You are right.... I should do more reading. I find the thoughts engaging and, since I am in transit, I am eager to get more information where I can.
Ultimately, underneath my questions, I suppose, are some thoughts on relationality and time. You have all of these things that have to do with chairs, but only the chair is the chair. And there are these things that have to do with chairs, but which are real in their own right. But an idea about a chair kind of flickers in and out of consciousness, never having a discrete edge, and only become something definitive when their edges are marked out in some way. It's tempting to think that one's writing about a thought is separate from the thought itself, but typically the act of writing or performing a thought tends to calcify and reinforce it through a feedback loop. Every time one thinks about a chair, one does not invent a new object. Similar to a computer program pulling modular entities and reusing them again and again, our thoughts repeat the concept in our imagination. On the other hand, imaginary iterations are not the same as digital iterations. Less like a computer, we pull the modular concept into action and interpret it with a variety of tones. I wouldn't want to say these singular thoughts don't exist, but on the other hand, they don't have the same reality as those thoughts which are articulated and taken up into collective discourse.... and even still, a discursive "thing" gains a level of significance when it represents some empirical process. I care about this because a chair changes from one moment to the next. It becomes materially altered as time unfolds, yet we are comfortable saying that the chair on day one is that chair on day five. In other words, each moment does not unleash a separate chair. In my mind, "weight" might be its subjective intensity, its empirical durability, its social hegemony, its procedural utility, its digital ubiquity, its aesthetic elegance.... though none of these qualities are directly analogous to the other, suggesting that there are a variety of types of being. All these thoughts are a jumble.... I'll take your advice and do some reading. Davin On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Ian Bogost <ian.bog...@lcc.gatech.edu> wrote: > A chair is a chair. A picture of a chair is a picture of a chair. A > definition of a chair is a definition of a chair. None are all chairs, but > all have something to do with chairs. At least, that's the OOO contention. > There are no planes of existence… except for Harman (and Tim, to some > extent), who distinguishes sensual from real objects. For Graham, the idea > of a chair is different from the real chair, which recedes from all > encounters. I think this is maybe the conclusion you arrive at in your > second paragraph below. > > NOTHING about OOO privileges the material (i.e., the tangible, physical) > chair primacy over the others. As for "the same weight" — well, that depends > on what you mean by "weight." What do you mean? > > I hate to say it, but it's maybe not possible to make further progress > without reading some of this material in depth… > > Ian > > On Jun 25, 2012, at 3:13 AM, davin heckman wrote: > > Ian and Tim, > > Do the differences with which we treat objects syncs up with > ontological difference, and thus, is there something to some of the > different categorizations we could possibly develop for objects? > > I do think there is plenty of room to see these things from a fresh > perspective, but I also wonder if not, for instance, Kosuth's chairs > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_and_Three_Chairs> highlight the ways > that discrete objects can differ from each other, but also the ways in > which there are consistencies that can yoke them together in odd ways. > A picture of a chair is not a chair, a definition of chair is not a > chair, instructions about a chair is not a chair, a chair as a > sculpture is not necessarily a chair..... yet, in some fundamental > way, all are chairs.... in a general sense of their concept and > recognition. Put all three things together, and you have a "chair" > which occupies all three planes of existence simultaneously. On the > other hand, they can occupy niches within conceptual frameworks (a > chair within a game, for instance, can be very "real" to the other > objects in the game). > > Each way of recognizing the chair (the picture, instructions, the > chair as chair, chair as sculpture, three chairs as conceptual work, > etc) would suggest that each is a distinct object in some sense, which > makes me wonder then, whether or not all other possible thoughts about > a chair have being, or if we afford the material object of the chair > primacy. In which case, does a digital rendering of the chair carry > the same weight as an unexpressed idea about a chair, too. At some > point, doesn't ontology lead into this thicket? > > Davin > > On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 9:08 PM, Ian Bogost <ian.bog...@lcc.gatech.edu> > wrote: > > There is no reason why holding that everything exists equally entails > > "reducing all that can be known about a being to a simple recognition of > > being." > > > Ian > > > > On Jun 24, 2012, at 5:44 AM, davin heckman wrote: > > > I agree, this is a good starting point.... that all things that exist > > have being as their common condition of existence (that is, they are > > not "not beings"), which is a sort of foundational ontological > > similarity. But if the only significant ontological claim we can make > > about things is either yes or no, do they exist or not, then this > > means all things carry this single quality, which is to say that there > > is no difference between things. If we admit difference, then we must > > account for those differences in meaningful ways. For instance, > > waffle #1 differs from waffle #2 in a different way than waffle #1 > > differs from a toaster (or waffle #1 changes in the course of being > > eaten, it is still in one meaningful sense the "same" waffle after it > > has been bitten, but in another sense, it is a different waffle, too. > > While both toasters and waffles are different from something like an > > idea or a "memory" rendered in media (a waffle recipe or story about > > waffles) or a process habituated in muscle memory (the habit of making > > a waffle or eating one). > > > My concern is that if we reduce all that can be known about being to a > > simple recognition of being, we commit to a kind of abstraction and > > alienation from being of the sort that happens when markets try to > > mediate everything through the common denominator of dollars. > > > Davin > > > On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Timothy Morton > > <timothymorton...