How do they demonstrate this opposition functionally though?

While I agree with this wholeheartedly, again I am wondering about makers with different levels of ability, as that wasn't directly addressed but I think they fit in this population as well.

Again the word 'formalising' feels strange to me... why is there such an emphasis on formality? I understand the need of formalization for the sake of gathering support & resources, but I don't quite get the drive beyond that? It doesn't say anything to me about the validity of the creative space...

(I'm commenting on the concept pf interpersonal skills and the quote below) I wonder if this can be vaguely exclusionary for people with neurological differences? Science as a solitary thing can be appealing for people based on their abilities/needs/developmental stage... And while I appreciate the value of a community oriented space and the ability to communicate our thoughts, I wonder why a formal 'team' has to be a central part of the maker experience?

The role of the facilitator is really interesting to me in this context. It sort of reminds me of elements of ‘play theory’ that encourage students to lead activities, because naturally they will gravitate to what is developmentally fulfilling. Often there is an emphasis on caution above all else in a classroom, and although it’s not easy, I think there are certain points where we ought to release that control based on assessed risks and developmental stages of students. In short I think to truly be 'learner driven' we should let students break stuff sometimes, and I hope this source would agree.

I wonder if the perception of science as something objective, sort of a binary view of right/wrong has acted as a barrier to this in the past? If the goal is purely accurate data it's difficult to understand how this binary reputation can be adapted to encounter and embrace elements of humanity.

The use of 'informal' as an identifier confuses me here. I assume the article will go on to justify that even though maker spaces are 'informal' but that doesn't mean they are ineffective. But most kids K-12 are constantly in a learning environment (particularly in early childhood development), so attempting to define any of it as formal or informal seems odd to me? Constraining or labeling modes of learning feels like it inevitably contributes to debates regarding value?

In this case, paranoia about the possibility of reduced access to weapons seems to have created a further issue… It's as if a threat that hasn't even been realized spawned this sort of dystopian frenzy of invention.

It almost feels like the nature of technological development indicates that these new technologies won't be universally accessible until it needs to be (i.e. phones, wifi, zoom)… and if that’s the case, isn’t it an issue that is as much about education and accessibility as it is about economy?

So this is saying that essentially the progression/regression of society is dependent on the way that an economy is developed... which would mean that in that case the ability to manufacture domestically creates a less regulated economic system, in that the actual tactile materials are unable to be regulated? Am I reading this correctly by reaching that conclusion? It feels almost counter intuitive when you recontextualize this while considering the grand scheme of making.

according to MW dictionary: a branch of theology concerned with the final events in the history of the world or of humankind

But I would think minds contain bias, even if the subject of that bias isn't manifested in front of you… Also there’s the whole cyber bullying argument we’ve all heard, which is that not seeing another person holistically on the other side of a computer makes a single person’s mind feel impervious to repercussions of their thoughts/statements. I think we need to be more than minds?

Is this being counteracted (even just a bit) by the current social media sites that have begun formally fact checking some posts? As in, is it no longer this unrestricted and unregulated opportunity?

but there are also arguably technical elements to the aforementioned organic biotic systems, and so the challenge of dualism becomes somewhat self fulfilling

Ontology (Mirriam-Webster)

1. a branch of metaphysics concerned with the nature and relations of being
2. a particular theory about the nature of being or the kinds of things that have existence

I wonder if this is in reference to both internal body structures and their communications devices (i.e. horemones) and also the function of a human as a biologically social and communicative animal.

these words seem to span other flawed 'dualisms;' they transcend myth/reality (the word chimera is both a reference to a greek creature and a word in the modern english vernacular), and whereas a hybrid seems to be more clinical it is placed directly next to the wod mosaic, which would imply a breech of the creative/clinical boundary as well. In this way, Harroway highlights the way that these categorizations are inherently indistinguishable from one another, as they are all independently evolved forms of creation that accomplish similar things. Unification, and a less binary system of organization.

reference to Richard Gordan, expanded upon on pgs 21-22

Attributing human features to technology? Or do the concepts of mind and body transcend humanity?

Who is made is particularly salient in that we generally would think of human hands contributing to the existance of manmade machinery (hence the term manmade to begin with), but it implies that humans have made themselves into something of a higher power due to the addition of technology, and in this way, high tech has breeched that boundary and evolved the human form.

Dualism is an interesting word choice here in that it also is a word with religious associations. Not onlu can dualism be the marriage of two things (mind/body, culture/nature) but it also represents a duality in beliefs; it can mean duality as far as "two supreme opposed powers or gods" (brittanica.com). This is interesting in that oftentimes these powers are combative. There is god and satan; the powerful good and the powerful bad. Harkening back to her opening comments about blasphemy, I wonder to what degree Harroway is trying to play on reliigion here to dissasemble our concepts of good and evil and the way technology effects those perceptions.

