It would sure be interesting to explore further the confluence of Deleuze and Latour, and the eddies they create in object-oriented philosophy. If you feel inspired to contribute, see this call for papers by Deleuze International (hat tip to Object-Oriented Philosophy and Speculative Heresy).
Archive for the ‘Object-oriented philosophy’ Category
Deleuze and Speculative Realism
18 January 2010Algorithmic Allure
19 December 2009It is nice to learn from Graham Harman that his Bournemouth talk last year on Heidegger’s “origin of the work of art” essay has directly inspired this interesting forthcoming paper by Robert Jackson: “Heidegger, Harman and Algorithmic Allure.” That event was actually organised by Tammy Lu at the Arts Institute at Bournemouth (since then renamed as the Arts University College at Bournemouth), although I was the one who took this crazy photo of Graham:
Three days later Graham gave another talk on “The Greatness of McLuhan” at the Media School at Bournemouth University. We posted the recordings of both talks on this blog and they both became quite popular, however the Heidegger talk has the edge: it has been downloaded 1,027 times since 8 February 2008, as opposed to the 884 downloads of the McLuhan talk.
Strangely, both of these talks are more popular than Harman’s first lecture at the LSE “On Actors, Networks, and Plasma: Heidegger vs. Latour vs. Heidegger” on 29 November 2007, which has been downloaded 778 times, even though that was the event that launched the Heideggero-Latourian project most explicitly. I would have thought that the juxtaposition of Heidegger and Latour and the invocation of Latour’s concept of the plasma would be provocatively alluring (or alluringly provocative) enough to attract more attention. But the most popular Harman download (besides the respectable 1,688 downloads of the Harman Review itself) seems to be his “Assemblages According to Manuel DeLanda” from November 2008, with 1,385 downloads since then.
[Although I should hasten to add that these figures are somewhat misleading, as both the plasma talk and the Harman Review are also available on the LSE website, so probably just as many people if not more would have downloaded them from there. As for the DeLanda talk, it received a boost after being listed on Speculative Heresy.]
Jackson’s paper sounds very interesting though, so I’ll reproduce his abstract here:
Object-Oriented Octopus
17 December 2009I hereby nominate this very clever octopus to the post of official mascot of object-oriented ontology. If there was any doubt that humans (and primates and ants and birds and so on) were not the only creatures that can use tools, then this should settle it. Even an invertebrate knows how to use tools. More than that, this octopus uses tools to build a dwelling, for the very practical and sensible reason of protecting and furthering its existence. As Heidegger put it, “Dwelling, however, is the basic character of Being in keeping with which mortals exist. (…) Building and thinking are, each in its own way, inescapable for dwelling.” (p. 158). If that’s the case, then it’s time perhaps to freshen up Heidegger a bit. Enough talk of man, how about octopus?
“What if octopus’s homelessness consisted in this, that octopus still does not even think of the real plight of dwelling as the plight? Yet, as soon as octopus gives thought to his [or her] homelessness, it is a misery no longer. Rightly considered and kept well in mind, it is the sole summons that calls mortals into their dwelling. ” [After Heidegger, p. 159]
Reference:
Heidegger, M. (1975). Poetry, Language, Thought. New York, Harper & Row.
