“What characterizes the pharmakon is at the same time both its efficacy and its absence of identity. Depending on dose and use, it can be both a poison and a remedy. The type of attention that their milieu can lend to user movements is a pharmakon. It is capable of both nourishing and poisoning them. And the same “pharmacological” uncertainty prevails with regards to what these movements themselves can produce. That they might be dangerous thus goes without saying – every pharmakon can be dangerous. What it is a matter of putting into suspension, through referring to the instability of the pharmakon – remedy or poison – is the way this danger functions as an objection.5
-Stengers says that the objection to a possible poison is itself a danger because the objection becomes an act of exclusion. At the same time, we might also ask- does a care for the possibility of poison imply a care for the already poisoned? Before the aftermath, before the consequence — how can we think about what is already a failure and that poisons us? What would it mean to care for the perpetually contaminated? How do we approach that which has been poisoned at the moment of its conception, and in perpetuity?
While pragmatism is, in the common sense, connected with the notion of problem solving, prediction and action, the amphibian demon is a technological deformity that, once deemed an ineffective vehicle for war, is thereby leased out to (or upon) others.” rest @