Just in case anyone else is looking, I found the archives: http://lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/
On Jun 14, 2012, at 4:13 PM, Jacob Gaboury wrote: > 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
_______________________________________________ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
