On Jun 28, 2012, at 1:30 PM, Rob Myers wrote:
The problem is that the defenses of OOO against charges of failing to
illustrate Marxism indicate that OOO aesthetics is probably a category error
as well.
Sorry, how so?
ib___
empyre forum
Hi Simon--it's De Man's argument. A certain aesthetic feature is turned into a
metaphysical substrate of things, in this case, fuzziness.
I think OOO would give you all the fuzzy you want, since everything is
interconnected at the sensual level. That, and the fact that the rift between
Hi Rob,
Since for OOO causality just is aesthetics, I'm afraid you're not right on that
score.
I'll send you this essay on it I just wrote for New Literary History if you'd
like.
There are some other pieces by me on that, online in Singularum and Continent.
Yours, Tim
Hi Everyone,
I just posted this on melancholia and objects on my blog, and since it's
apropos I thought I'd share it. It's the essence of how as an OOO'er I see
appearance or form.
Tim
melancholy doesn't imply anything about subjectivity. All you need for
melancholy are various kinds of object.
Aesthetics, ideology? I was thinking of Lotfi Zadeh's work when I mentioned
that - not fur balls.
best
Simon
On 27 Jun 2012, at 18:04, Timothy Morton wrote:
Dear Simon,
OOO objects are far more fuzzy than your metaphysically present fuzz. They
are ontologically fuzzy.
To say fuzzy
It's been a long time since I was flamed on a list. Didn't think that happened
anymore and that we had learned how to behave in such public spaces. I don't
think patronising condescension is appropriate.
Why do you think I'm a conceptual artist? (I'm not).
best
Simon
On 27 Jun 2012, at
Dear All,
Ok - so if the academic banter is to continue - lets make it somewhat jovial.
@Edurado
No-ones really being disrespectful or denying the importance of conceptual art.
The flurry of activity both in conceptual art and it's twin contemporary;
systems art was directly aimed at
On 06/28/2012 05:56 AM, Timothy Morton wrote:
Lots of artists and musicians are now tuning into OOO.
Yes Ian's book contains some interesting examples.
The problem is that the defenses of OOO against charges of failing to
illustrate Marxism indicate that OOO aesthetics is probably a
Dear empyreans,
Thank you for the discussion. I have been in enjoying its queer turns
and scaling effects, stretching out on the multiple planes of ontology,
shrinking down to the nano. Drink this. Eat this. I can't get off this
chair!
I would like to add this text for its pertinence, less
On Jun 26, 2012, at 3:01 AM, Simon Biggs wrote:
But Kosuth's chair engaged the simulacra - it addressed conventional notions
of the real as not sustainable. Kosuth's chair is an equivocal chair, a fuzzy
chair, all types of chair - and never a chair. It's a conundrum, and that was
the
Hi---each entity (a thought, an amethyst geode, a bartender) emits spacetime
just as Einstein argued . Graham's The Quadruple Object and my not yet out
Realist Magic go into this.
Each entity times in the way Heidegger reserves for Da-sein and Derrida
reserves to the trace.
Time and space
Hi Simon,
As I'm sure you know, Kosuth's essay Art After Philosophy seemed to imply a
platonic solution to that conundrum. His essay claims what's important about
chairs (and art) is the unique idea conveyed to us by their varying
manifestations, whether dictionary definition, photo, or wooden
Hi Ian
Maybe I'm a little old, but 10 to 15 years seems, in terms of human thought,
extremely recent. I have read some OOO texts though, during that short period
of time. I've also had a little time to digest Kosuth's work, since it was made
forty odd years ago. In retrospect his chairs might
I have an article that I wrote about a year ago which discusses black
boxes, poetics, and default settings: Inside Out of the Box: Default
Settings and Electronic Poetics
http://www.dichtung-digital.org/2010/heckman/heckman.htm
It might be a nice complement to the conversation.
I will take a
...@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
[empyre-boun...@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au] On Behalf Of Robert Jackson
[robertjackson3...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 6:07 AM
To: soft_skinned_space
Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Meillassoux / Harman
Hi All,
It's worth noting that Kosuth was a conceptual artist who
Simon, this conversation is a fool's bargain and I refuse to continue it. You
suggest that what is worth doing—but not even doing, just reading, even—only
*will have been* worthwhile after enough time has passed that it can be judged
on the historical scale. This gambit amounts to a rationalist
Dear Simon,
OOO objects are far more fuzzy than your metaphysically present fuzz. They are
ontologically fuzzy.