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi Davin, > > > > We obviously treat different entities differently. > > > > But this is not the same as saying that these entities are ontologically > > different. > > > > Yours, Tim > > > > > > http://www.ecologywithoutnature.blogspot.com > > > > On Jun 20, 2012, at 5:51 AM, davin heckman <davinheck...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Thank you Ian, for these thoughts. My initial encounter with this > > > work came via a brief discussion of "flat ontology," which I found > > > somewhat offputting. I followed up by reading through the re:press > > > book. What I like the most, I suppose, is the sense that the > > > discussions are in motion with a lot of people participating. > > > > Reading some of the discussion of mereology, I find they resonate with > > > one of my favorite passages from Hegel. Pardon me for cannibalizing > > > another piece of writing (a draft of which can be found here: > > > http://isea2011.sabanciuniv.edu/paper/disturbed-dialectic-literary-criticism). > > > * > > > In The Phenomenology of Spirit, Hegel describes the dialectical process: > > > > "The bud disappears in the bursting-forth of the blossom, and one > > > might say the former is refuted by the latter; similarly, when the > > > fruit appears, the blossom is shown up in its turn as a false > > > manifestation of the plant, and the fruit now emerges as the truth of > > > it instead. These forms are not just distinguished from one another, > > > they also supplant one another as mutually incompatible. Yet at the > > > same time their fluid nature makes them moments of an organic unity in > > > which they not only do not conflict, but in which each is as necessary > > > as the other; and this mutual necessity alone constitutes the life of > > > the whole." [1] > > > > Viewed from within the Hegelian process, the Real is positioned > > > outside its present manifestations, consisting, rather, of the dynamic > > > processes that comprise its totality. > > > > This insight, crucial to critical practice, requires revision in light > > > of technical change. By revision, I do not mean that we need to > > > fundamentally alter Hegel’s argument, I only mean to suggest that we > > > see this passage with respect to new temporal modalities that have > > > shaken up the pursuit of knowledge. > > > * > > > I come at many of the same issues, but my inclination lead me to > > > embrace a kind of "humanism," but one which cannot easily understand > > > as we continually muddle the conversations of humanism with an > > > ontology that is expressed in our metaphors. One grip I have with the > > > use of Deleuze or McLuhan, is the idea that our capacity to > > > personalize prosthetics has a tendency to be reduced to a situation in > > > which it becomes possible to imagine that we see machines, > > > interpersonal relationships, people with tools, etc. as the same > > > thing. When, in fact, my psychic investment in my bike or computer, > > > while deep, is not nearly as deep or as complex as my psychic > > > investment in my (which I can only refer to as mine with a sense of > > > obligation to, rather than ownership over) child. If my bike decided > > > to bite me.....which it can't, even if it can hurt me.... I would not > > > feel so simultaneously restrained in my response AND emotionally > > > florid as I would if my 8 year old bit me for some crazy reason (but > > > with my three year old, I he is only a missed nap away from engaging > > > in something so obvious and horrible as biting someone). A bike, on > > > the other hand, can hurt me a lot more than a bite from a toddler, and > > > I suppose I am not above kicking a bike and yelling.... but I have > > > very limited feelings about a bike malfunction or hitting my thumb > > > with a hammer. On the other hand, a bike goes wherever I want it to > > > go (except when there's an accident)..... a toddler, not so much.... > > > an eight year old, he usually comes with a counter proposal (and it is > > > a monstrous adult that would treat kids like a bike, insist that they > > > only go where told, speak when it is demanded). A lot of really deep > > > thinking about human subjectivty simply does not go this far.... and > > > part of this has to do with a poor understanding of objects. What is > > > worse is when this understanding infects interpersonal relationships > > > in the context of a Randian sort of world where there is "no such > > > thing as society, only individuals" (yet, bosses treat workers like > > > bikes and bad boyfriends treat their partners like robots). > > > > I am very excited to read more. I feel like it is important to free > > > our thinking from patterns and habits of the past. In particular, the > > > culture of academic citation has gone from being about finding good > > > ideas where they are to deriving authority from the aura of the great > > > figure. I also have no problem with accumulations of wisdom that > > > translate into an inherited perspective, but this can't close us off > > > to thinking. So.... thank you for this! > > > > Davin > > > > On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Ian Bogost <ian.bog...