November 30, 2016 - 23:53
1. "Instead of always pointing out the danger of 'anthropomophizing' natural entities, we should be just as wart of avoiding the oddity of 'phusimorphizing' them, that is, of givig them the shape of objects defined only by their causal antecedents"(Latour 10).
2."For all agnets, acting means having their existence, their subsistence, come from the future to the present; they act as long as they run the risk of bridging the gap of existence- or else they disappear altogether"(12).
3."The point of living in the epoch of the Anthropocene is that all agents share the same shape-changing destiny, a destiny that cannot be followed, documented, told and represented by using any of the older traits associated with subjectivity or objectivity" (15).
In the first sentence of second paragraph on page 13, the author challenged the idea of a "'material world' in which the agency of all the entities making up the world has been made to vanish." I still think there is a material world. Only upon the basis of material carrier can the agency issued. (I will go back to read the passage later to figure out whether I miss some essential context.)