<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; ">There is no reason why holding that everything exists equally entails "reducing all that can be known about a being to a simple recognition of being."</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><br></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; ">Ian<br><br></span>
</div>
<br><div><div>On Jun 24, 2012, at 5:44 AM, davin heckman wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>I agree, this is a good starting point.... &nbsp;that all things that exist<br>have being as their common condition of existence (that is, they are<br>not "not beings"), which is a sort of foundational ontological<br>similarity. &nbsp;But if the only significant ontological claim we can make<br>about things is either yes or no, do they exist or not, then this<br>means all things carry this single quality, which is to say that there<br>is no difference between things. &nbsp;If we admit difference, then we must<br>account for those differences in meaningful ways. &nbsp;For instance,<br>waffle #1 differs from waffle #2 in a different way than waffle #1<br>differs from a toaster (or waffle #1 changes in the course of being<br>eaten, it is still in one meaningful sense the "same" waffle after it<br>has been bitten, but in another sense, it is a different waffle, too.<br>While both toasters and waffles are different from something like an<br>idea or a "memory" rendered in media (a waffle recipe or story about<br>waffles) or a process habituated in muscle memory (the habit of making<br>a waffle or eating one).<br><br>My concern is that if we reduce all that can be known about being to a<br>simple recognition of being, we commit to a kind of abstraction and<br>alienation from being of the sort that happens when markets try to<br>mediate everything through the common denominator of dollars.<br><br>Davin<br><br>On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Timothy Morton<br>&lt;<a href="mailto:timothymorton303@gmail.com">timothymorton303@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite">Hi Davin,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">We obviously treat different entities differently.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">But this is not the same as saying that these entities are ontologically different.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Yours, Tim<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://www.ecologywithoutnature.blogspot.com">http://www.ecologywithoutnature.blogspot.com</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">On Jun 20, 2012, at 5:51 AM, davin heckman &lt;<a href="mailto:davinheckman@gmail.com">davinheckman@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Thank you Ian, for these thoughts. &nbsp;My initial encounter with this<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">work came via a brief discussion of "flat ontology," which I found<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">somewhat offputting. &nbsp;I followed up by reading through the re:press<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">book. &nbsp;What I like the most, I suppose, is the sense that the<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">discussions are in motion with a lot of people participating.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Reading some of the discussion of mereology, I find they resonate with<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">one of my favorite passages from Hegel. &nbsp;Pardon me for cannibalizing<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">another piece of writing (a draft of which can be found here:<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://isea2011.sabanciuniv.edu/paper/disturbed-dialectic-literary-criticism">http://isea2011.sabanciuniv.edu/paper/disturbed-dialectic-literary-criticism</a>).<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">*<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">In The Phenomenology of Spirit, Hegel describes the dialectical process:<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">"The bud disappears in the bursting-forth of the blossom, and one<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">might say the former is refuted by the latter; similarly, when the<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">fruit appears, the blossom is shown up in its turn as a false<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">manifestation of the plant, and the fruit now emerges as the truth of<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">it instead. These forms are not just distinguished from one another,<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">they also supplant one another as mutually incompatible. Yet at the<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">same time their fluid nature makes them moments of an organic unity in<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">which they not only do not conflict, but in which each is as necessary<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">as the other; and this mutual necessity alone constitutes the life of<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">the whole." [1]<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Viewed from within the Hegelian process, the Real is positioned<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">outside its present manifestations, consisting, rather, of the dynamic<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">processes that comprise its totality.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">This insight, crucial to critical practice, requires revision in light<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">of technical change. By revision, I do not mean that we need to<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">fundamentally alter Hegel’s argument, I only mean to suggest that we<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">see this passage with respect to new temporal modalities that have<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">shaken up the pursuit of knowledge.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">*<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">I come at many of the same issues, but my inclination lead me to<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">embrace a kind of "humanism," but one which cannot easily understand<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">as we continually muddle the conversations of humanism with an<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">ontology that is expressed in our metaphors. &nbsp;One grip I have with the<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">use of Deleuze or McLuhan, is the idea that our capacity to<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">personalize prosthetics has a tendency to be reduced to a situation in<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">which it becomes possible to imagine that we see machines,<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">interpersonal relationships, people with tools, etc. as the same<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">thing. &nbsp;When, in fact, my psychic investment in my bike or computer,<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">while deep, is not nearly as deep or as complex as my psychic<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">investment in my (which I can only refer to as mine with a sense of<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">obligation to, rather than ownership over) child. &nbsp;If my bike decided<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">to