I found my first bout of clarity in we are not modern around page 29 in the discussion of what is means to be modern. "“When the word ‘modern’, ‘modernization’, or ‘modernity’ appears, we are defining, by contrast, an archaic and stable past. Furthermore, the word is always being thrown into the middle of a fight, in a quarrel where there are winners and losers, Ancients and Moderns. ‘Modern’ is thus doubly asymmetrical: it designates a break in the regular passage of time, and it designates a combat in which there are victors and vanquished.” I think this helps establish the reflective and at times irony of the book as I continued to read. As it continues I thought the discussion brought up about scientists and politicians to be interesting around pg.37 "“The modern divide between the natural world and the social world has the same constitutional character, with one difference: up to now, no one has taken on the task of studying scientists and politicians in tandem, since no central vantage point has seemed to exist.” I thought this was nice to note as the passage continues and especially in regards to political scientists or as they were known such as Benjamin Franklin. I feel like I could also begin to become a bit lost here in the discussion of texts but nonetheless did my best to hold on to the discussion of the difference between two paths of thought. As these two paths are discussed, I thought a few discussion points were of note. - The first being about the "soul of things" (pg. 39) as it relates to stars and nature was highly fascinating in pointing out the dichotomy of modernism. - The idea of facts and laboratory facts (pg.47) an idea that I think is really important in understanding modern/traditional theory. This is also continued on pg 60 and 67 where laboratories and real world are discussed in regards to the distribution of these labs. - Then the discussion on non humans (pg.58) which I think is really important to note in regards to science and social science heirarchy/relationship to the world. Additionally it made me think of the marvel comic about the inhumans. Presented and discussed again on pg. 99, “nonhumans, because it never allows them to appear as elements of ‘real society’.” Finally around pg. 87 in discussion of making durable products from science and then the production of thunder on pg.89 I thought the clarity of the issue of polarization of modernity was begining to be flushed out and understood. The sense that modernists are always protected in a way because the accept and have an answer for all things opposite. "If you express astonishment at a religion that has no influence either on the way the world goes or on the direction of society, they will tell you that it sits in judgement on both. ” (pg.92) I found the parts about post modern-ism interesting on page 108 "“They feel that they come ‘after’ the moderns, but with the disagreeable sentiment that there is no more ‘after’. ‘No future’: this is the slogan added to the moderns’ motto ‘No past’. What remains? Disconnected instants and groundless denunciations, since the postmoderns no longer believe in the reasons that would allow them to denounce and to become indignant.” I think this is integral in understanding the post modern thought as well as on page. 140 "“The ‘postmods’ are the end of history, and the most amusing part is that they really believe it.” Additionally, the non moderns and antimodern diction choice was of note: non modern: “A nonmodern is anyone who takes simultaneously into account the moderns’ Constitution and the populations of hybrids that that Constitution rejects and allows to proliferate.” (pg.109) Anti Modern: "Antimoderns want to defend localities, or spirit, or rationality, or the past, or universality, or liberty, or society, or God, as if these entities really existed and actually had the form that the official part of the modern Constitution granted them.” As the second half comes to a close I found the reflection on modernism refreshing on pg. 137 as it took a surprisingly vocal perspective "Nevertheless, he remains honest and respectable. Even in the caricature of the modern project we can still recognize the faded splendour of the eighteenth-century Enlightenment, or the echo of the nineteenth-century Critique. Even in this obsession with separating objectivity from communication we can grasp a trace, a reminder, a scar arising from the very impossibility of bringing off such a separation. With the postmoderns, the abandonment of the modern project is consummated. I have not found words ugly enough to designate this intellectual movement – or rather, this intellectual immobility through which humans and nonhumans are left to drift. I call it ‘hyper-incommensurability’.” Overall it was an intense read I found myself trying to understand and grasp at times (therefore the photos). After getting through it, it was easier to digest as a bigger picture as opposed to looking at it piece by piece. O and the rivers and widows in the digital edition drove me insane!
