The programming dimension seems to be at the heart of the argument. Hansen is extending the OOP programming paradigm to notions of agency and relationality, even ontology.
best Simon On 30 Dec 2011, at 13:16, James Morris wrote: > On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 12:31:10 +0000 > Simon Biggs <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >>>> Date: 29 December 2011 12:08:56 GMT >>>> To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity >>>> <[email protected]> Subject: [NetBehaviour] OOQ – >>>> Object-Oriented-Questions. Reply-To: NetBehaviour for networked >>>> distributed creativity <[email protected]> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NetBehaviour mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour >> >> >> Simon Biggs >> [email protected] http://www.littlepig.org.uk/ @SimonBiggsUK >> skype: simonbiggsuk >> >> [email protected] 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 > [email protected] > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour Simon Biggs [email protected] http://www.littlepig.org.uk/ @SimonBiggsUK skype: simonbiggsuk [email protected] Edinburgh College of Art, University of Edinburgh http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ http://www.elmcip.net/ http://www.movingtargets.co.uk/ _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
