Ok, sigh, let me try this again. The "as much as" is not a judgement of value, but of existence. This is the fundamental disagreement that played out in the comments to Galloway's work and in the many responses elsewhere. The world is big and contains many things. I've put this principle thusly: "all objects equally exist, but not all objects exist equally."
It's possible that such a metaphysical position isn't for everyone. But if your idea of "being political" is as exclusionary and deprecatory as both Galloway's post and my limited experience thusfar here on empyre, then perhaps you can explain why that a model worth aspiring for? Why that is virtuous and righteous? Ian On Jun 14, 2012, at 2:57 PM, Rob Myers wrote: > On 06/14/2012 07:02 PM, Ian Bogost wrote: >> >> As for queer and feminist formulations, I agree with the spirit of what >> you say, but I'll reiterate my observation that SR/OOO is moving in a >> slightly different direction—one that concerns toasters and quasars as >> much as human subjects (note the "as much as" here). Why not take this >> work for what it is, at least for starters, rather than for what it >> isn't? > > The "as much as" is precisely the problem. > > Galloway's critique of OOO that Zach mentioned explains why: > > http://itself.wordpress.com/2012/06/03/a-response-to-graham-harmans-marginalia-on-radical-thinking/ > > But I wouldn't lump Meillassoux in with Harman. I think Meillassoux's > philosophy can indeed be interesting for this debate because of its embracing > of contingency and possibility. > > - Rob. > _______________________________________________ > empyre forum > empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au > http://www.subtle.net/empyre
_______________________________________________ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