bite me.....which it can't, even if it can hurt me.... &nbsp;I would not<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">feel so simultaneously restrained in my response AND emotionally<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">florid as I would if my 8 year old bit me for some crazy reason (but<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">with my three year old, I he is only a missed nap away from engaging<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">in something so obvious and horrible as biting someone). &nbsp;A bike, on<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">the other hand, can hurt me a lot more than a bite from a toddler, and<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">I suppose I am not above kicking a bike and yelling.... &nbsp;but I have<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">very limited feelings about a bike malfunction or hitting my thumb<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">with a hammer. &nbsp;On the other hand, a bike goes wherever I want it to<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">go (except when there's an accident)..... &nbsp;a toddler, not so much....<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">an eight year old, he usually comes with a counter proposal (and it is<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">a monstrous adult that would treat kids like a bike, insist that they<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">only go where told, speak when it is demanded). &nbsp;A lot of really deep<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">thinking about human subjectivty simply does not go this far.... &nbsp;and<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">part of this has to do with a poor understanding of objects. &nbsp;What is<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">worse is when this understanding infects interpersonal relationships<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">in the context of a Randian sort of world where there is "no such<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">thing as society, only individuals" (yet, bosses treat workers like<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">bikes and bad boyfriends treat their partners like robots).<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">I am very excited to read more. &nbsp;I feel like it is important to free<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">our thinking from patterns and habits of the past. &nbsp;In particular, the<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">culture of academic citation has gone from being about finding good<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">ideas where they are to deriving authority from the aura of the great<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">figure. &nbsp;I also have no problem with accumulations of wisdom that<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">translate into an inherited perspective, but this can't close us off<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">to thinking. &nbsp;So.... &nbsp;thank you for this!<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Davin<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Ian Bogost &lt;<a href="mailto:ian.bogost@lcc.gatech.edu">ian.bogost@lcc.gatech.edu</a>&gt; wrote:<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Davin,<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">I'm about to disappear into a mess of meetings, but let me offer a brief<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">response:<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">What you're touching on here is what Levi Byrant sometimes calls the "weird<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">mereology" of OOO. The song isn't "just" the sound waves (what Harman calls<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">an underming position) nor is it just the social context of creation and use<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">(an overmining position). A song is a song, and indeed, the song in an MP3<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">file is a different thing than the song as an abstraction in human culture.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Neither is more object nor more real (well, "real" has a different meaning<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">for Harman than it does for Levi and me).<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">I talk about this a bit in the first chapter of Alien Phenomenology, and<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Levi does as well in the mereology section of Democracy of Objects. Also,<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">here are a &nbsp;blog post from Levi on the subject that weaves the two<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">together: <a href="http://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2010/08/12/more-strange-mereology/">http://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2010/08/12/more-strange-mereology/</a><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">I'm not answering sufficiently but wanted to get something out to you<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">rapidly.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">ib<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Ian Bogost, Ph.D.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Professor<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Director, Graduate Program in Digital Media<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Georgia Institute of Technology<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Digital Media/TSRB 320B<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">85 Fifth Street NW<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Atlanta, GA 30308-1030<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="mailto:ibogost@gatech.edu">ibogost@gatech.edu</a><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">+1 (404) 894-1160 (tel)<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">+1 (404) 894-2833 (fax)<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">On Jun 15, 2012, at 4:11 AM, davin heckman wrote:<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Ian,<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Since we are on the topic of OOO, I was wondering what the ontological<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">status of something like a song is? &nbsp;I have to admit, I have a real<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">hard time swallowing a pure ontology that essentially defines the<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">subjective as outside of being, as a sort of on or off proposition, as<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">opposed to also a turning on (or is it being turned on? Or simply to<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">be turned or to turn?) (I am generally skeptical about a variety of<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">posthumanisms that go beyond a critique of a monolithic Humanism,<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">because I think that consciousness carries specific tendencies that<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">seem to fundamentally frame all possibilities for knowledge). &nbsp;However<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">it is entirely possible that I am missing out on a discussion that has<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">been unfolding without me.