way of being ill


(capital gains concentrated in the) self-production of identity
subject occupied full time in itself
the logic of “do it yourself”
="trms">obliged to make countless small decisions in all areas
subject mixed up with the incessant movement of its own alienation
='strcls'>*hyperactive life ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> poverty of experience='strcls'>*
the banality of “i Like”
(maybe ="trms">interesting for ="frds scrmbld">Laura='lgc'>:) ='strcls'>*fatigue='strcls'>* is the instant of stopping and pausing ='lgc'>[of exercise and beautification='lgc'>] (after which a diversity might be possible)
='lgc'>[='strcls'>*='lgc'>]fatigue='lgc'>: capable tiredness ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> politicizes discomfort
='lgc'>[='at'>#we are in the domain of passivity, disappearance and inaction='lgc'>]
="ppl">Peran sug="trms">gests a ="trms">position of fatigue where (some time ago) was occupied by melancholy
“is this not a mere “don't like” that re-enters the spiral of our mobilization='qstn'>?”
“we are left with just the option of making an index, a collection of trails and marks ='lgc'>[...='lgc'>]”
sunday='lgc'>: “empty time that forces us to fill it through apparently free decisions that, if they are resolved properly, please us and re-constitute us” (="ppl">Peran)
='strcls'>*freedom of action for self-realization='strcls'>* ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> unstoppable egocentric machine
space of perpetual connection (='at'>@ERG's website)
(pseudo) ="trms">communicative action by way of ="trms">technological devices ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> camouflaged alienation
“The promise of self-realization and the ="trms">demand for visibility organize the mobilization of desire, turning it into work.”



="large lg22" stl="font-size:124%"> do we need to ="trms">formulize and formalize our uncomfortable concerns and experiences='qstn'>?
='at'>@="nms">apass, artist research



i want to ='strcls'>*give connections='strcls'>*

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

='at'>#semester/seminar on destruction
="prgrph">-care, suffer, fubar,
='lgc'>[fubar='lgc'>: “fucked up beyond all recognition"='lgc'>--a term from veterans returning to the United States in 1960s='lgc'>]



='at'>#semester on Hojum
(surge,) on performance, media, sculpture, and surplus
Hojum has to do with the hojum (='lgc'>='lgc'>~=='qstn'>? ‘bodies’) of people to get in front of the line, the hojum of enemy, of friend, of information, also in="trms"nttrm="cluster,club">cludes the p="trms"nttrm="failure,blur,plur,lurk,tallur,slur">lural form of ‘hajm’ (حجم)



='at'>#seminar on the ="trms">history of ="trms">translation
archaeology, ="trms">interpretation, spaces of difficult ="trms">translation, ="trms"nttrm="already,spread">reading out of time, ="trms">technology and transformational studies, ="trms">semiotics, ="trms">poetry, ="trms">writing,

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

='at'>#on ="trms">Situated Knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edges
="prgrph">-approach the text by creating intensity and my own partial perspective
="prgrph">-the elephant parable (against it)
="prgrph">-objectivity (dis="trms">embodied view from nowhere)
="prgrph">-neutrality (biologically insane)
="prgrph">-marked people (my own ="trms">story)
="prgrph">-="trms">situatedness of the ="trms">situated
="prgrph">-The cyborg is a figure in which ="trms">situatedness makes possible adventures with the beyond.
="prgrph">-globalization-as-="trms">situatedness='lgc'>: global is precisely space/place/time/="trms">situation
="prgrph">-the figure of the so-called ="trms">scientist gathered around certain ="trms">="trms"nttrm="metaph,metamorph,metabol,metal">metaphors since the begining of the 17th cebtury, namely ‘objectivity’ and all its related adjectives='lgc'>: neutrality, perspective, universality, dis="trms">embodiment (for certain race and sex), etc.
="prgrph">-="trms">="trms"nttrm="metaph,metamorph,metabol,metal">metaphors create perspectives ='lgc'>[the view that looks at blind men looking at the elephant='lgc'>]
="prgrph">-="trms">situatedness is ="trms">different than ‘="trms">positionality’='lgc'>: a way of ="trms">systematic error correction
="prgrph">-(resolving) ="trms">specificity of vision ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> ="trms">scientific objectivity (is achievable)
="prgrph">-="ppl">="ppl">Haraway expresses her informed dissatisfaction with (the ="trms">="trms"nttrm="metaph,metamorph,metabol,metal">metaphysical substrate that supports) ‘="trms">social constrctivism’ and ‘traditional realism’ ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> re="trms">presentationa="trms"nttrm="listen,alist,ilist,llist,olist,ylist,ulist">list belief in the power of the words to mirror preexisting ="trms">phenomena. they both believe that ="trms">scientific knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge (in its re="trms">presentational formats='lgc'>: theoretical concepts, graphs, particle tracks, photographic images, etc.) mediates our access to the ="trms">material ="trms">world, whether it re="trms">presents “="trms">nature” or “objects” of ="trms">science both groups are subscribed to re="trms">presentationalism.
focus on the ="trms">nature and production of ="trms">scientific knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge ='lgc'>--(shift to ="trms">science studies)='lgc'>='lgc'>--> dynamics of the actual practice of ="trms">science ='lgc'>}='lgc'>='lgc'>--> on ongoing pattern of ="trms">situated activity

="prgrph">-(dis="trms">embodied ="trms">scietific) objectivity='lgc'>: that only certain people are allowed to have no body (Gender, race, etc.) and that high ="trms">science in practice is not acting on text="trms">book objectivity at all.

absent referents, deferred signifieds, split subjects, and the endless play of signifier

="ppl">="ppl">Haraway is feeling nervous with two views on objectivity='lgc'>:
(1)the ‘="trms">social constructionist’ view on this='lgc'>: getting to know the ="trms">world ‘effectively’ by practicing the ="trms">sciences ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge is knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge-game (on an agonistic power field) ='lgc'>='lgc'>==> ="trms">science is ="trms">rhetoric ='lgc'>: artifacts and facts are parts of the powerful art of ="trms">rhetoric ='lgc'>='lgc'>~=  practice is persuasion. ='lgc'>{this view will use the nasty tools of ="trms">semiology and deconstruction to insist on the ="trms">rhetorical ="trms">nature of truth.='lgc'>} ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> ="ppl">="ppl">Haraway calls this ‘The imagery of force fields’ (also an imagery of high-tech military fields and of automated academic battlefields) ='lgc'>{will to power='lgc'>} (for ="frds scrmbld">Luiza)
="trms">epistemological electroshock therapy
(feminists protecting their) sense of collective ="trms">historical subjectivity and ="trms">agency and our “="trms">embodied” accounts of the truth ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> these are just excuse not to learn
(2)Humanistic ="ppl">Marxism (structuring theory about the domination of ="trms">nature in the self-construction of man) (='lgc'>[young ="ppl">Marx, influenced by ="ppl">Feuerbach ='lgc'>=/= ="ppl">Hegelian idealism, saying that:='lgc'>] man's essential ="trms">nature is that of a free producer, freely reproducing their own conditions of life ='lgc'>[='lgc'>--however='lgc'>='lgc'>--> under capitalism individuals are alienated from their productive activity, etc.='lgc'>])

