The author argues that the word “magic” is not neutral and it is related to power and to how reality is defined and understood.

Language and naming can carry clear positions. This case shows a subtle form of stigmatization.

I agree with the author’s idea. Even though the world has many cultures, these cultures are not only different opinions about the same thing. They come from different experiences. A example is the idea of “art” in China. Before the Western idea of art came to China, China did not really have the same concept of art. Many traditional sculptures and objects were made for religion, or social use. They were not made as independent artworks. However, after Western art theory came to China, many of these objects were called “art”.

This process often ignores the original cultural background. When people use an existing framework, they may put different cultural practices into the same category if they look similar. But this can hide the real differences in how cultures understand the world.

Machines are not neutral either. Factors such as camera exposure time, sensitivity, and recording methods also involve particular choices and positions.

Although the evaluation of a craftsman’s skill cannot be expressed with numbers in the same way as in science, there are still standards. For instance, in a workshop, an experienced craftsman teaches apprentices how smooth the stone should be polished and when the carving should stop. These standards are widely recognized within the craft community. In this sense, I wonder whether such shared consensus could also be considered a form of objectivity.

Objectivity is sometimes used to limit and supervise authority.

Although modern scientists have a very scientific way to explain why so many people have abduction experiences with aliens, it is still worth exploring why it is aliens and not something else. Why do so many people have the same descriptions? Maybe later people are influenced by alien stories. How did the first people have the alien experience?

In broken aesthetics, traces of repair show the relationship between people and objects, and the passage of time. This reminds me of the debate in heritage restoration about whether to restore the old to look new or to keep the marks of time. For example, many ancient Chinese Buddhist statues are not repainted with bright colors（their original colors), but keep the color shaped by time.

This is a good question. It reminds me that certain objects not only have functions but also carry other meanings, for example, a sweater made by a family member, or Chinese bronze vessels that represent a hierarchical system. When preserving or repairing objects that have a clear relationship with people, what is being repaired may also be the relationship behind them.

Weakening of relational ties that the text describes in discussions of repair and care may be because the form of labor has changed. In the past, people fabricated objects by hand and had a direct and physical relationship with them. In modern production, machines replace manual labor, and people mainly use their brains. As a result, the relationship between people and the objects they produce becomes weaker than before. This may require reading further literature to fully understand.

As another article in this week’s reading suggests, the nature and condition of things, such as their fragility and state of breakdown, are often only noticed once everyday life and object has already been damaged. Only when people recognize this fragility and the state of breakdown can reflection and repair take place.