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">But here's my thought: &nbsp;With a song, you have something that can be<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">rendered in "objective" form.... &nbsp;maybe an mp3 file or a sheet of<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">notes or record or something. &nbsp;If this is what we mean by a song,<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">then, fine, that's an object. &nbsp;But a song only really starts doing<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">something when it is unfolding within the context of memory and<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">anticipation. &nbsp;It only is a song when it is listened to by a subject,<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">which is to say it is an object that has a singular temporal being as<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">it is listened to, which is distinct from how it is being listened to<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">and replayed even by the same user. &nbsp;(And we aren't even beginning to<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">talk about non-recorded music). &nbsp;The only way a song becomes a purely<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">discrete object is when it is removed from its temporal existence and<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">understood as a totality, and detached from an audience. &nbsp;And while we<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">can sit around and all talk about, say, "Another One Bites the Dust,"<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">after we squeeze it into a conceptual file type and label it, the fact<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">that we can discuss something that can only mean something if is<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">experienced as a process AND an object within the context of a<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">experience, suggests that sometimes being is realized by the relations<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">of things, rather than the things themselves. &nbsp;My suggestion is that<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">the ontological nature of the song cannot be described in objective<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">terms without missing what a song is. &nbsp;Without the non-objective<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">component of its being, a song is just sound. &nbsp;If we say, well, "Hey,<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">when this sound occurs, people do X, Y, and Z," we can find ourself<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">thinking that these effects are produced by the object, but this sort<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">of thought experiment only gives us half an understanding of the<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">object's being. &nbsp;You also have to think of that song in relation to<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">the current context, to itself over time, to the individual and<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">collective experience of its audience, to the culture, etc. Again, a<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">great means to produce estrangement, but not the complete account of<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">what the thing is. &nbsp;At the risk of sounding chauvinistic, I can see<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">that it might be expedient to regard a distant moon without regard to<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">its historical relationship to the human. &nbsp;It's useful to think of a<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">distant moon as a quantity of data. &nbsp;But the closer we get to human<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">existence, the more likely we are to encounter types of things that<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">exist, but that cannot be understood properly as a bundle of discrete<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">data. &nbsp;Maybe there are some texts that address precisly these sorts of<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">concerns.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">This is where I think ontology cannot simply be objective. &nbsp;It must,<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">of course, be able to establish the differences between things, to<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">render those things it claims to understand in discrete form, insofar<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">as they can be considered as such. &nbsp;On the other hand, we know that<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">most of what the world is made of is common and that the laws of<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">physics, for instance, harness discrete things under a kind of<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">continuity. &nbsp;So, along with the conditions of radical difference that<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">a philosophy of objects implies, there are the conditions of radical<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">connectivity. &nbsp;Both features are equally present, which is to say they<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">offer us little in the way of productive knowledge EXCEPT insofar as<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">we can bind and sever, cut or tie, digitize or analogize within this<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">framework of matter. &nbsp;The 21st century loves digitizing things.....<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">it helps computers see the world, it helps them count us, predict our<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">behavior, weigh it, value it, direct it, etc. &nbsp;But the digital is only<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">half of our existence.... &nbsp;the analog process is equally present in<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">language and cognition.... &nbsp;and it is just as equpped to help us<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">understand the world by creating categories of things and identifying<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">common qualities. &nbsp;In "Notes on the Uncanny," Freud identifies this<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">struggle as productive of a kind of unsettling (the person that acts<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">like an object/the object that acts like a person)... &nbsp;but it does not<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">simply have to be a "scary" process.... &nbsp;the move from discrete to<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">connected or from one into multiple can also be deeply satisfying and<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">reassuring of being. &nbsp;If both processes are equally useful, then what<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">presides over these two tendencies? &nbsp;Temporal consciousness that can<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">mobilize processes of digitization and analogy? &nbsp;Another place to<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">think through this