From 90af9f4719c8271c83eb43d9b6f147247b3a2396 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: demet Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 09:09:34 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] process --- superposition.html | 96 +++++++++++++++------------------------------- 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 65 deletions(-) diff --git a/superposition.html b/superposition.html index 81f145f..664429c 100644 --- a/superposition.html +++ b/superposition.html @@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ project_repository
- ☰ navigate elsewhere>> + ☰ navigate elsewhere>>

-SUPERPOSITION - -
-

- - - -

-

- + SUPERPOSITION
Many stories exist in the landscape, says a wooden frame erected at Jericho Beach Park, What do you see? Do different stories render different cities? Or is it, as so exquisitely suggested by Italo Calvino's Invisible Cities (1974), that different framings focus a city differently, evoking a multiplicity of stories, each one rendering some aspects of a landscape legible to the exclusion of others?

- I am a bricoleur-as-researcher, conducting transdisciplinary investigations into everyday urban geographies through both affective and technoscientific research practices. I craft multimodal artifacts which perform bricolage with the physical-conceptual fields of my encounter. In my master's research-creation, I explored thinking with place and feeling the city through deep mapping, or situated, embodied inhabitation as a practice of ongoing and open-ended dialogue within and as part of the world. Deep mapping does not counter cartography; it is not defined in opposition so much by opposition as marked by iterative acts of interference with hegemonic forms of representing place, producing geographic knowledge, and rendering spatial research public. I believe deep mapping to be a Baradian diffractive apparatus (Barad 2007), for at times it is the object of my investigation and at times, the instrument. It has proved a means to investigate the entangled states of limit and transgression, as interference at once articulates the site of deep mapping (the limit of legibility/boundary of the intelligible form) and is its tactic. + I am a bricoleur-as-researcher, conducting transdisciplinary investigations into everyday urban geographies through both affective and technoscientific research practices. I craft multimodal artifacts which perform bricolage with the physical-conceptual fields of my encounter. Through the course of my master's research-creation, I have explored and responded to the question: what could it mean to think with place? to feel the city? I have done so through deep mapping, or situated, embodied inhabitation as a practice of ongoing and open-ended dialogue within and as part of the world. Deep mapping does not counter cartography; it is not defined in opposition so much by opposition as marked by iterative acts of interference with hegemonic forms of representing place, producing geographic knowledge, and rendering spatial research public. I believe deep mapping to be a Baradian diffractive apparatus (Barad 2007), for at times it is the object of my investigation and at times, the instrument. It has proved a means to investigate the entangled states of limit and transgression, as interference at once articulates the site of deep mapping (the limit of legibility/boundary of the intelligible form) and is its tactic.

-
- - - - - -
-

- Thinking with my ongoing work in Cartesian cartography, GIS, and deep mapping, I have grown critical of academic framings that render so-called 'top-down' and 'bottom-up' mapping practices in opposition to one another. Both are boundary making practices for configuring worlds. What matters is the effect of their differential articulations of what gets to count––what is included in the frame of an empirical formation. What becomes intelligible is not an innocent matter, however, for the constitution of a determinate form entails the exclusion of all other/ed possible configurations. I realized that what is needed to produce 'situated knowledges' (Haraway 1988) of the place one inhabits is not reflexivity on the part of the researcher, or merely an approach which counters the hegemonic one, but an account of how differences come to matter as the effect of boundary making practices -

