Object-oriented ontology - Integral Post-Metaphysical Spirituality2024-03-29T11:31:38Zhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/object-oriented-ontology?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A44226&feed=yes&xn_auth=noThe Guardian has a new "long…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2017-06-16:5301756:Comment:686062017-06-16T02:26:50.957ZDavidM58http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/DavidM58
<p>The Guardian has a new "<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/15/timothy-morton-anthropocene-philosopher" target="_blank">long read</a>" about T. Morton, OOO, and the concept of The Anthropocene.</p>
<p>Excerpt:</p>
<p>"It is through hyperobjects that we initially confront the Anthropocene, Morton argues. One of his most influential books, itself titled <a class="u-underline in-body-link--immersive" href="https://bookshop.theguardian.com/hyperobjects.html">Hyperobjects</a>,…</p>
<p>The Guardian has a new "<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/15/timothy-morton-anthropocene-philosopher" target="_blank">long read</a>" about T. Morton, OOO, and the concept of The Anthropocene.</p>
<p>Excerpt:</p>
<p>"It is through hyperobjects that we initially confront the Anthropocene, Morton argues. One of his most influential books, itself titled <a href="https://bookshop.theguardian.com/hyperobjects.html" class="u-underline in-body-link--immersive">Hyperobjects</a>, examines the experience of being caught up in – indeed, being an intimate part of – these entities, which are too big to wrap our heads around, and far too big to control. We can experience hyperobjects such as climate in their local manifestations, or through data produced by scientific measurements, but their scale and the fact that we are trapped inside them means that we can never fully know them. Because of such phenomena, we are living in a time of quite literally unthinkable change.</p>
<p>This leads Morton to one of his most sweeping claims: that the Anthropocene is forcing a revolution in human thought. Advances in science are now underscoring how “enmeshed” we are with other beings – from the microbes that account for roughly half the cells in our bodies, to our reliance for survival on the Earth’s <a href="http://www.wired.co.uk/article/cosmic-rays-burst-magnetic-shield" class="u-underline in-body-link--immersive">electromagnetic heat shield</a>. At the same time, hyperobjects, in their unwieldy enormity, alert us to the absolute boundaries of science, and therefore the limits of human mastery. Science can only take us so far. This means changing our relationship with the other entities in the universe – whether animal, vegetable or mineral – from one of exploitation through science to one of solidarity in ignorance. If we fail to do this, we will continue to wreak havoc on the planet, threatening the ways of life we hold dear, and even our very existence. In contrast to utopian fantasies that we will be saved by the rise of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/artificialintelligenceai" class="u-underline in-body-link--immersive">artificial intelligence</a> or some other new technology, the Anthropocene teaches us that we can’t transcend our limitations or our reliance on other beings. We can only live with them."</p>
<p></p>
<p>And BTW, it's interesting to contemplate the affinities between Bjork and Morton, as discussed at the beginning of the article. I can't relate to Edwyrd's fascination with Lady Gaga, but I can appreciate the importance of Bjork's artistic and philosophical contributions.</p>
<p><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/KDbPYoaAiyc?wmode=opaque" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</p>
<p></p> I also found this one, "Perfo…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2016-03-03:5301756:Comment:641192016-03-03T16:55:09.565ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>I also found <a href="http://www.academia.edu/6429534/PERFORMATIVE_CONTRADICTIONS_IN_LEVI_BRYANTS_NATURALISM" target="_blank">this</a> one, "Performative contradictions is Levy Bryant's naturalism."</p>
<p>I also found <a href="http://www.academia.edu/6429534/PERFORMATIVE_CONTRADICTIONS_IN_LEVI_BRYANTS_NATURALISM" target="_blank">this</a> one, "Performative contradictions is Levy Bryant's naturalism."</p> Searching for something else…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2016-03-03:5301756:Comment:641182016-03-03T16:46:07.205ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>Searching for something else I came upon <a href="http://www.parrhesiajournal.org/parrhesia17/parrhesia17_brown.pdf" target="_blank">this</a> scathing criticism of OOO. I just skimmed it and put it here for future reading. E.g. from page 4:</p>
<p>"But the tone of the snake oil salesman in Morton’s prose (“the only non-reductionist, non-atomic ontology on the market”) is not incidental: like every form of quackery, Morton’s version of “OOO” denigrates the same evidence of science and…</p>