is in relation to a variety of attempts at<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">taxonomy. &nbsp;At some point, a poodle has to be a poodle and a wolf has<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">to be a wolf, but in relation to squids, both can be canines. &nbsp;We<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">could say that well, we are talking about layers of qualities that<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">enable us to categorize this object or that object. &nbsp;But without the<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">history of the poodle we don't really know how one canine can be a<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">fashion accessory and the other is a part of a wild ecology, all of<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">which (domesticating work dogs, turning tool animals into fashion<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">animals, thinking about animals as people, killing wild animals,<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">restoring wildness, etc) radically alter the parameters of being based<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">on thoughts about being. &nbsp;To take it back to queer thought, around the<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">bend of singular identities is the knowlege that such queerness does<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">not preclude deep relationality. &nbsp;My reading is that the fruits of<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">this thought are an affirmation of the idea that the well-worn paths<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">of prescribed human behavior do not necessarily lead to earnest<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">relationships, it is not to reject relationship itself in favor of<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">individualism because capitalism has been doing this since the<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">transformation of labor into commodity.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Why does this matter? &nbsp;I care about politics, but I am not going to<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">say that OOO cleaves to this or that kind of politics.... &nbsp;it doesn't<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">matter. &nbsp;If a statement is discernibly true, then I have an obligation<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">to bend my ideas around the true statement. &nbsp;And my sense, based on<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">very limited reading, is that OOO is trying to figure out what we can<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">know about being. &nbsp;So, while it is worth considering the political<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">implications of speculative thought, I think Galloway is a bit wrong<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">to suggest that something is "bourgeois" or something just because<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">financial markets also offer a flat ontology via capital. &nbsp;The only<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">thing that really matters is whether or not a philosophy can get us to<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">a mutually agreed upon knowledge of the world that can be transmitted<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">effectively from one context to another and continue to be useful.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">I have been lazy about following this month's discussion, but I like<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">the idea of queering technology, of the productively broken tool. &nbsp;It<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">is an area that has affinities with regards to my own reading of<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">electronic literature..... &nbsp;taking Jakobson's discussion of poetics up<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">through Darko Suvin's discussion of "cognitive estrangement," and<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">looking at the ways that digital literary practices perform a similar<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">process with regards to instrumental languages. My thought is that OOO<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">is productive in that it asks us to engage in a thought experiment<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">about pure objectivitiy, and in doing so, reveals the critical<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">necessity of subjective and intersubjective aspects of human being<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">that are embedded in our broader assertions about being. &nbsp;I think that<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">a lot of the "posthumanisms" try to simply go beyond something that we<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">have never understood in the first place: that being human is<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">essentially a kind of queer existence, all the much more so when we<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">insist that it is not. For my part, I want my human rights. &nbsp;So while<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">I am sympathetic, generally, with many of the aims of the<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">posthumanists I encounter, I generally think that "Humanism" has yet<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">to adequately describe being human. &nbsp;Like Habermas said of modernity,<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">it's daunting and messy and incomplete (like most things worth doing).<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Living in Norway right now (moving in a couple weeks, unfortunately),<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">humanism seems to be working out pretty well here. &nbsp;The problems of<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">the world do not stem from a love of humanity, they stem from our<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">growing estrangment from humanity and increased clustering into<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">paranoid, exclusionary enclaves (Why do you think everyone watches<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Zombie movies? Blasting away at legions of dirty anthropoidal morons<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">trying to eat what you have, a perfect gospel for post democratic<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">capitalism). &nbsp;In a world of Darwinian evolution, we are not entirely<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">selected, we alter the landscape of an objective process through our<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">dialogue with an objective sphere that exists, that we inhabit, and<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">that we think about, but which does not simply constitute us.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">I admit these thoughts are poorly formed.... &nbsp;and I am very busy these<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">days.... &nbsp;so I might not be able to reply as quickly as I would<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">normally. &nbsp;But am very interested in these conversations.