8 Matching Annotations
  1. Aug 2023
    1. animalhomificans

      This term comes from Ramon Llull's definition of a man in the Ars Brevis (1303)-the humanifying animal. "Homificans is produced through the realization of the three main activities of the human soul, which for Llull are knowing, remembering, and loving, which correspond to the three superior faculties of the soul: understanding, memory, and will." https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/llull/). An interesting thought exercise that sums up other semi-nebulous terms like "actualized" and "sapient".

  2. Jan 2023
    1. A< we move throughthe transect of rh1s Cr111calZone, 1he 1cns1ng ofwatery spaces becomes evident le1 a an ac1 ofgen1le flu1d1ry, and more as a cond111on of mundauon and bordering, conresta11on

      It's always the case that technologies made for the sake of innovation will end up being used in unethical ways. The internet can be used for worldwide communication, but it also was used by the NSA to spy on the american population.

    1. confuse or repulse us

      This is abhorrence to the unknown is thought to be part of our psychology. We make patterns and molds in which to fit the world into. It makes internal processing much easier, especially when confronted with a dangerous situation. For example, when things, such as the sea-blob, go against our conceived notions of ocean animals we are more cautious as we don't know to internally lable them as "safe and cuddly" or "they will eat your arm off". (read: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4141622) I'm not a super big fan of this article as its very anthropocentric but it points to some ideas about patterns that have been thought to help us survive. While the above article may refute this, animals do a similar "patternization" of their surroundings. Its a shortcut to take in senses, really, but I think it often leads to, as Juliette said, schismogenesis. In my classes I haven't found much literature contradicting the "pattern" notions of sensing per psychology, as much as I don't like them. I'd be interested to see if other had come across any literature.

    2. Reports about the blue goo described it as “formless, faceless and limbless,”descriptors defined in opposition to ourselves, our faces and our limbs.

      This idea of defining objects, people, or things in opposition to us, rather than defining and grouping ourselves based on commonalities and inclusivity, we group ourselves by defining and excluding those who are opposed from us. It's like schismogenesis in that we define ourselves against each other.

  3. Sep 2021
    1. Since the world's big bullies and bulletproof forms of power thrive on this oscillation between loop and binary, it is as if there is nothing to counter them -only more ways of fighting and being right and providing the rancor that nourishes their violence.

      This smacks of Cooper's, Deleuze's, and Whitehead's departures from Hegelian dialectic.

    1. as the Church was in the days of old

      Texts like Joyce's Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man suggest that the days of old mightn't've been all that long ago, and that's got its pros and cons

    2. Scott disrupts this familiar depiction of the world gone wrong by observing that it rests on the assumption that there are those who mis- perceive reality and those who perceive it clearly, those with false consciousness and those with a scientific or true understanding of social reality

      This reminds me of what we talked about in our last class. That is, how we believe that someone else is wrong because their "logic" is faulty. Such a belief implies that logic is purely objective, when it in fact, may not be. The question that arises from this observation is: who is to say who perceives the world clearly and who "misperceive[s] it?" How can we decipher which belief is correct?