I bought a copy. For real. On Thursday, July 5, 2018, uǝlƃ ☣ <[email protected]> wrote:
> I realize I'm that tool who always invites himself to these parties. But > I'm intrigued enough to read along with you. At first I was skeptical > because of this: > > https://philpapers.org/archive/BLAMSR.pdf > > Harman's objectal reduction is an apodictic posit, invulnerable to > empirical testing. > > But this revived my interest: > > http://www.re-press.org/book-files/OA_Version_Speculative_ > Turn_9780980668346.pdf > > In this spirit, then, when we reflect on the basic questions of > philosophy we note that in one way or another they all revolve around > issues of difference. What are the relevant differences? How are > differences to be ordered or hierarchized? How are dif- ferences related to > one another? Let us therefore resolve straight away to begin with the > premise that there is no difference that does not make a difference . > Alternatively, let us be- gin with the premise that to be is to make or > produce differences. How, in short, could difference be difference if it > did not make a difference? I will call this hypothesis the ‘Ontic > Principle’. This principle should not be confused with a normative judgment > or a statement of value . It is not being claimed that all differences are > important to us. Rath- er, the claim that there is no difference that does > not make a difference is an ontological claim. The claim is that ‘to be’ is > to make or produce a difference. > > In part because there's something counter-intuitive, self-contradictory, > or paradoxical about *not* starting with a method like criticality, yet > starting with the assumption that all the basic questions revolve around > issues of difference. What is critique *except* pointing out differences? > So, that question will force me to learn more about OOO. > > > > On 07/04/2018 06:51 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > > One of you [wretches], assigned me this book <https://www.amazon.com/ > Object-Oriented-Ontology-New-Theory-Everything/dp/ > 0241269156/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1530754578&sr=8-1- > fkmr1&keywords=Graham+Harmon+Object+Oriented> for a little light summer > reading before I left SF in March. It was a seductive assignment. In the > first place, the book is a little book. I LIKE little books. Cheap and > easy to carry. In the second place, as I read around in it, I see echoes > of Peirce in its monism and realism and fascination with metaphors (aka > “signs”?). Every chapter begins in an ingratiating introduction that gives > promise of progress in the rational construction of a complex idea. > > > > There my praise ends. I have started all the chapters with the greatest > of good will and have gotten thoroughly lost in every one. > > > > I deeply suspect that whichever one of you [wretches] who assigned it to > me has never read it from cover to cover. > > > > SO: Will you now do that with me? And will others join? It would be > best if we could snare a few philosophers to join us because the author > does seem to be rather deeply into philosophy, both post modern and the > other kind. > > > > It’s hard to believe that it has /nothing/ to do with object oriented > programing, but it may not. > > -- > ☣ uǝlƃ > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > -- Sent from Gmail Mobile
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