To say fuzzy things are better than smooth things--this is just aesthetic
ideology run mad.
Tim
http://www.ecologywithoutnature.blogspot.com
On Jun 26, 2012, at 6:34 PM, Ian
Thanks for this Davin. I have it queued up. Tim
http://www.ecologywithoutnature.blogspot.com
On Jun 27, 2012, at 3:53 AM, davin heckman davinheck...@gmail.com wrote:
I have an article that I wrote about a year ago which discusses black
boxes, poetics, and default settings: Inside Out of the
On 06/27/2012 11:07 AM, Robert Jackson wrote:
Hi All,
It's worth noting that Kosuth was a conceptual artist who explicitly
followed in the lineage of Duchamp and the 'demonstration' of idea: that
is to say, the conceptual delivery of art as information and
the separation of 'art' from
Hi Rob,
Lots of artists and musicians are now tuning into OOO.
You wrote:
The object in itself being accessible as simply the sum of its unique (fnarr)
aesthetic properties valenced in terms of their efficacy at reflecting the ego
of the gentlemanly spectator is a vision of OOO that would
Davin,
Based on these questions, I'd recommend Harman's Quadruple Object.
Look forward to your further comments on an ongoing basis.
Ian
Sent despite my iPhone
On Jun 25, 2012, at 4:15 PM, davin heckman davinheck...@gmail.com wrote:
You are right I should do more reading. I find the
From: empyre-boun...@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
[empyre-boun...@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au] On Behalf Of Ian Bogost
[ian.bog...@lcc.gatech.edu]
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 11:28 AM
To: soft_skinned_space
Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Meillassoux / Harman
A chair is a chair. A picture
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
Hi Tim,
I thought that the basic point was that these entities are ontologically
different but not substantially different. In other words, there are
indeed different modes of existence but they are not ordered
hierarchically by reference to substance (substantialism) or divided by
recourse to
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
Hi--OOO is the least abstract and generalizing of any ontology in the West
since the Pre-Socratics.
Everyone else pretty much reduces things to substance, fire, water, atoms,
quantum fluctuations, ideas, etc.
We don't--waffle maker a is irreducibly not b, and not simply because it looks
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
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,
Hi all,
I’m new to this place, but I thought I might write a little on this
topic as for better or worse, I have one foot in both social/critical
theory and metaphysics. I hope I'm using the list properly!
I think this discussion has taken many interesting turns and been rich
and varied, but I
Levi Bryant responds here too:
https://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2012/06/15/onto-cartography-ooo-and-politics-a-reply-to-judith-halberstam-and-cameron/
--- On Fri, 15/6/12, Ian Bogost ian.bog...@lcc.gatech.edu wrote:
From: Ian Bogost ian.bog...@lcc.gatech.edu
Subject: Re: [-empyre
have
engaged with both feminist and queer thinking. Still, there's lots more to do!
Michael.
--- On Fri, 15/6/12, Ian Bogost ian.bog...@lcc.gatech.edu wrote:
From: Ian Bogost ian.bog...@lcc.gatech.edu
Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Meillassoux / Harman
To: soft_skinned_space empyre
From: empyre-boun...@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
[empyre-boun...@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au] On Behalf Of Michael O'Rourke
[tranquilised_i...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2012 1:15 AM
To: soft_skinned_space
Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Meillassoux / Harman
There is also Levi Bryant's essay
Hi All,
If this already went in, sorry. Ignore. I'm pasting a post I wrote here,
because Jack Halberstam kindly suggested I do.
Just to introduce myself, I'm Tim Morton of Rice University and I'm an
OOO-er.
Yours, Tim
OOO, Gender, Sexuality
I can't sleep. I was up grading so by rights I
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
To: soft_skinned_space empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
Sent: Thu, Jun 14, 2012 8:50 pm
Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Meillassoux / Harman
Joe,
Thanks for these great comments.
I think it is because this resonance seems so fruitful to me that I am
perplexed by some of the claims by proponents of OOO
1115 E. 58th. St.
Chicago IL 60637
-Original Message-
From: Ian Bogost ian.bog...@lcc.gatech.edu
To: soft_skinned_space empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
Sent: Thu, Jun 14, 2012 8:50 pm
Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Meillassoux / Harman
Joe,
Thanks for these great comments.