='lgc'>='lgc'>--> “chance for life”

="trms">science='lgc'>: Global ="trms">System, universal knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> ="trms">translation, convertibility, mobility
of meanings, and universality

money in capitalism ='lgc'>='lgc'>~= reductionism in ="trms">science

...when we are talking about genes, ="trms">social classes, elementary particles, genders, races, or texts

='strcls'>*vision='lgc'>: a sensory ="trms">system that has been used leap out of the marked body ='lgc'>='lgc'>==> a gaze from nowhere
="prgrph">-“Vision is always a ="trms">question of the power to see='lgc'>--and perhaps of the violence implicit in our visualizing practices”
="prgrph">-also, the visual ="trms">="trms"nttrm="metaph,metamorph,metabol,metal">metaphor allows one to go beyond fixed appearances, which are only the end products. The ="trms">="trms"nttrm="metaph,metamorph,metabol,metal">metaphor invites us to investigate the varied ="trms">apparatuses of visual production (in="trms"nttrm="cluster,club">cluding='lgc'>: the prosthetic ="trms">technologies ="trms">interfaced with our biological eyes and brains.)

unmarked body='lgc'>: the power to see and not be seen
objectivity in ="trms">scientific and ="trms">technological, late-industrial, militarized, racist, and male-dominant ="trms">societies

(she asks for='lgc'>:)
“So, I think my problem, and “our” problem, is how to have ="trms">simultaneously an account of radical ="trms">historical ="trms">contingency for all knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge claims and knowing subjects, a critical practice for recognizing our own “="trms">semiotic ="trms">technologies” for making meanings, and a no-nonsense commitment to faithful accounts of a “real” ="trms">world, one that can be partially shared and that is friendly to earthwide projects of ="trms">finite freedom, adequate ="trms">material abundance, modest meaning in suffering, and limited happiness.”

="ppl">="ppl">Haraway asks for an ="trms">embodied objectivity that is able of accommodating ='strcls'>*paradoxes='strcls'>* ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> ‘="trms">situated knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edges’
="prgrph">-what does she mean when she says “All components of the desire are paradoxical and d="trms"nttrm="danger,stranger">angerous, and their combination is both contradictory and necessary.”

="large lg14" stl="font-size:108%"> (="trms">instruments of visualization in multinationa="trms"nttrm="listen,alist,ilist,llist,olist,ylist,ulist">list, post="trms">modernist culture='lgc'>:) dis="trms">embodiment ='lgc'>: to distance to know
the visualizing ="trms">technologies (='lgc'>='lgc'>--> my amazon project)

a ="trms">perverse vision that has produced ‘="trms">techno-="trms">monsters’ (what does she mean by that='qstn'>?)
='lgc'>='lgc'>--> second birthing='qstn'>? transcendence='qstn'>?
='lgc'>[the frankenstein's ="trms">techno-="trms">monsters, is modeled after who='qstn'>? and who is modeled after it='qstn'>? wondrously, murderously walking around...='lgc'>]
(‘second-birthing’='lgc'>: one of the deadly ="trms">stories of killing='lgc'>: in the first-birthing we have merely birth to the earthly soil from the woman, and then the achievement of the tragically self-realized purpose of tragic consiousness, concretized and distilled by ="ppl">Sartre) “dire myths of self-birthing”... ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> we must resist the ="trms">stories of guilt laden knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge and consciousness

unrestricted vision
="trms">presented as utterly transparent

="large lg6" stl="font-size:104%"> ='strcls'>***particularity and ="trms">embodiment (of all vision) ='lgc'>[not necessarily organic='lgc'>]
usable and not innocent

“We need to learn in our bodies, endowed with primate color and stereoscopic vision, how to attach the objective to our theoretical and political scanners in order to name where we are and are not, in dimensions of mental and physical space we hardly know how to name.”

‘partial perspective’ (what does she mean='qstn'>?)
='lgc'>='lgc'>==> become answerable for what we learn how to see. (Helen ="ppl">Verran='lgc'>: accountability; ="ppl">Isabelle ="ppl">="ppl">Stengers='lgc'>: milieu thinking; ="ppl">="ppl">Latour='lgc'>: ground;)
(partial way of organizing ="trms">world)
unlocatable ='lgc'>=='qstn'>? ir="trms">responsible (knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge claims)
partial ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> possibility of webs of connections='lgc'>: solidarity in politics and shared conversations in ="trms">epistemology
="prgrph">-to un="trms">fold the problem of relativism='lgc'>: ‘the elephant parable’ promisses seeing equally and fully. “equality” of ="trms">positioning='lgc'>: relativism (another “god trick”) (!='lgc'>=/= single-vision, totalization) ='lgc'>=/= partial locatable='lgc'>] ='lgc'>[mythic cartoon of p="trms"nttrm="failure,blur,plur,lurk,tallur,slur">luralism='lgc'>] ='lgc'>[myth of exact knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edges, dream of perfectly known, and politics of closure='lgc'>] ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> ="trms">positioning is at stake here

“all eyes, in="trms"nttrm="cluster,club">cluding our own organic ones, are active perceptual ="trms">systems, building on ="trms">translations and ="trms">specific ways of seeing”

how to see ‘faithfully’... (what does she mean by that='qstn'>?)

="large lg6" stl="font-size:130%"> appropriating the vision of the less powerful='lgc'>:
to see from the peripheries
to see from the depths

...this not unproblemat (why she uses double negation so often='qstn'>?)

“But how to see from below is a problem requiring at least as much ="trms">skill with bodies and ="trms">language, with the mediations of vision, as the ‘highest’ ="trms">techno="trms">scientific visualizations.”