@lcc.gatech.edu> > > wrote: > > > Davin, > > > > I'm about to disappear into a mess of meetings, but let me offer a brief > > > response: > > > > What you're touching on here is what Levi Byrant sometimes calls the "weird > > > mereology" of OOO. The song isn't "just" the sound waves (what Harman calls > > > an underming position) nor is it just the social context of creation and use > > > (an overmining position). A song is a song, and indeed, the song in an MP3 > > > file is a different thing than the song as an abstraction in human culture. > > > Neither is more object nor more real (well, "real" has a different meaning > > > for Harman than it does for Levi and me). > > > > I talk about this a bit in the first chapter of Alien Phenomenology, and > > > Levi does as well in the mereology section of Democracy of Objects. Also, > > > here are a blog post from Levi on the subject that weaves the two > > > together: > > http://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2010/08/12/more-strange-mereology/ > > > > I'm not answering sufficiently but wanted to get something out to you > > > rapidly. > > > > ib > > > > Ian Bogost, Ph.D. > > > Professor > > > Director, Graduate Program in Digital Media > > > > Georgia Institute of Technology > > > Digital Media/TSRB 320B > > > 85 Fifth Street NW > > > Atlanta, GA 30308-1030 > > > > ibog...@gatech.edu > > > +1 (404) 894-1160 (tel) > > > +1 (404) 894-2833 (fax) > > > > > > > > On Jun 15, 2012, at 4:11 AM, davin heckman wrote: > > > > Ian, > > > > Since we are on the topic of OOO, I was wondering what the ontological > > > status of something like a song is? I have to admit, I have a real > > > hard time swallowing a pure ontology that essentially defines the > > > subjective as outside of being, as a sort of on or off proposition, as > > > opposed to also a turning on (or is it being turned on? Or simply to > > > be turned or to turn?) (I am generally skeptical about a variety of > > > posthumanisms that go beyond a critique of a monolithic Humanism, > > > because I think that consciousness carries specific tendencies that > > > seem to fundamentally frame all possibilities for knowledge). However > > > it is entirely possible that I am missing out on a discussion that has > > > been unfolding without me. > > > > But here's my thought: With a song, you have something that can be > > > rendered in "objective" form.... maybe an mp3 file or a sheet of > > > notes or record or something. If this is what we mean by a song, > > > then, fine, that's an object. But a song only really starts doing > > > something when it is unfolding within the context of memory and > > > anticipation. It only is a song when it is listened to by a subject, > > > which is to say it is an object that has a singular temporal being as > > > it is listened to, which is distinct from how it is being listened to > > > and replayed even by the same user. (And we aren't even beginning to > > > talk about non-recorded music). The only way a song becomes a purely > > > discrete object is when it is removed from its temporal existence and > > > understood as a totality, and detached from an audience. And while we > > > can sit around and all talk about, say, "Another One Bites the Dust," > > > after we squeeze it into a conceptual file type and label it, the fact > > > that we can discuss something that can only mean something if is > > > experienced as a process AND an object within the context of a > > > experience, suggests that sometimes being is realized by the relations > > > of things, rather than the things themselves. My suggestion is that > > > the ontological nature of the song cannot be described in objective > > > terms without missing what a song is. Without the non-objective > > > component of its being, a song is just sound. If we say, well, "Hey, > > > when this sound occurs, people do X, Y, and Z," we can find ourself > > > thinking that these effects are produced by the object, but this sort > > > of thought experiment only gives us half an understanding of the > > > object's being. You also have to think of that song in relation to > > > the current context, to itself over time, to the individual and > > > collective experience of its audience, to the culture, etc. Again, a > > > great means to produce estrangement, but not the complete account of > > > what the thing is. At the risk of sounding chauvinistic, I can see > > > that it might be expedient to regard a distant moon without regard to > > > its historical relationship to the human. It's useful to think of a > > > distant moon as a quantity of data. But the closer we get to human > > > existence, the more likely we are to encounter types of things that > > > exist, but that cannot be understood properly as a bundle of discrete > > > data. Maybe there are some texts that address precisly these sorts of > > > concerns. > > > > This is where I think ontology cannot simply be objective. It must, > > > of course, be able to establish the differences between things, to > > > render those things it claims to understand in discrete form, insofar > > > as they can be considered as such. On the other hand, we know that > > > most of what the world is made of is common and that the laws of > > > physics, for instance, harness discrete things under a kind of > > > continuity. So, along with the conditions of radical difference that > > > a philosophy of objects implies, there are the conditions of radical > > > connectivity. Both features are equally present, which is to say they > > > offer us little in the way of productive knowledge EXCEPT insofar as > > > we can bind and sever, cut or tie, digitize or analogize within this > > > framework of matter. The 21st century loves digitizing things..... > > > it helps computers see the world, it helps them count us, predict our > > > behavior, weigh it, value it, direct it, etc. But the digital is only > > > half of our existence.... the analog process is equally present in > > > language and cognition.... and it is just as equpped to help us > > > understand the world by creating categories