- +

- I want to suggest "the city" as a phenomenon within which empirical formations (themselves phenomena) like spatial data and maps (be they mental or physical/digital) are intra-actively produced through both technoscientific and affective agencies of observation. 'Top down' and 'bottom up' mapping practices simply perform different agential cuts, the effects of which do not oppose one another but overlap in the everyday, their interference constituting the entangled viscera of urban bodies as they are rendered differentially intelligible. To study phenomena, their entangled states, and/or the apparatuses performing agential cuts from an exterior position, however, requires building a larger diffractive apparatus (Barad 2007, 345). This is what I intend to undertake as my next research project. I want to build a diffractive apparatus to study how the phenomenal city comes to differentially matter through the entangled effects of 'top down' and 'bottom up' boundary making practices. Reimagining referent "the city" from a fixed and bounded object to a phenomenon, dynamically figured through 'intra-actions' (Barad 2007), allows for a multiplicity of stories to be superpositioned in one place. The indeterminacy of which story comes to matter is resolved by boundary making practices which differentially frame the landscape. Accounting for boundary making practices is important in order to remain responsive to how some stories become privileged while others are "excluded from mattering" (Barad 2007, 220). + My thesis, the folder negative-spaces and the webbed site constituted through intra-action with the contents therein, is renders a partial account of the effects of my deep mapping practice as well as the boundary drawing practices through which negative-spaces is articulated as an object of knowledge. What becomes intelligible is not an innocent matter, for the constitution of a determinate form entails the exclusion of all other/ed possible configurations. Through the course of my master's research-creation I realized what is needed to produce 'situated knowledges' (Haraway 1988) of the place one inhabits is not reflexivity on the part of the researcher, or merely an approach which counters the hegemonic one, but an account of how differences come to matter as the effect interference. I want to suggest "the city" as a phenomenon within which empirical formations (themselves phenomena) like spatial data and maps (be they mental or physical/digital) are intra-actively produced through both technoscientific and affective agencies of observation. 'Top down' and 'bottom up' mapping practices simply perform different agential cuts, the effects of which do not oppose one another but overlap in the everyday, their interference constituting the entangled viscera of urban bodies as they are rendered differentially intelligible. To study phenomena, their entangled states, and/or the apparatuses performing agential cuts from an exterior position, however, requires building a larger diffractive apparatus (Barad 2007, 345). This is what I intend to undertake as my next research project. I want to build a diffractive apparatus to study how the phenomenal city comes to differentially matter through the entangled effects of 'top down' and 'bottom up' boundary making practices. Reimagining referent "the city" from a fixed and bounded object to a phenomenon, dynamically figured through 'intra-actions' (Barad 2007), allows for a multiplicity of stories to be superpositioned in one place. The indeterminacy of which story comes to matter is resolved by boundary making practices which differentially frame the landscape. Accounting for boundary making practices is important in order to remain responsive to how some stories become privileged while others are "excluded from mattering" (Barad 2007, 220).

- At this point I must ask, have I done this? Have I demonstrated a responsiveness to the ways in which boundaries are drawn, figuring intelligibility as the effect of exclusions? In some ways, yes, I believe so. + At this point I must ask, have I done this? Have I demonstrated a responsiveness to the ways in which boundaries are drawn, figuring intelligibility as the effect of exclusions?

-

- Sections from the above may sound like a PhD application. They are. I include my propositions for further study because they mark the culmination of three years working through what it might mean for me to do geography and a search for what I would want to study further. Or, a lure at least. Therefore, it feels appropriate to include this here as these questions are in many senses my research findings. practice of deep mapping - think with what comes up along the way: -

+
-

- Writing a project proposal is an achievement I am proud of and I believe it marks the effects of my practice, my research etc. It isn't separate but articulated in relation,,, Indeed, the introduction of barad in Interference.html was written for my phd statements. Thus I continue to practic tacts of writing for other purposes to write for my thesis, a 'guileful ruse' to motivate me to write with the effect of producing material i can then poach back for my thesis. I don't always make explicit where or why I wrote material throughout my thesis, but when I do, it is citing my tactics, my continued practice. - -

-
- - -
-

- After my spring symposium presentation to my department I was asked by another graduate student: "Are you more of a wave or a particle?" All I could think to say then was "interesting how you've framed the question as an either or..." I've been holding the question in mind since - subconsciously mostly - until a thought came one morning like the momentary illumination of lighting: I am (we are all) both wave and particle. Although routinely apprehended as individuals with definite bodies whose boundaries preexist encounter, our contours are really permeable, provisional, continuously composed and recomposed through iterative intra-actions.
- poem + -

-

- Karen Barad (2007, 182): "Agency is the space of possibilities opened up by the indeterminacies entailed in exclusions."
-To practice deep mapping is to embody superposition. Paradox is not a closure but an opening - to possibilities - the existence of multiple states, simultaneous multiplicities, inextricable layers. -

-

> here would be a good place to weave everything discussed in thesis in (eg tactics ns)
- Getting lost, disorientation, re dreams boundaries of known and unknown. Intelligibility refigures. Topology changes. The site of interference is always shifting, articulated by the interference itself. (eg symposium) and often after the fact. And diffracted through. Tactics vs strategy. tactic is space of the other. negative space.
- every where is a possible site for praxis. praxis is diffractive -- thinking through practice, enacting interference, mapping differences, generating new patterns. its all the field for deep mapping.

-

i feel like im still not doing superposition justice in this section... make sure to either discuss expanding field further in rendering or here. check what from rendering perhaps can be dispersed

-
+ +





@@ -202,7 +168,7 @@
- back to the beginning
+ ▲ return to top