On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 12:31:10 +0000 Simon Biggs <si...@littlepig.org.uk> wrote:
> People are not black-boxes. We are not simple (or even complex) > instances of a class of some kind. OOP's is a very powerful means for > creating meaning and action in machines and artificial systems but as > a metaphor for human beingness it seems too neat to account for the > complexity and multi-valent connectivity that exists between us. We > are messy creatures without clear boundaries to individuate us. Our > definition is probably less about things (or objects) than dynamic > relations as flux. > > best > > Simon Are you sure we should be thinking in terms of object orientated programming when reading the article? I was too distracted by the confusion as to whether we should or not to read it fully (predicition: my ability to read it will miraculously return as soon as I click send). James. > > > On 30 Dec 2011, at 12:12, Richard Wright wrote: > > > "Things, not Objects" - Bruno Latour > > > > > > > >> > >> From: marc garrett <marc.garr...@furtherfield.org> > >> Date: 29 December 2011 12:08:56 GMT > >> To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity > >> <netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org> Subject: [NetBehaviour] OOQ – > >> Object-Oriented-Questions. Reply-To: NetBehaviour for networked > >> distributed creativity <netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org> > >> > >> > >> OOQ – Object-Oriented-Questions. > >> > >> Jussi Parikka > >> > >> I can’t claim that I know too much about object oriented > >> philosophy. It’s often more about my friends or colleagues talking > >> about it, enthusiastically for or against. Indeed, I have been one > >> of those who has at best followed some of the arguments but not > >> really dipped too deeply into the debates – which from early on, > >> formed around specific persons, specific arguments, and a specific > >> way of interacting. > >> > >> Hence, let me just be naïve for a second, and think aloud a couple > >> of questions: > >> > >> - I wonder if there is a problem with the notion of object in the > >> sense that it still implies paradoxically quite a correlationist, > >> or lets say, human-centred view to the world; is not the talk of > >> “object” something that summons an image of perceptible, clearly > >> lined, even stable entity – something that to human eyes could be > >> thought of as the normal mode of perception. We see objects in the > >> world. Humans, benches, buses, cats, trashcans, gloves, computers, > >> images, and so forth. But what would a cat, bench, bus, trashcan, > >> or a computer “see”, or sense? > >> > >> more... > >> http://jussiparikka.net/2011/12/21/ooq-object-oriented-questions/ > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> NetBehaviour mailing list > >> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org > >> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > > > > _______________________________________________ > > NetBehaviour mailing list > > NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org > > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > > > Simon Biggs > si...@littlepig.org.uk http://www.littlepig.org.uk/ @SimonBiggsUK > skype: simonbiggsuk > > s.bi...@ed.ac.uk Edinburgh College of Art, University of Edinburgh > http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ http://www.elmcip.net/ > http://www.movingtargets.co.uk/ > > > > -- http://jwm-art.net/ image/audio/text/code/ _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