of things and identifying > > > common qualities. In "Notes on the Uncanny," Freud identifies this > > > struggle as productive of a kind of unsettling (the person that acts > > > like an object/the object that acts like a person)... but it does not > > > simply have to be a "scary" process.... the move from discrete to > > > connected or from one into multiple can also be deeply satisfying and > > > reassuring of being. If both processes are equally useful, then what > > > presides over these two tendencies? Temporal consciousness that can > > > mobilize processes of digitization and analogy? Another place to > > > think through this is in relation to a variety of attempts at > > > taxonomy. At some point, a poodle has to be a poodle and a wolf has > > > to be a wolf, but in relation to squids, both can be canines. We > > > could say that well, we are talking about layers of qualities that > > > enable us to categorize this object or that object. But without the > > > history of the poodle we don't really know how one canine can be a > > > fashion accessory and the other is a part of a wild ecology, all of > > > which (domesticating work dogs, turning tool animals into fashion > > > animals, thinking about animals as people, killing wild animals, > > > restoring wildness, etc) radically alter the parameters of being based > > > on thoughts about being. To take it back to queer thought, around the > > > bend of singular identities is the knowlege that such queerness does > > > not preclude deep relationality. My reading is that the fruits of > > > this thought are an affirmation of the idea that the well-worn paths > > > of prescribed human behavior do not necessarily lead to earnest > > > relationships, it is not to reject relationship itself in favor of > > > individualism because capitalism has been doing this since the > > > transformation of labor into commodity. > > > > Why does this matter? I care about politics, but I am not going to > > > say that OOO cleaves to this or that kind of politics.... it doesn't > > > matter. If a statement is discernibly true, then I have an obligation > > > to bend my ideas around the true statement. And my sense, based on > > > very limited reading, is that OOO is trying to figure out what we can > > > know about being. So, while it is worth considering the political > > > implications of speculative thought, I think Galloway is a bit wrong > > > to suggest that something is "bourgeois" or something just because > > > financial markets also offer a flat ontology via capital. The only > > > thing that really matters is whether or not a philosophy can get us to > > > a mutually agreed upon knowledge of the world that can be transmitted > > > effectively from one context to another and continue to be useful. > > > > I have been lazy about following this month's discussion, but I like > > > the idea of queering technology, of the productively broken tool. It > > > is an area that has affinities with regards to my own reading of > > > electronic literature..... taking Jakobson's discussion of poetics up > > > through Darko Suvin's discussion of "cognitive estrangement," and > > > looking at the ways that digital literary practices perform a similar > > > process with regards to instrumental languages. My thought is that OOO > > > is productive in that it asks us to engage in a thought experiment > > > about pure objectivitiy, and in doing so, reveals the critical > > > necessity of subjective and intersubjective aspects of human being > > > that are embedded in our broader assertions about being. I think that > > > a lot of the "posthumanisms" try to simply go beyond something that we > > > have never understood in the first place: that being human is > > > essentially a kind of queer existence, all the much more so when we > > > insist that it is not. For my part, I want my human rights. So while > > > I am sympathetic, generally, with many of the aims of the > > > posthumanists I encounter, I generally think that "Humanism" has yet > > > to adequately describe being human. Like Habermas said of modernity, > > > it's daunting and messy and incomplete (like most things worth doing). > > > Living in Norway right now (moving in a couple weeks, unfortunately), > > > humanism seems to be working out pretty well here. The problems of > > > the world do not stem from a love of humanity, they stem from our > > > growing estrangment from humanity and increased clustering into > > > paranoid, exclusionary enclaves (Why do you think everyone watches > > > Zombie movies? Blasting away at legions of dirty anthropoidal morons > > > trying to eat what you have, a perfect gospel for post democratic > > > capitalism). In a world of Darwinian evolution, we are not entirely > > > selected, we alter the landscape of an objective process through our > > > dialogue with an objective sphere that exists, that we inhabit, and > > > that we think about, but which does not simply constitute us. > > > > I admit these thoughts are poorly formed.... and I am very busy these > > > days.... so I might not be able to reply as quickly as I would > > > normally. But am very interested in these conversations. > > > > Davin > > > > On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 4:16 PM, frederic neyrat <fney...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > I would like - if possible - to get one or two examples about the > > > > objects concerned by your statement:"all objects equally exist, but > > > > not all objects exist equally." I guess - but I just guess - that the > > > > first part of the sentence is ontological and the second part could be > > > > political, but maybe I'm wrong. Thanks in advance. > > > > > Best, > > > > > Frederic Neyrat > > > > > 2012/6/14 Ian Bogost <ian.bog...@lcc.gatech.edu>: > > > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > 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 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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
