Here is the complete paper I presented at Bernard Stiegler’s Summer Academy, in August 2012. I translated it into English and slightly expanded it.
-
Articles récents
- ZIZEKIAN-DELEUZE (3): THE HEGEL IS IN THE DETAILS
- ZIZEKIAN-DELEUZE (2): DELEUZE’S MASK – THE ANTI-HEGEL
- LYOTARD ON SCIENCE FICTION (1): libido, duplicity, eternity
- ZIZEKIAN-DELEUZE (1): Deleuzian negativity, « nonthinking thought » and the « nonconceptual concept »
- READING FROM THE INSIDE (1): Bataille on Nietzsche
Archives
- Mai 2024
- avril 2024
- mars 2024
- février 2024
- janvier 2024
- novembre 2023
- octobre 2023
- septembre 2023
- août 2023
- juillet 2023
- juin 2023
- Mai 2023
- avril 2023
- mars 2023
- février 2023
- janvier 2023
- décembre 2022
- octobre 2022
- septembre 2022
- août 2022
- juillet 2022
- juin 2022
- Mai 2022
- avril 2022
- février 2022
- décembre 2021
- novembre 2021
- octobre 2021
- septembre 2021
- août 2021
- juillet 2021
- juin 2021
- Mai 2021
- avril 2021
- mars 2021
- février 2021
- janvier 2021
- novembre 2020
- octobre 2020
- septembre 2020
- août 2020
- juillet 2020
- juin 2020
- Mai 2020
- avril 2020
- mars 2020
- février 2020
- janvier 2020
- décembre 2019
- novembre 2019
- octobre 2019
- septembre 2019
- août 2019
- juillet 2019
- juin 2019
- Mai 2019
- avril 2019
- mars 2019
- février 2019
- janvier 2019
- décembre 2018
- novembre 2018
- octobre 2018
- septembre 2018
- août 2018
- juillet 2018
- juin 2018
- Mai 2018
- avril 2018
- mars 2018
- février 2018
- janvier 2018
- décembre 2017
- novembre 2017
- octobre 2017
- septembre 2017
- août 2017
- juillet 2017
- juin 2017
- Mai 2017
- avril 2017
- mars 2017
- février 2017
- janvier 2017
- décembre 2016
- novembre 2016
- octobre 2016
- septembre 2016
- août 2016
- juillet 2016
- juin 2016
- Mai 2016
- avril 2016
- mars 2016
- février 2016
- janvier 2016
- décembre 2015
- novembre 2015
- octobre 2015
- septembre 2015
- août 2015
- juillet 2015
- juin 2015
- Mai 2015
- avril 2015
- mars 2015
- février 2015
- janvier 2015
- décembre 2014
- novembre 2014
- octobre 2014
- septembre 2014
- août 2014
- juillet 2014
- juin 2014
- Mai 2014
- avril 2014
- mars 2014
- février 2014
- janvier 2014
- décembre 2013
- novembre 2013
- octobre 2013
- septembre 2013
- août 2013
- juillet 2013
- juin 2013
- Mai 2013
- avril 2013
- mars 2013
- février 2013
- janvier 2013
- décembre 2012
- novembre 2012
- octobre 2012
- septembre 2012
- août 2012
- juillet 2012
- juin 2012
- Mai 2012
- avril 2012
- mars 2012
- février 2012
- janvier 2012
- décembre 2011
- novembre 2011
- octobre 2011
- septembre 2011
- août 2011
- juillet 2011
- juin 2011
- Mai 2011
- avril 2011
- mars 2011
- décembre 2010
- novembre 2010
- octobre 2010
- septembre 2010
- août 2010
Catégories
Méta
Blogroll
- After Nature
- agilekeys
- All Things Shining
- An Inquiry into Modes of Existence (blog)
- Andrew Murphie's Blog
- Angela Roothaan
- Archive Fire
- ATHEOLOGY
- Attempts at Living
- BillRose Thorn
- Cat's eyes
- CIRCLING SQUARES
- Critical Animal
- deleuzianexcursus
- Deontologistics
- Diatextures
- doctorzamalek2
- Ecology without Nature
- Fractal Realism
- Francis Barton (@oddhack)
- fuZZy face
- Immanent Transcendence
- Intra-Being
- Knowledge Ecology
- Larval Subjects
- Les apports de Mehdi Belhaj Kacem
- Lukas Verburgt's Blog
- Minds and Brains
- n minus one
- Naught Thought
- No Borders Metaphysics
- noir realism
- Path to the Possible
- Philosophy in a Time of Error
- Philosophy of Information and Communication
- Pirates & Revolutionaries
- Schizosophy
- Sketching a Present
- Speculative Heresy
- Struggle Forever
- Studio Philo
- Terence Blake: Brain Falls: The Power of The Falls
- The Art of Deviance
- The Kindly Ones
- The Pinocchio Theory
- The Tragic Community
- Three Pound Brain
- Videre Spectare
- Visions of Temporal Accumulation
- Yannick Rumpala's Blog
Podcasts
Reblogged this on Guerrilla Zen and commented:
essential
J’aimeJ’aime
An interesting essay. I don’t know much about OOO but I have an impression that their philosophical motivation was « to bring the world closer to the people ». They felt that contemporary philosophy had lost ability and desire to describe the world so they made this « ontological turn ». But – as you write – the result was horrible. Real objects – in their theories – are so far from human experience that it is almost depressing 🙂
Have you read this piece: http://continentcontinent.cc/index.php/continent/article/viewArticle/93 ?
