À propos du concept de jurimorphes de Kyle McGee
Quelques tweets (en anglais uniquement) rédigés par Bruno Latour et faisant référence à l'article "The Strange Entanglement of Jurimorphs", un chapitre d'une ouvrage sous la direction de Kyle McGee (“Bruno Latour and the Law”, Edinburgh University Press, à paraître):
McGee' edited volume on [LAW] shows how tracing modes & domains differ, his concept of jurimorphs allow everything to become shaped as law.
— AIME (@AIMEproject) 6 Janvier 2015So law as an institution is at once permeable to all influences and yet they are shaped in specific way by the key [LAW] as jurimorphs.
— AIME (@AIMEproject) 6 Janvier 2015Topology of modes & topology of domains are very distinct, domains have border like states, not modes that are networky, see [RES·PRE]
— AIME (@AIMEproject) 6 Janvier 2015Constant confusion in AIME critique is that readers shift from discussing domains instead of extracting modes, most of the time it fails.
— AIME (@AIMEproject) 6 Janvier 2015McGee's concept of jurimorph is adjusted to extract from the confusing institution of Law what is highly specific to the passage of law.
— AIME (@AIMEproject) 6 Janvier 2015It's true that AIME introduces a confusion by having the same name for [LAW] mode and for Law institution, it should be called Assignation.
— AIME (@AIMEproject) 6 Janvier 2015Same problem with religion & [REL] constantly at war since the prophets. So discussing 'religion' bears no relation with getting at [REL].
— AIME (@AIMEproject) 6 Janvier 2015Each mode tends to hegemony so [FIC] for instance may aesthetize all other modes. So [REL] or [LAW] may morph all the others in their shape.
— AIME (@AIMEproject) 6 Janvier 2015Hence the crucial role of [PRE]position that is a mix of philosophy & anthropology that keeps the pluralism of modes open against hegemony.
— AIME (@AIMEproject) 6 Janvier 2015