DUO—A: #01-06 progress; B: #01-06 intervention
MetadataShow full item record
- Barth, Theodor 
SUMMER 2021 Cover: bag made from a rifted sail, carabiners for extended function, strap made of car belt. If shared on social media, the picture contributes to a metonym of recycling. However, it was not shared on social media. It is posted here to manifest, thereby demonstrate, a synecdoche (often confused with the metonym). The present upload feataures a double flyer-set (2HEX). Grossly querying—A: #01-06 Progress—borders in the terrestrial life-world (Bruno Latour)—B: #01-06 Intervention—borders in the human life-world. Both relating to different styles and practices of part-to-whole relations (keyword: mereology). Broadly: how we internalise/externalise force. There are forces in the strictly external/causal sense of Newtonian physics. There are forces that are transformed by agency, sign-clusters, communication. The latter entails a partly internal dimension: forces coming to, passing through, proceeding from actors. Defining a terrestrial attractor counterposed to the modern globalising attractor (Latour). In his last book Bruno Latour (2021) departs from the confinement—during the covid19 pandemic—to conceptualise the critical zone of the terrestrial attractor, confined or immured from the universe at large. A deviant from universal law, that Latour considers an artefact: henceforth, there is no division between nature and culture. In this take on the unified field, the confinement becomes a theatre of metamorphosis: featuring Kafka’s persona—Gregor Samza—who changes into a crustacean insect, resembling a scarab/beetle. The pandemic will change us into a different sort of creature. This I counterpose to Aby Warburg’s partial healing: anamorphosis. Indeed, how could a transformation be readable to us if total? Why does Latour here exceptionally lift the ban to place ourselves where we cannot go (at least, not at present)? Partial transformation, or anamorphosis, on the other hand, is marginally readable, at the cost of dealing with marginality: psychologically and philosophically. But also economically and politically. Here, we pass from set A to set B. If geological time (anthropocene) is strictly beyond our scope, does it somehow project into the human life-world: how we do science, business, politics, democracy? Perhaps. But it is likely to take more than mind-bending, and to include practice, agency, body-work. In this scope, synecdoche and metonym are not considered as rhetoric tropes—as they regularly are—but as orders of sign projection/codification or semiosis: where the relation between signs and speech, determine different takes on agency and attractors. Synecdoches vs. metonyms feature different takes on part-whole relations (mereology). In synecdoches the part is applied to the whole: like sail for boat, or hands for manpower (all hands on deck). While in metonyms the whole is applied to the part (as the institution of monarchy is applied to the crown). While the metonym transforms the object into a label, the synecdoche involves efficiency (whether involving people or objects). In the present DUO—or, duette—the synecdoche and metonym, when repeated to the point where they cross the threshold of mega-scales, constitute different apparatuses that lead to extremely different outcomes. The critique of Latour featuring in the sets, is born of an effort to make his theories applicable, and contribute to democratic effiency. Democratic efficiency leans on the discussion on tiling (see separate KHiODA entry /tiling/) in which the determination of situation and position—required to be situated and positioned (Haraway)—features a cartographic approach. Similar to the step-by-step puzzle piece approach argued by Bruno Latour. In tiling lineages/provenance is enhanced by the affordances of six-degrees-of-separation. Cf, https://khioda.khio.no/khio-xmlui/handle/11250/2756112
2 HEX units built stepwise. Steps: #01—attempt; #02—try again; #03—do something else; #04—return; #05—unlearn; #06—crossover.