I wonder if one could interpret OOO as an another step of dehumanization of man.
» What characterizes the West is its capacity for an objectifying transcendence. » – I think this is exactly what OOO does. The funny thing is that usually « an objectifying transcendence » was somehow connected to scientism but for OOO folk science is not enough transcendent from human experience…
(sorry for my english)
Regards!
J’aimeJ’aime
Awesome essay, and very near to my own attitudes toward ontology. I’m all for *ontologizing* as an exploratory exercise, a way throw light on otherwise hidden assumptions particularly. But this whole ‘speculative realist’ movement has struck me as, well, almost embarrassing. Harman is a great case in point: Just as the cognitive sciences are beginning to have interesting things to say about objects and object persistence (See, for instance, Scholls 2007) he comes out painting the noumena black. But the most embarrassing thing, from a philosophical view anyway, is this assumption that the problems of objectivity posed by Hume (the problem of subjectivity) and Wittgenstein (the problem of normativity) could be resolved by assertoric fiat. ‘Let’s just pretend none of these questions were asked, and slip back into the premodern night counting premodern cows.’ It boggles that it ever became a ‘movement,’ and speaks, I imagine, to the way the internet is changing philosophy. ‘Let’s just pretend–er, assume, knowledge at a spooky distance. Okay, everybody, altogether now!’ Low-resolution religion, fuck.
Given your commitments I can see how it must have driven you bonkers, everyone trying on straitjackets they can’t see!
All I would like to add to this view is an appreciation of the plural, *heuristic* nature of human cognition, to note how all these categories, ‘Being,’ ‘existence,’ ‘object,’ and so on are incredibly ‘low resolution,’ brute and all the more robust for it. But they remain elements in a heuristic system, and as such, they are matched (in the ecological rationality sense) to specific problem-solving environments. Use them out of school and you get philosophy of the worst sort, the kind that seeks to prosecute intuitions of universality. Quantum field theory provides a great example of where they need to be left behind, and it also provides a great example of how science can be viewed as a kind ‘heuristic aggregator,’ a mechanism for organizing individual humans with their heuristic limitations into larger, collective heuristic devices possessing greater scopes of applicability. On my view, *the sciences outrun ‘realism,’* obviously so, which make the perennial efforts of so many analytically inspired thinkers to stuff it into their metaphysical boxes so wrongheaded. And from what I’m beginning to understand about Feyerabend, this isn’t all that far from his view!
J’aimeJ’aime
Yes, in the old days people used to distinguish the context of discovery from the context of justification. Levi Bryant with his baskhardisation effect needs something like thistoo. Feyerabend came along and said it’s all heuristics folks.
But in fact I am going too fast. What actually happened is that Feyerabend came along and said « Everything is pluralism ». He then went to von Weizsäckers seminar on Quantum Theory and said again « everything is pluralism » but von Weizsäcker showed him the way quantum mechanics arose out of concrete research. So Feyerabend concluded that « Everything is heuristics » and von Weizsäcker was not happy about that when he learned of it 12 years later. So you see even quantum theorists can have amazing ideas at the content level but balk at the heuristic implications. This is why Feyerabend looks more to Niels Bohr and Wolfgang Pauli for the heuristic attitude. So yes heuristics are ecologically sensitive and that’s the big point of all this diachronic ontology stuff.
J’aimeJ’aime
You definitely gotta check out Todd and Gigarenzer’s latest book, Terrence: Ecological Rationality. It just happened to fit BBT perfectly (in fact the consilience freaked me out), but I think it’s theoretical implications are vast, far more than they know.
J’aimeJ’aime
Ping : ON NOT BEING ABLE TO ELIMINATE ELIMINATIVISM: A Plea for Pluralist Heuristics | AGENT SWARM
I am interested in the table question which is how I found your blog. Great essay! Have you read Sarah Ahmed’s Queer Phenomenology? It shows such a love for tables. It is full of them (writing-tables, dining-tables etc.) and she is interested in them as actual things. She is not too popular with the OOO crowd either!
J’aimeJ’aime
Thanks for the reference, I haven’t read it. You may also be interested in this post (a sort of sequel): https://terenceblake.wordpress.com/2012/11/02/bruno-latours-table-cognitive-dissonance-and-the-limits-of-scientism/
J’aimeJ’aime
Ping : On reading Manuel DeLanda interview in New Materialism: Interviews & Cartographies | noir realism
Ping : Bruno Latour against synchronic materialism | AGENT SWARM
Ping : BAKKER’S BBT (3): The Spectre of Eliminativism | AGENT SWARM
Ping : ON MATERIALISM BY SEMANTIC STIPULATION AND SUBJUNCTIVE EVOCATION | AGENT SWARM
Ping : Laruelle, Deleuze, Badiou: Radical paralysis (Part II)