<p>Searching for something else I came upon <a href="http://www.parrhesiajournal.org/parrhesia17/parrhesia17_brown.pdf" target="_blank">this</a> scathing criticism of OOO. I just skimmed it and put it here for future reading. E.g. from page 4:</p>
<p>"But the tone of the snake oil salesman in Morton’s prose (“the only non-reductionist, non-atomic ontology on the market”) is not incidental: like every form of quackery, Morton’s version of “OOO” denigrates the same evidence of science and mathematics that it relies upon elsewhere—in some unrecognizably mutilated form. And this double maneuver requires for its operation a very credulous reader indeed. At one moment, Morton parodies the rhetoric of what he calls “post-postmodern thinking” in the following terms: “‘Hey, look at me! I’m totally entangled with not-me!’ ‘I am the walrus! And I’ve got the quantum theory to prove it.’ Do you though? A counter-argument might demonstrate that quantum theory is profoundly object-oriented”(RM 165). This is indeed an objectionable rhetoric, but it’s one that Morton himself deploys, constantly referring to hackneyed pop-scientific clichés about entanglement and action at a distance in order to suggest the alignment of “OOO” and quantum mechanics."</p> "Re: 'differences between the…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2016-03-02:5301756:Comment:640192016-03-02T19:35:41.319ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>"Re: 'differences between the above pairing,' to be clear, what are you referring to as the above pairing? The pairing of a priori thought and magical thinking?"</p>
<p>Yes.</p>
<p>"Why would he unfriend you for asking a question?"</p>
<p>I don't know for sure since he gave no explanation.</p>
<p>"Re: 'differences between the above pairing,' to be clear, what are you referring to as the above pairing? The pairing of a priori thought and magical thinking?"</p>
<p>Yes.</p>
<p>"Why would he unfriend you for asking a question?"</p>
<p>I don't know for sure since he gave no explanation.</p> I don't believe thoughts in t…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2016-03-02:5301756:Comment:640182016-03-02T19:31:25.820ZDavidM58http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/DavidM58
<p>I don't believe thoughts in themselves create reality, but I believe thoughts participate in the creation of "the world that we know" (as Seth has said). An important distinction.<br/> <br/> <cite><br/></cite></p>
<p>I don't believe thoughts in themselves create reality, but I believe thoughts participate in the creation of "the world that we know" (as Seth has said). An important distinction.<br/> <br/> <cite><br/></cite></p> Re: "differences between the…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2016-03-02:5301756:Comment:643092016-03-02T19:28:05.274ZDavidM58http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/DavidM58
<p>Re: "differences between the above pairing," to be clear, what are you referring to as the above pairing? The pairing of a priori thought and magical thinking?</p>
<p>I think there's a significant distinction between what Gebser might call deficient magical and authentic magical. I think Bryant is pointing at or groping towards something true (but perhaps not complete) in Kant's thinking.</p>
<p>Why would he unfriend you for asking a question?</p>
<p><br></br> <br></br> <cite>theurj…</cite></p>
<p>Re: "differences between the above pairing," to be clear, what are you referring to as the above pairing? The pairing of a priori thought and magical thinking?</p>
<p>I think there's a significant distinction between what Gebser might call deficient magical and authentic magical. I think Bryant is pointing at or groping towards something true (but perhaps not complete) in Kant's thinking.</p>
<p>Why would he unfriend you for asking a question?</p>
<p><br/> <br/> <cite>theurj said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/object-oriented-ontology?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A64117&xg_source=msg_com_forum#5301756Comment64308"><div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>Synthetic a priori thought and magical thinking. See <a rel="nofollow" href="https://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2016/03/01/the-splendor-of-the-synthetic-a-priori/" target="_blank">this</a> Bryant blog entry and discuss the similarities and differences between the above pairing. We know that Bryant thinks the Real is ofttimes missing from philosophy and suffers therefrom, so how do we square this with this magical creation of the synthetic a priori? And differentiate it with the magical thinking that thoughts in themselves create reality?</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote> I asked Bryant the above ques…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2016-03-02:5301756:Comment:641172016-03-02T17:29:52.992ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span>I asked Bryant the above questions on his FB post and now it seems I've been unfriended and can no longer see nor participate in his feed.