“="trms">Science has been utopian and visionary from the start; that is one reason “we” need it.” (what does she mean='qstn'>?)
(“utopian,” “visionary,” other old ="trms">="trms"nttrm="metaph,metamorph,metabol,metal">metaphors in ="trms">science)

“Passionate detachment” requires more than ‘acknowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edged and self-critical’ partiality. (being acknowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edged and self-critical is not enough!!! how deos she mean='qstn'>?)
="prgrph">-‘perspective’ can never be known in advance ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge potent for constructing ="trms">worlds less organized by axes/axis of domination
="prgrph">-One cannot “be” either a cell or molecule='lgc'>--or a woman, colonized person, laborer, and so on. ‘passionate detachment’ is about the impossibility of entertaining innocent “identity” politics ='lgc'>: seeing from their perspective in order to see well.
="prgrph">-problem with “="trms">positionality”='lgc'>: ='lgc'>{testimony from the ="trms">position of ‘oneself'='lgc'>} We are not immediately ="trms">present to ourselves and the self is assumed finished and whole simply there and o="trms"nttrm="righ,rigo,riga,rigi,trig,rign">riginal and its (grounding) knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge is organized around the imagery of vision ='lgc'>--='not'>✕='lgc'>='lgc'>--> Self-knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge requires a ="trms">semiotic-="trms">material ="trms">technology to link meanings and bodies. ='strcls'>***Self-identity is a bad visual ="trms">system='strcls'>*** ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> ‘="trms">positionality’ (meaning='lgc'>: ‘acknowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edged and self-critical’ partiality) ='lgc'>[at best showing in which ways one is not unmarked='lgc'>] is therefore insufficient. ='lgc'>{Identity, in="trms"nttrm="cluster,club">cluding self-identity, does not produce ="trms">science!='lgc'>}
="prgrph">-instead we need a ='strcls'>*split and contradictory self='strcls'>* (one who can ="trms">interrogate ="trms">positionings and be accountable) ='lgc'>[='lgc'>='lgc'>~='lgc'>~/='qstn'>?-> shath شطح (='lgc'>=/= shar’ شرع, or even sharh شرح='qstn'>?), shathiat (شطحیات) in Tasavof (تصوف), rend رند, rendane رندانه='lgc'>]
="prgrph">-so, instead of “being” she proposes “splitting”='lgc'>: heterogeneous multiplicities that are ="trms">simultaneously salient and incapable of being squashed into iso="trms">morphic slots or cumulative ="trms"nttrm="listen,alist,ilist,llist,olist,ylist,ulist">lists. ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> The knowing self is partial in all its guises, never finished, never whole, stitched together imperfectly ='lgc'>[that is what she means by ‘split'='lgc'>] ='lgc'>='lgc'>==>  join with another (without claiming to ‘be’ another) ='lgc'>{if i am allowed i can map ="ppl">="ppl">Haraway's “partiality” ="trms">onto ="ppl">Deleuze's “="trms">schizophrenia” ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> ="trms">Greek for “split brain”  (Jonathan ="ppl">="ppl">Crary, Suspensions of Perception, p.38) ="trms">According to Beuler, “The selectivity which normal attention exercises among the sensory impressions can be reduced to zero, so that almost anything is recorded that reaches the senses.” One reason for the admiration which ="ppl">Deleuze and ="ppl">Guattari professed for the ="trms">schizophrenic must lie in this complete lack of inhibition (khod-dari خودداری).='lgc'>} (a confusion of voice and sight, rather than clear and distinct ideas) (='lgc'>[to discriminate message types:='lgc'>] ='strcls'>*to confuse ="trms">literal and ="trms">="trms"nttrm="metaph,metamorph,metabol,metal">metaphorical='strcls'>*, the ="trms">schizophrenic either does not know his ="trms">responses are ="trms">="trms"nttrm="metaph,metamorph,metabol,metal">metaphorical or cannot say so ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> the breakdown of his ="trms"nttrm="metaph,metamorph,metabol,metal">meta="trms">communicative ="trms">system ='lgc'>: does not know what kind of message a message is ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> the ="trms">schizophrenic looks for hidden meanings everywhere (assuming everything is ="trms">="trms"nttrm="metaph,metamorph,metabol,metal">metaphorical) or tend to accept every message as ="trms">literal) (="ppl">Lacan='lgc'>: ="trms">schizophrenia='lgc'>: breakdown in the signifying chain of ="trms">language ='lgc'>='lgc'>==> experience of pure ="trms">material signifiers ='lgc'>[='lgc'><='lgc'>-- personal identity is the effect of the temporal unification of ="trms">past and future with one's ="trms">present, and that such an active temporal unification is itself a function of ="trms">language.='lgc'>])

subjectivity is multidimensional ='lgc'>='lgc'>==> vision is multidimensional

(an ="trms">instruments of vision='lgc'>:) optics ='lgc'>: politics of ="trms">positioning ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> one ='thdf'>example of optical illusion='lgc'>: rationality (projected from nowhere comprehensivel)

(some perspective are more guilty ='lgc'>: master point of view)
No one ever accused the God of monotheism of objectivity, only of in="trms">difference. The god trick is self-identical, and we have mistaken that for creativity and knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge, omni="trms">science even. (self-identical ='lgc'>[having self identity='lgc'>] ='lgc'>=/=! creativity/knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge)

="trms">Technology='lgc'>: ="trms">skilled practices. (How to see='qstn'>? Where to see from='qstn'>? and so on.)

='at'>@="frds scrmbld">Sana, ‘observation’ and ‘="trms">technologies of ="trms">positioning’

how to see='qstn'>?
the ="trms">science ="trms">question in military
the ="trms">science ="trms">question in colonialism
the ="trms">science ="trms">question in capitalism
the ="trms">science ="trms">question in feminism
...

master theory ='lgc'>=/= webbed accounts
(what does she mean when she dichotomises theory and account='qstn'>?)
instead of (creating and mastering) ‘theory’ she proposes webbing ‘accounts’='strcls'>***
="prgrph">-‘webs’ can have the property of being ="trms">systematic
="trms">systematic='lgc'>: deep filaments and tenacious tendrils into time, space, and consciousness. ="trms">systems are dimensions of ="trms">world ="trms">history.


she sug="trms">gests to be accountable for (the intricacies of) visualization ="trms">technologies in which we are embedded that we will find ="trms">="trms"nttrm="metaph,metamorph,metabol,metal">metaphors and means for understanding
and ="trms">intervening in the ='strcls'>*patterns of objectification='strcls'>* in the ="trms">world.
='lgc'>='lgc'>--> politics and ="trms">epistemologies of location, ="trms">positioning, and ="trms">situating
partiality ='lgc'>=/= universality
='strcls'>*partiality='lgc'>: view from a body, always a complex, contradictory, ='strcls'>*structuring, and structured body='strcls'>* (what does she mean by ‘structuring and structured body’='qstn'>?)

