I'm a philosophy student that tends to post about really serious things unseriously and about really unserious things seriously.

I was once described as a "beautiful, intelligent iguana".

18th March 2013

Post with 2 notes

fennels replied to your post: A little quip on OOO:

is there a context for that Bogost quote? I like it a lot

I think it comes from Bogost’s “Alien Phenomenology”, though it’s also been mentioned on his blog a few times, e.g.:

I get the sense that many people misconstrue object-oriented ontology as a singular material affair, as a reductionism: “everything’s an object.” But instead, proponents of OOO hold that all things equally exist, yet they do not exist equally. The funeral pyre is not the same as the aardvark; the porcelatta is not equivalent to the rubgy ball. Not only are neither pair reducible to human encounter, but also neither are reducible to one another. In this respect, McLuhan is a better place to look for materialism than is Marx.

[via: http://www.bogost.com/blog/materialisms.shtml - I’m wary about that last claim about Marx/McLuhan, but that’s because I don’t have enough context to really understand it].

fennels replied to your post: A little quip on OOO:

also doesnt OOO sort of go against an intensive ontological schema then? Im not quite defending it, just curious

Well, let me just make sure I understand you here first, since (for some reason) ‘intensive’ is just one of those words that my brain never wants to remember. Intensive properties are those that don’t depend on scale, right? (Like, temperature for example). So an ‘intensive ontological schema’ is just an ontology that incorporates intensive properties, correct?

In that sense, OOO can totally ally itself with an ‘intensive ontological schema’. Though a corporation and a person equally exist, their properties don’t have to exist equally. Put otherwise: temperature and weight are both real, existing properties of an object*, but their method of existing is either intensive/extensive (among many other things) and thus they exist differently.
Since I know you’ve been looking into DeLanda more recently, and since he’s the first person I heard the term ‘intensive’ from, it’s worth noting that DeLanda is usually seen as an ally of OOO, though not a member of it. Harman actually wrote a nice essay about DeLanda somewhat recently (which I can put up later if you’d like - I’d post a link to it, but every one I’m finding is missing the first page for some reason).
*Also keep in mind that for Harman, at least, properties don’t exist (he prefers to use the term ‘notes’ for a lot of reasons). Properties are objects as well, though whether or not they’re considered as an ‘object’ or a ‘note’ depends on the relation their forming with some other object.

Tagged: fennelsOOOHarmanDeLanda

  1. sterwood posted this