tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13099097.post6369328300276234557..comments2024-03-28T02:32:06.346-07:00Comments on stunlaw: The Uses of Object-Oriented OntologyBerryDMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07504400258739523237noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13099097.post-66461025827096470942014-05-11T13:17:17.103-07:002014-05-11T13:17:17.103-07:00Excellent post thank you. Excellent post thank you. Artist-in-residencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11587021452792453313noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13099097.post-74494244785390213032012-05-30T09:58:34.158-07:002012-05-30T09:58:34.158-07:00thank you for writing and posting this. it took co...thank you for writing and posting this. it took considerable bravery and even more intelligence. your attention to the litanies as a programmatic aspect of SR/OOO is important and telling; your pointing out the absurdity of believing that "human" is an empty category while solely directing one's writings at humans is very welcome. I think, if anything, you give SR/OOO more credit than it deserves by taking Bogost as exemplary--I find him much more open-minded and responsible toward the philosophical traditions with which he engages than quite a few others in the "movement," especially G. Harman and Q. Meillassoux, who write as if they intend to be the sole conduits for their readers of the "two hundred years of philosophy" that have all fallen victim to a single error they were all too blind to see. Ray Brassier, another more respectful theorist/writer and Meillassoux's translator, has pretty much repudiated the whole thing--but even he has not, as far as I know, drawn the absolutely necessary political connections you do. <br /><br />I've posted a little bit more about your essay on my own blog: http://www.uncomputing.org/?p=133<br /><br />You may be aware that Meillassoux, the absurd figure at the heart of the movement (in one sense at least), has now come out as a numerologist (his so-far untranslated next book discovers a numerical code in Mallarme), although remarkably this seems to have actually emboldened some of his followers.D. Gloumbiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02388301204117198345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13099097.post-56906615370039522502012-05-29T10:40:58.361-07:002012-05-29T10:40:58.361-07:00Epistemology has not been concerned with the probl...Epistemology has not been concerned with the problem of access for the last 50 years at least. Harman's version of OOO, despite disclaimers, seems to me to be in great part epistemological, and a badly flawed epistemology at that. See my review of his latest book THE THIRD TABLE here:<br />http://terenceblake.wordpress.com/2012/05/23/pluralist-ontology-let-a-thousand-tables-bloom/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13099097.post-71101459262125707192012-05-25T20:51:31.342-07:002012-05-25T20:51:31.342-07:00ooo completely ignores movements, forces and power...ooo completely ignores movements, forces and power structures (Deleuze, Foucault) that impact on the planet. They have nothing to say about networks, nodes, spheres (Sloterdijk). A very impoverished conservative philosophy. I stll can't work out what Harman and his "objects" are trying to achieve. Great article David. We should get more radical in our critiqueGertGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16542090322125475653noreply@blogger.com