Archives mensuelles : juillet 2012

In ALL THINGS SHINING, Kelly and Dreyfus, following Heidegger, talk about “gathering” to describe the coming together of practices in configurations of ways of being in the world: “The practices have gathered throughout the history of the West to reveal … Lire la suite →

Rorty shares with Dreyfus and Kelly (in ALL THINGS SHINING) the notion of a secularized polytheism that rejects all attempts to commensurate the incommensurable as hegemonic power tactics. The desire to reinforce this polytheistic attitude by supplying it with an … Lire la suite →

Pickering talks about machinic ontology in a very interesting article called “Science, Contingency and Ontology” (2009). He contrasts a sort of static relativist pluralism of understandings of the world, which he calls a crystal ontology, with a more dynamical interactive … Lire la suite →

Andrew Pickering in “Cybernetics as Nomad Science”, seems to have some ideas convergent with pluralist thinkers such as Deleuze and Feyerabend. He contrasts a pluralist open anarchist ontology based on embodiment and becoming with a dualist ontology based on the … Lire la suite →

Dans « New Ontologies », Andrew Pickering, le philosophe et sociologue des sciences britannique, présente deux types d’ontologie: 1) une ontologie classique, dominante, de type transcendant – une ontologie d’essences et 2) une ontologie plus inhabituelle, minoritaire, de type immanent – une … Lire la suite →

Timothy Morton believes he has a master argument against those who think that OOO suffers from a pragmatic contradiction: he just ignores all the concepts and ridicules what remains: here. This is in fact a characteristic of OOO – to … Lire la suite →

New Bernard Stiegler article: RELATIONAL ECOLOGY AND THE DIGITAL PHARMAKON (Thanks to Daniel Ross)

In the preceding post in this series I defined the Ennis Gambit thus: « Ennis manages to paint a picture of the transcendent philosophers in the very terms that the OOOxians use to describe themselves » The key concept there was the … Lire la suite →

No doubt fearing that his ironic expression « favouring immanence » was too explicit and risked revealing the subtle undercurrents of his non-laruellian gambit Paul Ennis decides to cloud the issue with a simple spell of bamboozlement (there is much of Harry … Lire la suite →

Paul Ennis’s response to Levi Bryant did not take the manic laruellian path, but took a more nostalgic turn. Where OOO is a form of nostalgic return to ontotheology via its watered down version of transcendence, called « withdrawal », Ennis looks … Lire la suite →