Hiyas! Hope this finds you all well!
This thread has, in my view, perhaps developed rather interestingly. Feels as if it has a life of its own. It might allow a person to imagine a way in which this thread, immanently, has its' own developmental desire. A desire for a future, however short lived.. ;) Here are a few reflections: Personally, I think Michael's point, which I think Rob agreed with, regarding the need to be Very sceptical about statements, processes and activities which might use the popularity of OOO only for petty career advances. Indeed, such moves are a waste of time! I hope the conference might actually address that kind of concerns so it questions itself, and indeed its premise.. It was interesting for me to read Marc's earlier comment, regarding legalities, because it addressed, perhaps for my tainted mind only, the issue of legitimacy - indeed, the legitimacy of rights. If a right can be given - a right for free art/health/education/culture/science - can be taken as we can all experience on certain levels. (..an interesting historical view, btw, re 18 century britain..) And that, I think, the question of rights, legitimacies, and how we practice them socially, culturally, politically and aesthetically - is precisely what I thought the kind of stuff the conference might be addressing. This, in my mind, is not an OOO fashion kind of animal.. For example, some people who recalled events such as the Crystal Night, had a shiver down the spine hearing about Beatles records being burnt, following Lennon's Jesus remark. That shiver was to do with the rights of cultural related objects. Because the process of mass production, I think that such objects exist differently to, for example, the relatively recently destroyed buddha statues in afganistan. Maybe because of these 2 processes of Being, the objects have different kind of lives? Different kinds of possibilities and therefore a sense of "rights"? How about words? Do they have rights? Some people, again, unrelated to OOO, have been killed - or seriously threatened to have shorter lives - because they staged a show for the wrong word/s at the wrong time.. Perhaps through such questions, of rights and legitimacies, we can search the futility of that particular line of questioning? (..does it not go around like a dog & tail..) Perhaps we can do better - or more interestingly - with an emancipatory paradigm? Maybe that of desires? Or the one made of trajectories and inhibitions? There is an argument that as a species we've developed empathy with other entities because it helps killing. Understanding your enemy's movements better means you can anticipate better, and the same goes for hunting.. However, beside the killing, empathy might have other qualities which, perhaps by evolution rather than original developmental intent, allow people to understand processes well beyond the central limitation of one's ego? As Julian Weaver - http://www.hypo.io/ - in his introduction to Not For for Human Consumption http://nfhc.crisap.org/ noted very succinctly - OOO's relevance is not so much about objects as it is about the Process of removing & exposing humans' imagined centrality. As Julian observed, there is a process of re-orienting ourselves in non-centralised roles, which we tend to benefit from. For example, people found it hard to imagine earth being universally non-centralised. Maybe because like little children, we have a tendency to want stuff revolving around us? In that sense, the ability to imagine being an equal - and that is where the legalistic sense, perhaps false one, of rights might come from - in a network is perhaps/seemingly immanent to the very process of continued becoming.. (..not sure why am using "network".. can imagine other link constellation types.. perhaps "network" is an easy metaphor of one for now?) >From a few discussions I have had with the philosopher Hilan Bensussan - http://anarchai.blogspot.co.uk/ who, btw, will be blighted come March/April for http://performancephilosophy.ning.com/events/what-is-performance-philosophy - it seems to me that perhaps the process of ontology's Orientation is in fact what might be the element that links the rather different philosophers and approaches under what came to be a sort of temporary convenient roof of OOO.. OOOPs.. A bit longer than I thought it might be.. Have a fab evening! Cheers and all the best! Aharon xx > On 12/02/13 15:27, Simon Biggs wrote: >> Had an interesting conversation with Talan Memmott in Amsterdam this >> weekend about OOO and agreed that the focus on things overlooks the >> importance of process and the consequent mutability of things. This is >> where OOO's reductivist nature and flaws become most apparent. > > I quite like the idea of flat ontology, it makes sense under > materialism. But neither sneering nor screaming at Alex Galloway's > critique really answers it. > >> So, you are neither a thing nor an object but a process within >> immanence (that's a word will drive OOO people mad). > > The last chapter of: > > http://www.furtherfield.org/features/reviews/philosophy-software > > has some nice meditations on *streams*, and mentions Husserl's "comets". > > And yes I've seen the immanence hate in OOO. Surely immanence is just > another object in Meinong's Jungle? ;-) > > - Rob. > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > > _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