='lgc'>--the ="trms">sciences and politics of ="trms">interpretation, ="trms">translation, stuttering, and the partly understood.

='strcls'>*Feminism='lgc'>: critical vision ='lgc'>==(consequent upon)='lgc'>='lgc'>==> a critical ="trms">positioning in unhomogeneous gendered ="trms">social space.

location ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> vulnerability ='lgc'>='lgc'>~='lgc'>~> (full of limits and contra="trms">dictions)

“rational” knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge ='lgc'>: to be free from ="trms">interpretation, to be free from being re="trms">presented ='lgc'>: to be fully self-contained (='lgc'>~ fully formalizable)
="prgrph">-no! let's make Rational Knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge a process of ongoing critical ="trms">interpretation among “fields” of ="trms">interpreters and de="trms">coders ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> a power-sensitive conversation
="prgrph">-accountability and ="trms">responsibility for ="trms">translations

="large lg6" stl="font-size:118%"> . ="trms">Situated knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edges are about ="trms">communities, not about isolated individuals
(pinocchio and geppetto parable)

objectivity='lgc'> = ="trms">positioned rationality
='lgc'>=/= images of escape and transcendence of limits (filled in Hollywood and sci)

faithfulness of our accounts to a “real ="trms">world” (no ="trms">matter how mediated for us and no ="trms">matter how complex and contradictory these ="trms">worlds may be)

Sex is “resourced” for its re="trms">presentation as gender, which “we” can control

="trms">Situated knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edges require that the object of knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge be pictured as an actor and ="trms">agent
="prgrph">-which version of “realism” is she argueing for='qstn'>?

“='lgc'>[...='lgc'>] we are not in charge of the ="trms">world. We just live here and try to strike up noninnocent conversations by means of our prosthetic devices, in="trms"nttrm="cluster,club">cluding our visualization ="trms">technologies.”

in the rich feminist practice in ="trms">science (more than anywhere else) passive ="trms">categories of objects of knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge are “activated”

The biological female peopling ='lgc'>: When female “sex” has been so thoroughly retheorized and revisualized that it emerges as practically indistinguishable from “mind,” ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> the ‘="trms">difference’ is theorized biologically as ="trms">situational, not intrinsic, (at every level from gene to foraging pattern, thereby fundamentally changing the biological politics of the body.)
="prgrph">-(example='lgc'>: ="ppl">Emily ="ppl">Martin)


points in SK='lgc'>:
="lstsrd">1-="trms">finite partial perspectives
="lstsrd">2-split and contradictory self
="lstsrd">3-objectivity (='lgc'>='lgc'>--> ="trms">positioned rationality, object of knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge as an actor, ="trms">mutual and usually ='strcls'>*unequal='strcls'>* structuring, it is about taking risks)


how and why ="ppl">="ppl">Haraway as a feminist fights for a better Primatology='qstn'>?


(="ppl">="ppl">Barad on) ="trms">Situated Knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edges='lgc'>: are not merely about knowing/seeing from somewhere (as in having a perspective) but about taking account of how the ="trms">specific prosthetic ="trms">embodiment of the ="trms">technologically enhanced visualizing ="trms">apparatus ="trms">matters to practices of knowing
="prgrph">-(="ppl">="ppl">Haraway's) move from ='strcls'>*optics='strcls'>* ='lgc'>[a politics of ="trms">positioning, in ="trms">Situated Knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edges='lgc'>] to ='strcls'>*diffraction='strcls'>* ='lgc'>[an optical ="trms">="trms"nttrm="metaph,metamorph,metabol,metal">metaphor for the effort to make a ="trms">difference in the ="trms">world, in Modest_Witness='lgc'>]


="ppl">Katie ="ppl">King='lgc'>: “="trms">apparatus of ="trms">literary production”='lgc'>: a matrix from which “="trms">literature” is born.
...the “facticity” of biological discourse that is absent from ="trms">literary discourse and its knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge claims. ='lgc'>='lgc'>='lgc'>='lgc'>----> Are biological bodies “produced” or “generated” in the same strong sense as ="trms">poems='qstn'>? (biological body ='lgc'>='lgc'>~= ="trms">poem)
“="trms">material-="trms">semiotic actor”='lgc'>: the object of knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge as an active, meaning-generating part of ="trms">apparatus of bodily production

bodies as objects of knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge are ="trms">material-="trms">semiotic generative nodes.
“objects” do not preexist as such ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> Their boundaries ="trms">materialize in ="trms">social ="trms">interaction. Boundaries are drawn by mapping practices.


="trms">world ='lgc'>=/= mother/="trms">matter/mutter
="trms">world ='lgc'>='lgc'>~= coyote (a figure of the always problematic, always potent tie between meaning and bodies. ="trms">world as ="trms">coding trickster.)

(feminism) movement rooted in ="trms">specification and ="trms">articulation (of ='lgc'>[="trms">different kinds of='lgc'>] ‘elsewhere’) ='lgc'>=/= (='thdf'>assumption of the ="trms"nttrm="righ,rigo,riga,rigi,trig,rign">right or ability to) identities and re="trms">presentation (of identities)


='at'>#workshop ="trms"nttrm="already,spread">reading SK (for ="nms">apass)
Which version of “realism” are you talking about='qstn'>? Recollecting truth and objectivity are activated whenever a ‘point of view’ is produced among other ="trms">="trms"nttrm="metaph,metamorph,metabol,metal">metaphors that we use in our practice and thinking in ="trms">techno-="trms">scientific ="trms">societies. In this group ="trms"nttrm="already,spread">reading session we are going to study one of the most stubborn and ="trms">pervasive phantasms in art and ="trms">sciences, the figure of objectivity, with the ="ppl">Donna ="ppl">="ppl">Haraway's 1988 essay ‘="trms">Situated Knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edges='lgc'>: The ="trms">Science ="trms">Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective’. This ="trms"nttrm="already,spread">reading focuses on politics and ="trms">epistemologies of location, ="trms">positioning, and ="trms">situating in our power-sensitive conversations, and what does it mean to become accountable and ="trms">responsible for one's own noninnocent ="trms">translations. We begin with her essay on the 2nd of February and talk about each of our practices in particular continuing on the 9th.