</span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span>I asked Bryant the above questions on his FB post and now it seems I've been unfriended and can no longer see nor participate in his feed.</span></span></span></span></p> Synthetic a priori thought an…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2016-03-02:5301756:Comment:643082016-03-02T16:24:40.814ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>Synthetic a priori thought and magical thinking. See <a href="https://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2016/03/01/the-splendor-of-the-synthetic-a-priori/" target="_blank">this</a> Bryant blog entry and discuss the similarities and differences between the above pairing. We know that Bryant thinks the Real is ofttimes missing from philosophy and suffers therefrom, so how do we square this with this magical creation of the synthetic a priori? And differentiate it with the magical thinking that…</p>
<p>Synthetic a priori thought and magical thinking. See <a href="https://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2016/03/01/the-splendor-of-the-synthetic-a-priori/" target="_blank">this</a> Bryant blog entry and discuss the similarities and differences between the above pairing. We know that Bryant thinks the Real is ofttimes missing from philosophy and suffers therefrom, so how do we square this with this magical creation of the synthetic a priori? And differentiate it with the magical thinking that thoughts in themselves create reality?</p> Read it. I'll need to read i…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2016-02-25:5301756:Comment:640082016-02-25T01:16:44.358ZJoseph Camosyhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/JosephCamosy
<p>Read it. I'll need to read it at least 3 more times, but at first glance it confirms my own reading of Bryant's "Democracy of Objects" and fits with my own work on ontology.</p>
<p>From Zizek (<strong>emphasis mine</strong>):</p>
<blockquote><p>So it is not that ooo does take into account subjectivity, merely reducing it to a property/quality of one among other objects: what ooo describes as subject simply does not meet the criteria of subject—<em>there</em> <em>is no place for subject in…</em></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Read it. I'll need to read it at least 3 more times, but at first glance it confirms my own reading of Bryant's "Democracy of Objects" and fits with my own work on ontology.</p>
<p>From Zizek (<strong>emphasis mine</strong>):</p>
<blockquote><p>So it is not that ooo does take into account subjectivity, merely reducing it to a property/quality of one among other objects: what ooo describes as subject simply does not meet the criteria of subject—<em>there</em> <em>is no place for subject in ooo</em>.</p>
<p>Here we encounter the mistake of Althusser and others who reduce subject to the imaginary illusion of self-recognition—the idea is that “subject” is an effect of imaginary misrecognition, of a short-circuit which gives rise to the illusory self-experience as a free autonomous agent, obfuscating the complex presubjective (neuronal or discursive) processes which generate this illusion. The task of the theory of subjectivity is then to describe these processes, as well as to outline how one can break out of the imaginary circle of subjectivity and confront the presubjective process of subjectivization. The Hegelian (and Lacanian) counter-argument is here that “subjectivization” (the formation of the subjective space of meaning) effectively is grounded in an closure of the circle of self-recognition, in an imaginary obfuscation of a traumatic Real, of the wound of antagonism. <strong>However, this “wound,” this trauma, this cut in/of the real, is <em>the subject itself at its zero-level</em>, so that, to paraphrase the famous line from Wagner’s <em>P</em><em>arsifal</em>, <em>the subject is itself the wound it tries to heal </em>(note that Hegel says the same about spirit). This “absolute contradiction,” this radical coincidence of the opposites (the “wound of nature,” the loss of “organic unity,” and simultaneously the very activity to heal this wound by way of constructing a universe of meaning; the production of sense with a traumatic core of nonsense; the point of absolute singularity [of the “I” excluding all substantial content] in which universality comes to itself, is “posited” as such) is what defines and constitutes subjectivity.</strong> One of Hegel’s names for this abyss of subjectivity that he takes from the mystic tradition is the “night of the world,” the withdrawal of the Self from the world of entities into the void that “is” the core of the Self, and it is crucial to notice how in this gesture of self-withdrawal (in clinical terms: the disintegration of all “world,” of all universe of meaning), extreme closure and extreme openness, extreme passivity and extreme activity, overlap. In the “night of the world,” extreme self-withdrawal, cutting of the links with reality around us, overlaps with our extreme openness to reality: we drop all symbolic screens which filter our access to reality, all protective shields, and we risk a kind of total exposure to the disgust of the Real. As to its content, it is a position of radical passivity (of a Kantian transcendental subject suspending its constitution of reality), but as to its form, it is a position of radical activity, of violently tearing oneself out of the immersion into reality: I am utterly passive, but my passive position is grounded in my withdrawal from reality, in a gesture of extreme negativity.</p>
