- Mar 2019
-
static1.squarespace.com static1.squarespace.com
-
Thisaccount refuses the representationalist fixation on “words” and “things”and the problematic of their relationality, advocating insteadacausalrelationship between specific exclusionary practices embodied as specific ma-terial configurations of the world(i.e., discursive practices/(con)figurationsrather than “words”)and specific material phenomena(i.e., relations ratherthan “things”). This causal relationship between the apparatuses of bodilyproduction and the phenomena produced is one of “agential intra-action.”The details follow
Intro to "Agential Intra-Action"
-
- Jan 2019
-
static1.squarespace.com static1.squarespace.com
-
mediating thirdpreceding first and second
"preceding" is doing a lot of work there. That sounds an awful lot like Barad.
-
-
static1.squarespace.com static1.squarespace.com
-
The notion of agential separability is of fundamentalimportance, for in the absence of a classical ontological condition of ex-teriority between observer and observed it provides the condition for thepossibility of objectivity.
I believe this is important, but I'm not sure I understand it. While the Cartesian cut happens before the relation, because relata are ontologically prior and independent of relations, the agential cut happens within the relation, distinguishing subject and object locally, but not ontologically.
Oh ok ok, and because those relata are then separable, exteriority-within-phenomena happens. Essentially, because the relata can be seen as separate objects within the relation, objectivity is still possible; relativism is not a necessary result.
-
- Apr 2017
-
instructure-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com instructure-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com
-
For Bohr,things do not have inherently determinate boundaries or properties, andwords do not have inherently determinate meanings. Bohr also calls intoquestion the related Cartesian belief in the inherent distinction betweensubject and object, and knower and known
So it seems like in this formulation, the absence of relata just points to the lack of distinction between relata. It seems like this a return to "bleeding".
-
Why do we think that the existence of relations requiresrelata?
. . . okay, I can understand the purpose of the question, but I literally cannot think of terms to use that would formulate a world without relata. Does anyone have an example or alternative explication of this same idea?
-