="large lg14" stl="font-size:119%">
she wants to re-figure, not disavow, objectivity

“="trms">story-tellers exploring what it means to be ="trms">embodied in high-tech ="trms">worlds” ='lgc'>=/= ="trms">technophobia

="trms">technophilia is ="trms">narcissistic ='lgc'>: ='thdf'>the notion that man invented himself and that man is involved in some kind of ="trms">narrative of ="trms">technological escalation whereby the objectification of human intentionality in the ="trms">world has finally surpassed itself, and man has achieved self-objectification in a machine that will finally name him obsolescence as he is and destroy him in a ="trms">technological apocalypse figured by the computer. (="ppl">="ppl">Haraway) ='lgc'>[we need better dog ="trms">stories ='lgc'>=/= (Iron Man='lgc'>:) man, made in the image of a vanished god, takes on superpowers in his secular-sacred ascent, only to end tragic='lgc'>]
“...man making himself (by realizing his intentions in his tools) yet again in the Greatest ="trms">Story Ever Told.” (your artwork doesn't need to be this kind of ="trms">story!)
or the ="ppl">Darwinist tale of “Mitochondrial Eve in a neocolonial Out of Africa”
we need ="trms">stories of companion ="trms">species, the “very mundane and ongoing ="trms">sort of tale, one full of misunderstandings, achievements, crimes, and renewable hopes.” (="ppl">="ppl">Haraway, ="ppl">La Guin, ="ppl">Tessa ="ppl">Farmer,)

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

='lgc'>[="ppl">="ppl">Haraway on ="ppl">="ppl">Ihde='lgc'>]

...="trms">technologies are not mediations='lgc'>--that is, something in between us and another bit of the ="trms">world='lgc'>--rather, ="trms">technologies are organs, full partners, in what ="ppl">Merleau-Ponty called “in="trms">foldings of the flesh.”

in="trms">folding ='lgc'>=/= ="trms">interface
="lsts lst1">•“What happens in the ="trms">folds is what is important.”
="lsts lst1">•="trms">Interfaces are made out of ="trms">interacting grappling devices.
="lsts lst1">•the in="trms">folding of others to each other is what makes up the knots we call beings or, perhaps better, following ="ppl">="ppl">Bruno ="ppl">="ppl">Latour, things.

“="trms">Technologies are always compound. They are ="trms">composed of diverse ="trms">agents of ="trms">interpretation, ="trms">agents of recording, and ="trms">agents for directing and multiplying ="trms">relational action. These ="trms">agents can be human beings or parts of human beings, other organisms in part or whole, machines of many kinds, or other ="trms">sorts of entrained things made to work in the ="trms">technological compound of conjoined forces.”

='strcls'>*="trms">animal (in ="trms">zoological terminology) ='lgc'>: a com="trms">posite of individual organisms, an enclosure of ="trms">zoons, a company of critters in="trms">folded into a one.

compound='lgc'> = com="trms">posite ='lgc'>+ enclosure
camera='lgc'>: the ="trms">technological eye ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> philosophical pretension and self-certainty (='lgc'>=/= ="frds scrmbld"nttrm="Christianson">Christian's camera)
='lgc'>-- camera as a black-box with which to register pictures of the outside ="trms">world in a re="trms">presentational, menta="trms"nttrm="listen,alist,ilist,llist,olist,ylist,ulist">list ="trms">semiotic economy

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

="ppl">Vinciane ="ppl">="ppl">Despret, ="ppl">Isabelle ="ppl">="ppl">Stengers, ="ppl">="ppl">Bruno ="ppl">="ppl">Latour, ”_how they make their subjects ="trms">interesting,_“
to tell the ="trms">story of their work of “="trms">translation,” of invention.

refuse all loyalty to my homeland and its values

="large lg38" stl="font-size:125%"> ='strcls'>*heuristic='lgc'>: mental shortcuts that ease the cognitive load of making a problem solvable
="prgrph">-trading optimality, completeness, accuracy, or precision for speed
it may ='strcls'>*approximate='strcls'>* the exact solution for the problem
="prgrph">-enabling discover or learn something for themselves. (a ‘hands-on’ or ="trms">interactive heuristic approach to learning)
='lgc'>[(in computing='lgc'>:) proceeding to a solution by trial and error or by rules that are only loosely defined.='lgc'>]
="prgrph">-from ="trms">Greek heuriskein ‘find’

='strcls'>*="trms">contingent='lgc'>: using it with ‘="trms">historical’ always produces ="trms">interesting ways ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> ="trms">contingency relates to a nonteleological ='lgc'>[a doctrine explaining ="trms">phenomena by their ends or purpose='lgc'>] and nonhierarchical multiplicity ='lgc'>[when i say ‘dud’ and ‘cauphing’ and ="trms">interupting ‘tracing’ i am asking for ="trms">contingent modes of relating and thinking. conceptualizing in terms of the o="trms"nttrm="righ,rigo,riga,rigi,trig,rign">rigin of the dud is about hierarchical ="trms">relations between ="trms">past and ="trms">present and teleological reasoning='lgc'>: where is the dud coming from. when i asked ‘who told the first ="trms">joke='qstn'>?’ i am trying to break and ="trms">joke with teleological mode of thinking about the ="trms">category of ‘o="trms"nttrm="righ,rigo,riga,rigi,trig,rign">rigin’.='lgc'>]
="trms">contingent ='lgc'>=/=='qstn'>? analytical (='lgc'>='lgc'>--> ="trms">Contingent pro="trms">positions depend on some kind of ="trms">epistemoloy, whereas analytic pro="trms">positions are true without regard to any facts about which they speak.) ='lgc'>{telos, ghasd قصد ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> ghaside قصیده ='lgc'>=/= ghazal غزل='lgc'>}
="prgrph">-We call a truth ="trms">contingent when it ='strcls'>*depends on something else='strcls'>* for its truth.
="prgrph">-has to do a lot with our ="trms">material ="trms">world
="trms">contingent ='lgc'>='lgc'>~= containing-="trms">agent='strcls'>*
='lgc'>--Tautological pro="trms">positions, which must be true
='lgc'>--Contra="trms">dictions which must necessarily be untrue
='lgc'>--possible pro="trms">positions

="large lg34" stl="font-size:117%"> never use ="trms">contingency alone in a sentence ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> ="trms">historical ="trms">contingency
never use understanding stand alon in a sentence ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> better understanding ='lgc'>{'better’ opens ="trms">situatedness, for who and how “better,” etc.='lgc'>}

