No worries, it's an important discussion and I'd imagine Michael and others will want to contribute later tonight. I'll forward you some of the earlier threads so you can check them out.
- Jacob On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Ian Bogost <ian.bog...@lcc.gatech.edu> wrote: > Jacob, > > Thanks for this clarification. I apologize if I was thread-hijacking. > > Not sure if you're aware, but the empyre list website is very slow to > respond, and I can't find any archives thereon, so it's hard to go back and > see the conversation that's already taken place... > > Ian > > > > On Jun 14, 2012, at 4:02 PM, Jacob Gaboury wrote: > > Hello Ian. Thanks for joining the discussion, and for your > contributions. The goal of this week's conversation is a larger look > at computation and the nonhuman, and the broader theme of this month > is queer new media. SR/OOO is clearly important to any discussion of > the nonhuman, and I think one of the goals was to think through what > queer theory has to say to that field specifically, both in supporting > and critiquing it. This may explain the focus participants have made > on what is missing, rather than what is there. > > That said there are other ways of discussing these issues, such as > Micha and Jack's conversation on the Queerreal and the Transreal, or > our earlier discussion of uncomputability and the failure of technical > objects. I think it's useful to continue this conversation but my hope > is that it doesn't stop other people from chiming in about the other > topics and questions we have covered this week, or even to hear what > you have to say about these other approaches. > > It seems like part of the debate here is the notion that queer theory > and the tradition of continental philosophy focus a great deal on > issues of identity as they relate to the human. Part of our earlier > discussion was an attempt to theorize those nonhuman objects and > practices that we might productively understand as queer. That is, to > decouple the human, identity, and human-embodied experience from the > field of queer theory and apply it to the nonhuman and the > computational. Not as a way of "queering" these things but as a way of > understanding them as already queer to begin with. My impulse is to > look to uncomputable processes and super-Turing machines, Jack looked > to specific types of nonhuman objects such as animation or "stuffed" > objects in what I read as a continuing application of a kind of "low > theory". > > I don't know if this gets us outside this debate over the different > canonical/historical approaches of these two disciplines, but I think > it's a useful way of bringing them into conversation. I'd love to hear > more from all of you on this approach. > > - Jacob > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Ian Bogost <ian.bog...@lcc.gatech.edu> > wrote: > > Look, I'm new here, but is this really the level of conversation this list > > strives to support? > > > If this is just a place where like-minded folk pat each other on the back, > > please let me know so I can unsubscribe. > > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