Both Harroway and Kafer have interpreted the text incorrectly and used it to validate their point-- that disability and technology are inherently connected, in what Harroway identifies as hybridization. And in fact, I found this to be one of the most problematic parts of the text. Harroway's characterization of disabled bodies as reliant on technology universalizes the experience of diabled people, and even as she goes on to explain that the 'wholeness' of the human body is a fallacy, she still operates under the implication that there is a more idealized state of functionality that human beings should aspire to meet, and moreover 'hyrbids' fail to meet this standard without the addition of technology. And this bias transcends into her reading of the Ship Who Sang as well, as she interprets the ship as an extension of a severley handicapped child’s brain, when in fact, we were lead to conclude that the ship itself is the body. However, Kafer also struggles with this, despite also misinterpreting the ship for an additional technology rather than a body itself. She aruticulates Harroway’s conclusion, “it is hard, then, to read disability or disabled bodies as active participants in the cyborg politics” (112). It’s increasingly clear that it is difficult to engage in an argument about a text when the authentic meaning of the work is misunderstood and schrouded with complex, yet fundamentally unrelated theories.

An accurate reading fo McCaffrey’s story changes the argument almost entierly. It identifies technology as an organic extension of the brain; necessary and nonoptional. And I think this understanding would resolve Kafer’s dilemma with Harroway’s use of the text. IT still functions as a way to humanize cyborgs, but the problematic intrepretation lies in their mutual understanding that the brain is entierly seperate from the body.

used as synonymous with equalizing?

This word is a derivative of mutation, which is simply defined as "a significant and basic alteration" (merriam webster). It is intersting then that the word mutant has sci-fi and supernatural connotations. I wonder if Harroway uses the word in spite of that?

argues that there is no such 'whole human body' that those with disabilities should or would aspire to achieve

argues that the line does not need to be drawn between human anc machine; all is one and they have a relationship between oneanother that validates erasing these lines

negated, underestimating the body as its own independent force

this is a more direct transition into disability as a subject

using the word mental seems ironic to me given that she missed that the ship and the brain were one body in McCaffreys work. She is clearly willing to attribute a brain or some sort of technological equivalant to computers; however, she fails to earlier on...

animated as developed technelogically and animated as brought to life

humanizing technology; giving it life after death, which indicates that its presence is more tangable and lasting than we have been conditined to believe

Does this suggest that bodies can include other bodies? Other people can be extensions of ourselves, as in children, families, et al? Or does it use 'beings' in the less holistic sense, where a 'being' may be a part of a body, a surgical alteration that is still contained by skin?

staring trasnfixed at a screen, the inability to function without these tecnhologies, even for social interations

connection as intimacy, tools as additional technologies that qualify us as cyborgs

indicates that these 'cyborg, hybrids' have negative effects on society at large

SO many words. None of them fit directly. UGH? Do we understand anything? Maybe not. Partiality = dualism? LIke part one thing, part another. It can also mean bias (maybe another double meaning sticky-situation). Maybe there is abias against ironic coupling of technology? This definitely relates to the underlying themes of sex and demonized intimacy.

"she's like a troll under a bridge with her riddles" - Milenka

Flaccid = strange word choice? Clearly a dick joke, but it kind of obscures the meaning of the line. We think it's trying to say Focault's biopolitics is weak or unsupported attempt at iterating Haraway's point.

This relates to what Harroway said in her interview with Penley and Ross; there is a line "but this imperative helps to breaks down the notion that only the language-bearing actors have a kind of agency. Perhaps only these organized by language are subjects, but agents are more heterogenious," as she breaks down the barriers between who is valued as an independent agent, and who is able to make soncscious decisions to establish power (page 9). I think this necessity to identify who is entitled to what rights is imperative for her argument to have any grounds. At large is attempting to place the human-technology hybrid that is a cyborg into a modern societal system, but on this more minor scale she acknowledges that it is just as important for humans to acknowledge where tecnnology and humanity coincide, thus challenging this dualism.

Protean = "of or resembling Proteus in having a varied nature or ability to assume different forms" (Mirriam Webster)

Didn't we talk about this at the beginning of the semester? How it isn't "a girls brain" but actually the ship itself is female? This changes the effectiveness of her point here...

this is an intereting transition from two very conrete thinsg (organism and machine) to the more contestable otherworldly concept of a spectr. It almost reminds me of the first paragraph wherein she equates blasphamy and religion to the cyborg... I wonder why she doesn't acknowledge these transitions between the concrete and the fantastically theoretical.

city state (greek)