="trms">Rhetoric ='lgc'><='lgc'>--(has to do with)='lgc'>='lgc'>--> ="trms">Contingent
="ppl">Aristotle (in his work on ="trms">rhetoric) was against ="trms">contingency. He believed that the “unavoidable and potentially unmanageable ="trms">presence of multiple possibilities” or the complex ="trms">nature of decisions creates and invites ="trms">rhetoric. (='lgc'>=/= ="ppl">Plato saw ="trms">rhetoric as pure deceit ='lgc'>[gul='lgc'>] and ="trms">positioned it in politics. ='lgc'>[you can see he is terrified by the death of his teacher and mentor ="ppl">Socrates by civility.='lgc'>])
="trms">rhetoric ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> contigent ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> ="trms">epistemic='lgc'>: individuals make meaning through ="trms">language and determine what constitutes truth


='strcls'>*="trms">ontology is death-dealing ='lgc'><='lgc'>--='strcls'>** terrible violence is directed to the non-existing, the never having existed
='lgc'>-='lgc'>='lgc'>--> ='gtrw'>go to the root of exist ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> which modes of existence deserve our curiosity='qstn'>?

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

(i found a word for it,) my register of ='at'>@="frds scrmbld">Lili's scream='lgc'>: i see it as ‘non="trms">laughter’(='qstn'>?)
(='strcls'>*proposal='lgc'>: there is a number when we dial we can ="trms"nttrm="listen,alist,ilist,llist,olist,ylist,ulist">listen to her scream on the phone.) (='lgc'>='lgc'>--> stream, ="trms">technology, tele-, telephone, called,)
(for her) thinking ='lgc'>=='qstn'>? knowing (sending ='lgc'>=/= receiving)
(an SF scenario='lgc'>:) ="trms">imagine and describe an alien ="trms">world where its populace don't practice ‘knowing.’
='strcls'>**scream ='lgc'>==makes='lgc'>='lgc'>==> witnesses='strcls'>**
(fighting ='lgc'>==makes='lgc'>='lgc'>==> coordination)

از طلبکار به طلبه (az talabkar be talabe)
///the (="trms">symbolic='qstn'>?) structuration of ‘="trms">demand’ in ="frds scrmbld">Lili's ="trms">presentation='lgc'>:
the ‘sujet ="trms">supposé savoir’ ='at'>#sss ='lgc'>[='lgc'>='lgc'>~= ="nms">Pir, (پیر always a paternal ="trms">="trms"nttrm="metaph,metamorph,metabol,metal">metaphor='qstn'>?) that Other whom you ‘call’ who holds (your) deepest truth ='lgc'>-='lgc'>='lgc'>--> ='gtrw'>go to the ="trms">="trms"nttrm="metaph,metamorph,metabol,metal">metaphorology of “depth” ='lgc'>=/= “skimming the surface"='lgc'>] (installed by ="ppl">Lacan) is a subject who is in a functional ="trms">position and one presumes that this subject knows or retains or holds the knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge (even vital and secret knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge ='lgc'>[this is knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge-talabkar طلبکار='lgc'>]) that you want. this subject is functionally established. one of the laws of our encounter is that puts the speaker/="trms">writer/analyst/text/etc in the (even architectural) center='lgc'>: the subject-="trms">supposed-to-know in ="ppl">Lacan the analyst who sits there as a tower of knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge that mostly withholds what s/he knows ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> ="trms">transferencial energy directed towards him/her ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> drama of identification (='lgc'>='lgc'>--> break-out of ="trms">narcissism for ="ppl">Freud)
="prgrph">-it is one of the (negative='qstn'>?) binding ="trms">transferential contracts in ="trms">relation to “the one who speaks”
='lgc'>[='strcls'>*="trms">anthropology of exchange='strcls'>* ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> ="trms">Transference='lgc'>: (for ="ppl">Lacan) Each time a man speaks to another in an authentic and full manner, there is, in the true sense, ="trms">transference, ="trms">symbolic ="trms">transference='lgc'>--something which takes place which changes the ="trms">nature of the two beings ="trms">present. Later ="ppl">Lacan ="trms">articulates the ="trms">transference in sujet ="trms">supposé savoir='lgc'>: ="trms">transference is the attribution of knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge to the Other, the ="trms">supposition that the Other is a subject who knows. “As soon as the subject who is ="trms">supposed to know exists ='strcls'>*somewhere='strcls'>* ... there is ="trms">transference.” (Seminar II, p. 232)='lgc'>] ='lgc'>[keep in mind that the (post='qstn'>?-)="ppl">Lacanian theory is about the ='strcls'>*constitutive function of the signifier in ="trms">relation to the subject.='strcls'>* ... for ="ppl">Lacan, What constitutes the person and its identity can now be ="trms"nttrm="already,spread">read as a text, and the ="trms">author is not the subject, but the ="trms">trajectory of the signifiers that re="trms">present the desire of those who occupy the place of the Other for the subject.='lgc'>]
='lgc'>[about ="trms">demand='lgc'>: ="ppl">Lacan argues that “="trms">demand constitutes the Other as al="trms"nttrm="already,spread">ready possessing the ‘privilege’ of satisfying needs,” and that indeed the ="trms">child's biological needs are themselves altered by “the condition that is imposed on him by the existence of the discourse, to make his need pass through the defiles of the signifier.” ... The subject has never done anything other than ="trms">demand (since infancy!)='lgc'>] ='strcls'>*='lgc'>{="trms">question ='lgc'>=/= ="trms">demand='lgc'>}='strcls'>*='lgc'>='lgc'>--> ="ppl">Nancy
='lgc'>[the use of ‘="trms">transference’ is a way to account for the ="trms">relationship between ="trms"nttrm="already,spread">readers and texts. the emphasis in ="ppl">Lacan is on the ‘="trms">supposed’ and not on the ‘know’. ="trms"nttrm="already,spread">reader assume that the text ‘knows’. ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> What ="ppl">Lacan's understanding of the ="trms">transference points to is the fact that we must see the meaning of any given text not within the text itself but as a reconstruction between ="trms"nttrm="already,spread">reader and text.='lgc'>] ='lgc'>[in other words, ="trms">transference is ‘a re="trms">presentation of the ="trms">past’ (="trms">childhood and etc.) to the ="trms">present ='lgc'>]
a pedagogical problem='lgc'>: rapid ="trms">transferencial turn-over='lgc'>: going from one subject-="trms">supposed-to-know to the other (='lgc'>=/= ="trms"nttrm="already,spread">reading)
='at'>#the kind of ‘="trms"nttrm="already,spread">reading’ ='lgc'>[encountering a text, artwork, speech, ourselves, etc.='lgc'>] that i am talking about is not about this ="trms">transferencial energy directed towards the sujet ="trms">supposé savoir. this practice of ="trms"nttrm="already,spread">reading is about to ="trms"nttrm="already,spread">read together and to ="trms"nttrm="already,spread">read ourselves ="trms"nttrm="already,spread">reading, to an atentiveness to the way we are ="trms"nttrm="already,spread">reading or not-="trms"nttrm="already,spread">reading or aberating from something and be attentive to that disjunctive movement. what is noncomprehension='qstn'>? what is the experience of nonunderstanding='qstn'>? and so on.
='strcls'>*so, the sujet ="trms">supposé savoir is the one who is structurally is in a place of knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge which doesn't mean that subject is filled with or capable of offering power and knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge but that is projected ="trms">onto that functional space='strcls'>* ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> sujet ="trms">supposé savoir is merely a spatial determination='qstn'>? (is this related to my ="trms">interventive ="trms">lectures in outdoor spaces in order to sabotage ‘what is meant to signify’ of the spatial subject-="trms">supposed-to-know='qstn'>?)
='strcls'>*sss is one of the effects of subjectivity ='lgc'>-- a scenography of ="trms">transferential intensity ='lgc'>: we credit that being with having knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge to transmit, and then we might also resist it.
='lgc'>='lgc'>---let's get out of this space!!='qstn'>?
='lgc'>--='prcnt'>%='lgc'>--in the context of pedagogy, students regards their teachers as sujet ="trms">supposé savoir, that they should know something. “it is the students’ ="trms">supposition of an art teacher who knows, who have something more than they have in themselves, that initiates the teaching and learning process rather than the art knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge actually possessed by the teacher” (Hetrick). (is it the architectural ="trms">gesture='lgc'>--the center='lgc'>--that produces the recognition of the teacher ="trms">situated as “teacher”='qstn'>?) ='strcls'>*“the spell of ="trms">transference.” / at some point some ="trms">gesture is taken by the student as a sign of hidden knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge and intention ='lgc'>='lgc'>==> ="trms">transference establishing itself; (how education ='lgc'>[and ="trms">love='qstn'>?='lgc'>] without ="trms">transference looks like='qstn'>? ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> ="ppl">Julia ="ppl">Scher, ‘post-="ppl">Lacanian’ means that you don't ‘transfer’ to the art-work nor artist='qstn'>?) ='at'>#="nms">harem
parent ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> teacher ='lgc'>}='lgc'>='lgc'>==> what the student may desire to become (be recognized as)

