Intra-dependency: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
<span class="next_choice">Your phone freezes up, and you are stopped in your tracks, you sense some trouble here.</span> | <span class="next_choice">Your phone freezes up, and you are stopped in your tracks, you sense some trouble here.</span> | ||
<span class=" | <span class="pop-up stay-with-the-trouble link" data-page-title="Ethics_of_response-ability" data-section-id="0" data-encounter-type="Stay_with_the_trouble">[[Ethics of response-ability|Stay with the trouble: Ethics of response-ability]]</span> | ||
Revision as of 22:33, 8 December 2024
The use of “intra” gestures, in this case, towards an ontological turn within western philosophy that forwards a worldview in which entities (whether material, or immaterial, plant or mineral) are not pre-determinately fixed as clearly bounded, individual “things”, but rather emerge as phenomena in a constant state of becoming and co-shaping each other while doing so. Within such a worldview, the world is not separable as “inter” dependent parts to a whole, but rather as “intra” dependent relationships that are themselves generative of “wholeness”. Such wholeness no longer separates subjects (meaning-makers) from objects (observable phenomena), but considers them as co-constitutive. Karen Barad asserts that: ‘Matter and meaning are not separate elements. They are inextricably fused together, and no event, no matter how energetic, can tear them asunder’…
Your phone freezes up, and you are stopped in your tracks, you sense some trouble here.