is this just like a scary tactic thing? or is this like actually happening... like the bugs in hershey's bars and stuff.

Perhaps this is the relationship that is materialized in a post-media world that Maiello was speaking of. We have relegated some of our sense to technology as they enable us to access perceptions that our bodies are unable to. Maybe the differences is translational rather than relational. In this instance with seismic sensors, we can translate senses we do not posses to senses we do possess. Maiello was talking more about the relational sensing that we cannot replace with technology (although it may be tempting).

Our reality is so intermingled with technics that, in the aftermath, we must remember to be the medium ourselves or create space for both the technics and our own relationality.

Mediation stemming from *mediationem * or "middle" and "a division in the middle."

This idea ties to the subjectivity and objectivity as mentioned in class. Rather the objectivity and subjectivity of sensing and perception can exist simultaneously. It reminds me of the Daoist work of Zhuangzi. This work is comprised of various parables on natural and humanist reflections. A very fundamental principle of Daoism is the mimicry of nature as it exhibits the Dao, or the Way. One such parable depicts Zhuangzi and Huizi, a prime minister, strolling along a dam. Zhuangzi makes a comment that the minnows are so joyful as they "dart around where they please." Huizi rebuts saying "You are not a fish -- how do you know what fish enjoy?" Zhuangzi eventually concludes that he know what the fish enjoy simply by standing by the river. The parable gets at the subjectivity of his observations intertwined with the objectivity of the fish's actions. They are existing together much like the observation of a stars light and the objective luminescence of a star. It gets slightly at perspective but creates a fascinating tension between the objective and subjective. If you want to read the parable is is here: https://terebess.hu/english/tao/Zhuangzi-Burton-Watson.pdf on page 276.

The affectation of being is interesting given the nature of stars. Many that hit our eyes no longer exist in the cosmos although they are illuminated to us. However, this painting still seems to hold true even in a temporal sense. In other words put "to stand in place and open one's eyes upon the night sky is not to extend one's being along a continuum" (95). This affectation of being is simultaneous and swirling. In some sense there is the being of the stars being along with the being of ourselves that is simultaneously portrayed in conjoined perspectives.

10/10 pun to be sure. Star-struck is colloquially used now to refer to mostly teenage girls paired with boy bands. However, a dated version refers to being under a malevolent influence of the stars or horoscopes. This term is slightly more interesting when using the malevolent version. The "striking" features of the term indicate a violent nature that is uncontrollable.

We are still rapidly discovering new species and beings that we did not know to exist before on our planet. Their evolutionary trajectory may have split but they are ultimately tied to us by ancestry. However, we often look at creatures, especially new ones, and label them as alien, unsightly, repulsive, gross, creepy, etc. This destructive rhetoric leads to an irreverence toward their being. We do not know what the blob may feel, think, or do so why do we create this disconnect between them and ourselves? Respect can still be present without a connection but may take more effort. We must put in this effort, however, as they are ultimately our neighbors (evolutionarily and physically).

This is abhorrence to the unknown is thought to be part of our psychology. We make patterns and molds in which to fit the world into. It makes internal processing much easier, especially when confronted with a dangerous situation. For example, when things, such as the sea-blob, go against our conceived notions of ocean animals we are more cautious as we don't know to internally lable them as "safe and cuddly" or "they will eat your arm off". (read: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4141622) I'm not a super big fan of this article as its very anthropocentric but it points to some ideas about patterns that have been thought to help us survive. While the above article may refute this, animals do a similar "patternization" of their surroundings. Its a shortcut to take in senses, really, but I think it often leads to, as Juliette said, schismogenesis. In my classes I haven't found much literature contradicting the "pattern" notions of sensing per psychology, as much as I don't like them. I'd be interested to see if other had come across any literature.