="trms">according to ="ppl">Lacan there is no ="nms">Pir (='lgc'>~ ='lgc'>[often iconoclast='lgc'>] leader, guide, mentor, expert, knowing-hero, enlightener, rescuer knowing more, knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edgeable pedagogue/leader “helping students find themselves,” ='lgc'>[='lgc'>='lgc'>--> my failed ="trms">transference with ="frds scrmbld">Saeed='lgc'>])

='lgc'>='lgc'>-->='qstn'>? Discourse of the University='strcls'>* ='lgc'>: (="trms">systematic) “knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge” replaces the nonsensical master signifier in the dominant commanding ="trms">position; in this case the sujet ="trms">supposé savoir dependent upon the related knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge of the Other, or the source of “the field” (journals, text="trms">books, etc.) ='lgc'>='lgc'>==> (arbiter of) truth ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> ='strcls'>*to transmit knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge that is al="trms"nttrm="already,spread">ready given='strcls'>*
='lgc'>[account of knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge as a ="trms">symbolic and ="trms">social ="trms">network, master signifier, subject ="trms">positions,='lgc'>]

in placing the ‘text’ in the ="trms">position of a knowing expert who has the answers ="frds scrmbld">Lili (unconsciously) idealizes her texts, and of course when her ‘texts’ fail to satisfy that desire she ="trms">demands ‘knowing’ from them in terms of cynicism='lgc'>: the feeling or state of being annoyed and irritated by them. this is a structural space of ‘="trms">demand’ in her. for me what is at stake is the complex ="trms">nature of encounter between ="frds scrmbld">Lili and text which takes place in an artificial space='lgc'>--a ="trms">symbolic space='lgc'>--that is at the same time the place of real investments of her desires.

='at'>@="frds scrmbld">Lili; is she (like the rest of us humans) looking for an active, predatory art='qstn'>?='lgc'>='lgc'>--> if non-="trms">communicative non-predatory non-kinetic ='lgc'>[a common issue with the students of choreography and dance in general='lgc'>] art exists on this planet, then we kave to learn “a whole new set of ="trms">techniques.” ='lgc'>[="ppl">La Guin='lgc'>])
='lgc'>--the meter of ‘time,’ that essential element, matrix and ="trms">measure of all kown human-="trms">animal art. what if there are other metric ="trms">systems='qstn'>? art not as an action, but a reaction='qstn'>? not a ="trms">communication, but a reception='qstn'>? ='lgc'>{='lgc'>-='lgc'>='lgc'>--> ='gtrw'>go to my master studies Diploma on passivity in performance art='lgc'>}

registers of ‘="trms">complaining’ in ="frds scrmbld">Lili's discourse. she is a bit like Faust groaning, habe nun akhhhhh Philosophie and so on. ='lgc'>[Ach of Sprache='lgc'>] (that they have done all the work, they know everything, yet know not enough of what really counts ='lgc'>[that is the incalculable='lgc'>] and cannot be satisfied by mere knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge available to them. nor can they keep themselves to the restricted zone of knowability.) so ="frds scrmbld">Lili saying “it's too much!” is a hysteric wish for ‘more’='qstn'>?
(="ppl">Freudian ="trms">joke, the hysteric says='lgc'>: “is that all there is!='qstn'>?” while the ="trms">neurotic says='lgc'>: “this is too much!” to the same object)

="large lg14" stl="font-size:128%"> ='strcls'>*it was ="ppl">Goethe who invented the super-ego, ="ppl">Freud named it following him.

the all-or-nothing view='lgc'>: i know everything or i don't know anything, problem of scale, problem of ‘circumstance='lgc'> = reality’
kloAQsvRkFY

the figure of the ‘accuser’ and the ‘straight talk’ for ="frds scrmbld">Lili
...that people would speak ="trms">literally
going from proof to proof, from necessity to necessity ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> displacement (='lgc'>=/= detour)

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

='at'>@="frds scrmbld">Ekaterina; some other characters='lgc'>:
the jealous, the impassioned, the persecutive, the ="trms">erotomaniacal,
="trms">complainer,
noble trader,

="frds scrmbld">Ekaterina, asking for a ="trms">fabulation='qstn'>? her totem making
="ppl">Deleuzian ="trms">fabulation='lgc'>: a ="trms">fiction made up by people in their process of becoming
making up ="trms">stories
='lgc'>=/= ="trms">fiction (on its own; it doesn't have that ="trms">relation with becoming)

="large lg22" stl="font-size:103%"> in which conditions the ="trms">paranoid mother occupies the failiour of the good-enough mother='qstn'>?
what constitutes the ‘site’ for her mother='qstn'>?

