Meeting each moment, being alive to the possibilities of becoming, is an ethical call, an invitation that is written into the very matter of all being and becoming. We need to meet the universe halfway, to take responsibility for the role that we play in the world's differential becoming." Juelskjær, M., & Schwennesen, N. (2012). Intra-active entanglements: An interview with Karen Barad. Kvinder, Køn & Forskning, 21(1–2), 10–23. Haraway, Donna: 1991 ,Whose Science? Whose Knowledge?: Thinking from Women’s Lives. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Harding, Sandra: 1990, ‘Feminism, Science, and the Anti-Enlightenment Critiques’, in Feminism/Postmodernism, ed. Linda J. Nicholson. NY: Routledge. Barad, Karen: 1995, ‘A Feminist Approach to Teaching Quantum Physics’, in Teaching the Majority: Breaking the Gender Barrier in Science, Mathematics, and Engineering, edited by Sue V. Rosser. NY: Teachers College Press.

Sandoval, Cheyla: 1991, ‘U.S. Third World Feminism: The Theory and Method of Oppositional Consciousness in the Postmodern World.’ Genders, 10. Haraway, Donna: 1985, ‘Manifesto for Cyborgs: Science, Technology, and Socialist Feminism in the 1980s’ ,Socialist Review, 80, 65–108, (reprinted in Haraway, 1991). Murris, K., & Borcherds, C. (2019b). Childing: A different sense of time. In D. Hodgins (Ed.), Feminist post-qualitative research for 21st childhoods (pp. 197–209). Bloomsbury Academic. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350056602Appendix C. Controversy concerning the Relationship between Bohr's Principle of Complementarity and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle 402

Barad also argues, following Nils Bohr (the whole book is an interpretation/expansion of Bohr's thought), that concepts are not purely metaphysical things, but exist only insofar as they are embodied in apparatuses, and this I think I broadly get (gender and race would be really obvious ones in the social sphere - there are particular social and institutional practices that "produce" gender and race as things that then appear to pre-exist the practices: Barad starts the book with a discussion of Judith Butler and her thinking is aligned with Butler as well as Haraway).Thus, employing the famous 'double slit experiment' as her exemplar - in which light appears as either a wave or a particle depending on the 'observer' - Barad pitches herself against the prevailing readings according to which the status of light is simply unknowable or 'indeterminate' until measured (recall Schrodinger's unfortunate cat, both/neither dead and/nor alive until observed). Following Bohr, Barad argues that the situation is in fact far more interesting and far more complex than one can imagine: rather than a deficiency in knowledge, at stake is in fact the very 'being' of light itself, insofar as the very idea of 'determination' only makes sense in the context of an experimental apparatus that would give determinate values meaning in the first place. Finally, TSElosophers returned to the fourth point of Barad’s framework – the implications of knowledge. We discussed the ethics of knowing and importance of considering material consequences of knowledge production. Further reading Barad then tests out her metaphysics via what she terms "empirical metaphysics". That is, the ability today to actually execute some of the metaphysical gedanken experiments posed and counter-posed by Einstein and Bohr. The results of these experiments bode poorly for Einstein's metaphysical views and better for Bohr's. However, Barad's agential realism fares better yet, having rid itself of Bohr's implicit anthropocentric biases. I don’t think people like Barad are as antagonistic towards Marxists as some of them seem to believe, though I understand why they are critical of new materialism generally. Most of the time Barad mentions Marxism it is rendered awkwardly as (post-)Marxism. Feyerabend, P. K.: 1962, ‘Problems in Microphysics’, in Frontiers of Science and Philosophy, ed. Robert G. Colodny. Pittsburgh: U. of Pitt.