I think
: Thu, Jun 14, 2012 8:50 pm
Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Meillassoux / Harman
Joe,
Thanks for these great comments.
I think it is because this resonance seems so fruitful to me that I am
perplexed by some of the claims by proponents of OOO that the political can
be separated from claims about
About OOO and politics, this interview of Graham Harman, Marginalia
on Radical Thinking: An Interview with Graham Harman,
(http://skepoet.wordpress.com/2012/06/01/marginalia-on-radical-thinking-an-interview-with-graham-harman/)
seems political - but not obviously on the left side...
Besides,
Hi all,
I just (finally) joined this list and am jumping into the middle of a
conversation I haven't fully read. So bear with me, and forgive me if I'm
covering ground that has been done already.
Judith Halberstam wrote:
The theories that count and that get counted in OOO and SR tend to be
Hmmm, I actually was trying to push us towards a more productive discussion
precisely because the kind of abstraction we use when we write theory (or code)
may not be the best medium for conversation. I agree of course that the move
away from the focus on the human is a large part of the appeal
Hi Judith,
I can see that I didn't explain myself well. Let me try again.
I cannot think of any instance in which calling something masculinist is
meant as a compliment. Therefore, it is hard for me to read your short
paragraph surrounding that statement as anything other than a not-so-subtle
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
Look, I'm new here, but is this really the level of conversation this list
strives to support?
If this is just a place where like-minded folk pat each other on the back,
please let me know so I can unsubscribe.
Ian
On Jun 14, 2012, at 2:57 PM, Rob Myers wrote:
On 06/14/2012 07:02 PM, Ian
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
There is a certain collegial self-soothing of the ABDs to it all, if
that's what you mean.
Al Matthews
M.S., Digital Media
Georgia Institute of Technology
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Ian Bogost ian.bog...@lcc.gatech.edu wrote:
Look, I'm new here, but is this really the level of
Hello Ian. Thanks for joining the discussion, and for your
contributions. The goal of this week's conversation is a larger look
at computation and the nonhuman, and the broader theme of this month
is queer new media. SR/OOO is clearly important to any discussion of
the nonhuman, and I think one of
Jacob,
Thanks for this clarification. I apologize if I was thread-hijacking.
Not sure if you're aware, but the empyre list website is very slow to respond,
and I can't find any archives thereon, so it's hard to go back and see the
conversation that's already taken place...
Ian
On Jun 14,
Hey All, - I've been subscribing to this mailing list for a while now, so I'm
glad this debate is getting aired - I just hope it doesn't inherit the
unfortunate slippage of tone that the blogosphere features typically in these
types of discussions.
So, I really don't understand this criticism
Hello
Forgive me I'm a first time poster with a long history of lurking here
and a some-time fascination with SR/OOO, and thankyou to everyone here
for an exciting discussion. I wanted to write something both as a way
of thinking it through and asking the contributors about the possibility
Just in case anyone else is looking, I found the archives:
http://lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/
On Jun 14, 2012, at 4:13 PM, Jacob Gaboury wrote:
No worries, it's an important discussion and I'd imagine Michael and
others will want to contribute later tonight. I'll forward you some
Joe,
Thanks for these great comments.
I think it is because this resonance seems so fruitful to me that I am
perplexed by some of the claims by proponents of OOO that the political can
be separated from claims about the ontological if we are constrained in our
own ways by our
Sorry to try to kill two birds with one stone, but I hope my previous post may
answer this question indirectly.
In any case, despite Galloway's comments, it sounds like that Animal Farm quote
but it isn't—not at all.
Ian
On Jun 14, 2012, at 4:16 PM, frederic neyrat wrote:
Hi,
I would
Ian - I am reading and enjoying very much your book Alien Phenomenology right
now so no offense meant in terms of the masculinity orientation of many of the
OOO conversations. But to try to flesh out why we might worry about such an
orientation and to respond to Michael briefly here are a few
.
Chicago IL 60637
-Original Message-
From: Ian Bogost ian.bog...@lcc.gatech.edu
To: soft_skinned_space empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
Sent: Thu, Jun 14, 2012 8:50 pm
Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Meillassoux / Harman
Joe,
Thanks for these great comments.
I think it is because this resonance
54 matches
Mail list logo