(how her) characters keep running into eachother in a universe of recursive connection (='qstn'>?)



='strcls'>**="trms">stories that collect ="trms">stories='strcls'>** ='lgc'>[='lgc'>='lgc'>~= archive='qstn'>? my hypertext='qstn'>? a mouth full='qstn'>? ='lgc'>--this ="trms">specific type of ="trms">stories are d="trms"nttrm="danger,stranger">angerously ="trms">worlders, usually handed to the un="trms">questioned mechanics of universalized taxonomy and 17th century ="trms"nttrm="righ,rigo,riga,rigi,trig,rign">rigs='lgc'>: encyclopedic homogeneous tables. they are the stuff of ="nms">ajayeb='lgc'>]
(mispronounced by ="frds scrmbld">Ekaterina > captured by ="frds scrmbld">Hoda > found object by ="frds">Sina)

="trms">stories that collect other ="trms">stories='lgc'>:
="lstsrd">1- archive ='lgc'>='lgc'>~='lgc'>='lgc'>--> ="trms">sortability
="lstsrd">2- ="trms">translation ='lgc'>='lgc'>~='lgc'>='lgc'>-->  linearity
='lgc'>='lgc'>==> universality (that both these ="trms">stories claim)
(='mywrk'>my work on hypertext ="nms">apass ="nms">ajayeb graph ="trms"nttrm="righ,rigo,riga,rigi,trig,rign">rigs, is to deal within these conditions of ="trms">storying. my shift of ="trms">interest)

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

(“dealing” ='at'>@="frds scrmbld">Luiza='lgc'>:)
(or in ="frds scrmbld">Lili's term “..a way to tackle issues”)

='lgc'>[with ="ppl">Avital='lgc'>]
='strcls'>*modalities of dealing-with='lgc'>:
="prgrph">-parasitism
="prgrph">-(under the spell) ="trms">drugs ='lgc'>=/= struggle (="trms">according to ="ppl">Marxian protocol='lgc'>: one is ="trms">drugged and disabled ='lgc'>[Date-rape-="trms">drug as an incapa="trms">citating ="trms">agent='lgc'>] and neutralized by state ="trms">apparatus, ="trms">drugs are administrated and spend in all ="trms">sorts of insidious ways.)
on the discourse of stupidity='lgc'>: ="ppl">Marx (in ="trms">writing to Engels says that he) believed that proletariat are stupid. ="ppl">Marx's insight to replace the other ="trms">drugs that have put so many into a stupor. people with ="trms">Religion are not around, they are praying somewhere to some ="trms">hallucination ='lgc'>[this is ="ppl">Marx, ="ppl">Freud, ="ppl">Nietzsche, and others in 20th century='lgc'>] ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> ideological stuporous ="trms">drugs, ‘everyone is stoned on something’ ='lgc'>=/= alert and lucid. ='lgc'>[highly problematic!='lgc'>]
="prgrph">-this is about a body recognizing its ‘enemy’ (the figure of enemy for every and each of us and the way we “recognize” it, as ="trms">historical bodies and minds in="trms">heriting the boys of 20th century.) ='lgc'>='lgc'>='lgc'>---- the state of the struggle depends on certain ="trms">="trms"nttrm="metaph,metamorph,metabol,metal">metaphorologies on ‘clean’ that are problematic and phantasmatic and on the loose. ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> ='lgc'>[the issue is that there is no “clean body”.='lgc'>] how to do dirty work='qstn'>? (='lgc'>='lgc'>--> for ‘morality’ and ‘clean’ go to ="ppl">Freud on the o="trms"nttrm="righ,rigo,riga,rigi,trig,rign">rigin on morality='lgc'>: morality began as we stopped sniffing our asses and stood erect, nose in the air, away from the dirt ='lgc'>[that we are='lgc'>] ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> morality's phobic appropriations and designations, ='lgc'>[="ppl">Lacan='lgc'>: from the genital order to the ="trms">sublime; az kun be fayakon از کون به فیکون ='prcnt'>%='lgc'>='lgc'>--> ='at'>#ouroboros ='at'>#serpent='lgc'>], ='lgc'>[so when we stood up, stood erect, our genitals became center, exposing ourselves to the other, sexually centered exposure='lgc'>], ='lgc'>[='lgc'>], ='lgc'>[='lgc'>],)
="prgrph">-="ppl">Marxian='lgc'>: ="trms">language/tool/art as a virus that infiltrates ideological structures
="prgrph">-="ppl">Lacoue-Labarthe='lgc'>: in 20th century there are three fundamental modalities of “dealing-with,” three modes of relatedness to our concerns, our ="trms">anxieties, our worries, our work, our projects ='lgc'>[three major motifs for the thinkers that continue to provoke our thoughts='lgc'>]='lgc'>: (1) ='strcls'>*struggle='strcls'>* that would be the ="ppl">Marxian motor, the modality in terms of concern for ="trms">social justice. ='lgc'>[="ppl">Delanda on ="ppl">Marx ='lgc'>='lgc'>--> a model of synthesis='lgc'>: a conflict of op="trms">posites='lgc'>] (2) ='strcls'>*="trms">mission='strcls'>* as introduced and lunched by ="ppl">Heidegger, who was on a ="trms">mission='lgc'>: we have a ="trms">mission, we have a ="trms">mission of trans="trms">mission, we have a ="trms">mission to inscribe things='lgc'>--not from God but from what has happened to us and been left to us after the death of God (as ="ppl">Nietzsche has announced.) ='lgc'>{yes, without a proper address, a state of ="trms">epistemic alert, and so on='lgc'>} and (3) ='strcls'>*task='strcls'>* as="trms">sociated with ="ppl">Benjamin. the Aufgabe is that which inscribes in itself ‘giving up,’ the Aufgabe, it means[...]