Search

“Perhaps the greatest mystery of modern astronomy is that the extraordinary centrifugal rush into differentiated structures and boundaries and spaces seems to be balanced by an opposite, centripetal force that keeps all those structures from flying apart, that brakes the force of the Big Bang, that connects the seemingly separate and autonomous elements of our universe, and that may eventually draw them all back together again into yet another cataclysmic rebirth.”“There is something else, “hidden matter” in the seeming vacancy of all that space, that generates enough gravity to tie togethe

I really enjoyed Mitchell's explanation and analysis of Loewald contrasted with Freud and Sullivan, whose views I did not particularly enjoy last week. The classical rhetoric of psychoanalysis, in Freudian terms, has always felt too divisive, rooted in the separation of parts of the Mind which cannot, by principle of their existence inside a single entity, be teased apart; similarly to most attempts to peel layers of 'culture' away from the 'individual'.

"Desiring-machines are binary machines, obeying a binary law or set of rules governing associations: one machine is always coupled with another. The productive synthesis, the production of production, is inherently connective in nature: "and ..." "and then ..." This is because there is always a flow-producing machine, and another machine connected to it that interrupts or draws off part of this flow (the breast-the mouth).

Deleuze and Guattari (1983) dissect the value of psychoanalysis in the social and political skape of their time. The two thinkers look at how psychoanalysis had become a tool of the elite. They invoked Marxist critique of the field by stating how it had mirrored capitalist production.

Foucault in the preface: “I would say that Anti-Oedipus (may its authors forgive me) is a book of ethics, the first book of ethics to be written in France in quite a long time (perhaps that explains why its success was not limited to a particular "readership": being anti-oedipal has become a life style, a way of thinking and living). How does one keep from being fascist, even (especially) when one believes oneself to be a revolutionary militant? How do we rid our speech and our acts, our hearts and our pleasures, of fascism?

Preface, Michel Foucault"It would be a mistake to read Anti-Oedipus as the new theoretical reference (you know, that much-heralded theory that finally encompasses everything, that finally totalizes and reassures, the one we are told we "need so badly" in our age of dispersion and specialization where "hope" is lacking). One must not look for a "philosophy' amid the extraordinary profusion of new notions and surprise concepts: Anti-Oedipus is not a flashy Hegel" (xii)"[whom the book combats] (1) ...

Murphy et al. (2021) describe two challenges to ethnography. The first challenge concerns the ubiquitous presence of new technologies, such as smartphones and social media platforms. These technologies have opened new ways of data recording and collection, and they have raised new questions about data protection and privacy.

Reanalysis, collaboration, data transparency and sharing, and online communities

NA

a second reckoningThe authors discuss four aspects of ethnographic data around which new methodological and ethical questions have been prompted by techno-social advances. Ideally, the authors demand disciplinary standards that are flexible enough to not punish ethnographers whose projects cannot embrace the push for greater transparancy. An emphasis is placed on making analytical decisions, if not data, more transparant.