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Davin<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 4:16 PM, frederic neyrat &lt;<a href="mailto:fneyrat@gmail.com">fneyrat@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Hi,<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">I would like - if possible - to get one or two examples about the<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">objects concerned by your statement:"all objects equally exist, but<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">not all objects exist equally." I guess - but I just guess - that the<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">first part of the sentence is ontological and the second part could be<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">political, but maybe I'm wrong. Thanks in advance.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Best,<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Frederic Neyrat<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">2012/6/14 Ian Bogost &lt;<a href="mailto:ian.bogost@lcc.gatech.edu">ian.bogost@lcc.gatech.edu</a>&gt;:<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Ok, sigh, let me try this again.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">The "as much as" is not a judgement of value, but of existence. This is the<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">fundamental disagreement that played out in the comments to Galloway's work<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">and in the many responses elsewhere. The world is big and contains many<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">things. I've put this principle thusly: "all objects equally exist, but not<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">all objects exist equally."<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">It's possible that such a metaphysical position isn't for everyone. But if<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">your idea of "being political" is as exclusionary and deprecatory as both<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Galloway's post and my limited experience thusfar here on empyre, then<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">perhaps you can explain why that a model worth aspiring for? Why that is<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">virtuous and righteous?<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Ian<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">On Jun 14, 2012, at 2:57 PM, Rob Myers wrote:<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">On 06/14/2012 07:02 PM, Ian Bogost wrote:<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">As for queer and feminist formulations, I agree with the spirit of what<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">you say, but I'll reiterate my observation that SR/OOO is moving in a<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">slightly different direction—one that concerns toasters and quasars as<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">much as human subjects (note the "as much as" here). Why not take this<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">work for what it is, at least for starters, rather than for what it<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">isn't?<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">The "as much as" is precisely the problem.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Galloway's critique of OOO that Zach mentioned explains why:<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://itself.wordpress.com/2012/06/03/a-response-to-graham-harmans-marginalia-on-radical-thinking/">http://itself.wordpress.com/2012/06/03/a-response-to-graham-harmans-marginalia-on-radical-thinking/</a><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">But I wouldn't lump Meillassoux in with Harman. I think Meillassoux's<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">philosophy can indeed be interesting for this debate because of its<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">embracing of contingency and possibility.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">- Rob.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">_______________________________________________<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">empyre forum<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="mailto:empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au">empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au</a><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://www.subtle.net/empyre">http://www.subtle.net/empyre</a><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">_______________________________________________<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">empyre forum<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="mailto:empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au">empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au</a><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://www.subtle.net/empyre">http://www.subtle.net/empyre</a><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">_______________________________________________<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">empyre forum<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="mailto:empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au">empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au</a><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://www.subtle.net/empyre">http://www.subtle.net/empyre</a><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">_______________________________________________<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">empyre forum<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="mailto:empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au">empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au</a><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://www.subtle.net/empyre">http://www.subtle.net/empyre</a><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">_______________________________________________<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">empyre forum<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="mailto:empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au">empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au</a><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://www.subtle.net/empyre">http://www.subtle.net/empyre</a><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">_______________________________________________<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">empyre forum<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="mailto:empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au">empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au</a><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://www.subtle.net/empyre">http://www.subtle.net/empyre</a><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">_______________________________________________<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">empyre forum<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="mailto:empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au">empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://www.subtle.net/empyre">http://www.subtle.net/empyre</a><br></blockquote>_______________________________________________<br>empyre forum<br><a href="mailto:empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au">empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au</a><br>http://www.subtle.net/empyre<br></div></blockquote></div><br></body></html>