<p><span>It is in this sense that the “democracy of objects” in which subjects are conceived as one among the objects-actants obfuscates the Real of subjects, the cut that IS the Real. And the crucial point to be noted here is that every direct access to “subjectless objects” which ignores or bypasses this cut/wound that “is” the subject already has to rely on transcendental constitution: what it describes is a pluriverse of actants is formed by a certain transcendental vision of reality. In other words, the problem with subjectless objects is not that they are too objective, neglecting the role of subject, but that what they describe as subjectless world of objects is too subjective, already within an unproblematized transcendental horizon. We do not reach the In-itself by way of tearing away subjective appearances and trying to isolate “objective reality” as it is “out there,” independently of the subject; the In-itself inscribes itself precisely into the subjective excess, gap, inconsistency that opens up a hole in reality. This gap is missed both by ooo and by transcendentalism in all its contemporary versions, from Heidegger to Habermas: although the two are big opponents, they both retain the transcendental horizon (the historical disclosure of being in Heidegger, the a priori of symbolic communication) as the ultimate horizon of our thinking.</span></p>
<p></p>
</blockquote>
<p><span>What I believe Zizek is referring to is the fundamental contradiction that is at the very CENTER of all subjects and objects. In the Democracy of Objects, Bryant refers to this as "Bare Substance" about which nothing can be said. This is the obfuscation or error of "The Democracy of Objects"<br/> <br/> What does this contradiction look like in the various domains?</span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span>a) The extraction of surplus value: Use-Value VS. Exchange-Value </span></p>
<p><span>b) That which can never be monetized VS. That which is monetized.</span></p>
<p><span>c) Noumena VS. Phenomena.</span></p>
<p><span>d) Quality VS. Quantity</span></p>
<p><span>e) Lacan's "Objet a" VS. the Sinthome</span></p>
<p><span>f) Zizek's "Void" VS "The Symptom" <strong><== the wound, trauma, "cut of the real"</strong></span></p>
<p><span>g) Alienation: What something actually is VS. The image of that thing that we have identified with.</span></p>
<p><span>h) Logic: True VS False</span></p>
<p><span>i) Thermodynamics: Entropy VS Useful Work</span></p>
<p><span>j) Software development and the problem of program correctness: What the program actually does VS the Use Case (what we want the program to do).</span></p>
<p><span>k) Telos: What a thing's real purpose is VS what we think its purpose is ( <strong>what it is for us</strong>).</span></p>
<p><span>l) Philosophy of mind: Mind VS Brain.</span></p>
<p><span>m) Philosophy: Ontology VS Epistemology.</span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><span>Within any domain, model or scheme of objects, this primary of fundamental contradiction exists at the level of paradox and </span>non duality. See my chart:<a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2505380330?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="721" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2505380330?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024" width="721" class="align-center"/></a></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><br/> <cite>theurj said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/object-oriented-ontology?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A64108&xg_source=msg_com_forum#5301756Comment64108"><div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>And Zizek on TDOO <a rel="nofollow" href="https://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2016/02/24/zizek-on-the-democracy-of-objects/?preview_id=8503&preview_nonce=767e3c1d4a&preview=true" target="_blank">here</a>.</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote> And Zizek on TDOO here.tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2016-02-24:5301756:Comment:641082016-02-24T23:03:05.612ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>And Zizek on TDOO <a href="https://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2016/02/24/zizek-on-the-democracy-of-objects/?preview_id=8503&preview_nonce=767e3c1d4a&preview=true" target="_blank">here</a>.</p>
<p>And Zizek on TDOO <a href="https://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2016/02/24/zizek-on-the-democracy-of-objects/?preview_id=8503&preview_nonce=767e3c1d4a&preview=true" target="_blank">here</a>.</p>