Speculations Journal
25 November 2009See this call for papers for the inaugural issue of Speculations: Journal of Object Oriented Ontology, championed by Paul Ennis of the Another Heidegger Blog:
We hope to provide a forum for the exploration of object oriented ontology, speculative realism and post-continental philosophy. Our aim is to facilitate discussion about the ongoing development of object oriented ontology and in particular to explore new directions in object oriented research. The journal is open access and peer-reviewed. The journal accepts short position papers, full length articles and book reviews. Issue one is due to be published in early 2010 and will include submissions from Graham Harman, Ian Bogost and Levi Byrant. The deadline for Issue 1 is Feb. 28th 2010. Inquiries and submissions can be sent to speculationsjournal@gmail.com
© 2009 Tammy Lu
The board of reviewers so far includes:
- Adrian Ivakhiv (University of Vermont)
- Graham Harman (The American University in Cairo)
- Ian Bogost (The Georgia Institute of Technology)
- Jon Cogburn (Louisiana State University)
- Levi Byrant (Collin College)
- Paul Reid Bowen (Bath Spa University)
- Peter Gratton (University of San Diego)
- Sinead Hogan (Dun Laoghaire Institute of Art, Design and Technology)
- Steven Shaviro (Wayne State University)
- Stuart Elden (Durham University)
The editorial board so far consists of:
- Michael Austin, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada
- Casey Boyle, University of South Carolina, United States
- Paul John Ennis, University College, Dublin, Ireland
- Fabio Gironi, School of Oriental and African Studies, United Kingdom
- Nick Srnicek, London School of Economics
Militancy and ANT
2 October 2009Nick Srnicek’s talk, “Framing Militancy” [PDF], at the Militant Dysphoria event at Goldsmiths this week generated some interesting blog reflections on the relationship between politics and actor-network theory. Here are Levi Bryant’s thoughts on ANT and politics. Graham Harman’s thoughts on the role of networks and connectedness in politics are here, here and here.
Intentional inexistence
29 September 2009Another quote from Graham Harman’s “Dwelling With the Fourfold” paper (p. 299):
The hammer in its tool-being, then, is not just simple. It is also a vast relational compound arising from numerous subservient or contributing entities. But by the same token, the hammer in its breakdown is also not just a relational phenomenon lying on the outermost surface of reality. After all, the hammer in this case exists in relation to me. And such a relation is a genuine entity in its own right, an interior space possessing some features and lacking others. In fact, the relation between me and the hammer is nothing less than a new object in its own right. My perception of the hammer, whatever its features, is therefore something that takes place on the interior of an object. Any space is a space on the inside of an object. There is no transcendence that strips free of all location—no starry, windy space of freedom or Angst to which humans arise and survey the world from a mountaintop. Instead, we are like moles or mining-machines, burrowing from one zone of reality to another, sometimes finding ourselves in better places than others, but never in a place from which we can survey all the rest. It is well known that Franz Brentano’s full name for intentionality is “intentional inexistence.” This is usually taken to refer to objects existing inside human consciousness, when in fact it really means that human consciousness is always on the inside of an object.
Dwelling With the Fourfold
27 September 2009Graham Harman has published an article on Heidegger’s concept of the fourfold (Geviert) in the August issue of Space and Culture, under the title “Dwelling With the Fourfold.” The abstract on the journal’s website doesn’t quite do justice to the article’s content, so let me copy in the introductory paragraph, which spells out its focus in more detail:
Heidegger’s concept of “dwelling” was first introduced in 1951 in the famous Darmstadt lecture “Bauen Wohnen Denken” (Heidegger, 1954). It is inseparable from his model of things as mysterious fourfold structures. The thing is a mirror-play of earth, sky, gods, and mortals; to dwell means simply to let this fourfold be what it is. While no major concept of Heidegger’s career has received less detailed treatment than the fourfold, I hold this to be a tragic mistake. The following article outlines the key features of Geviert and tries to show why Heidegger’s fourfold has great value for the near future of philosophy, despite the apparent opacity of its poetic terminology. We can start from the beginning, with Heidegger’s (1949/1994) reflections on “the thing” in Bremen, which later appeared as a spin-off essay of the same title.
It’s a clever title for a clever article, as Harman does exactly that: he lets the fourfold be what it is. Granted, it is still Harman’s interpretation of what Heidegger’s fourfold means, but it is a convincing one. Although one could also argue that if this interpretation arises out of dwelling with the fourfold, then it is not simply an interpretation but an outcome that is hardwired into the method of the fourfold. Which is not to suggest that ‘practicing the fourfold’ is a trivial matter. Far from it. As Harman suggests above, this still seems to be a rather neglected kata of Heideggerian martial arts.
Readers of Harman’s Tool-Being will recognise the article’s argument. For those who haven’t read Harman’s book yet or are not familiar with his work, this article could be a good way to enter this problem area. However, I would still recommend following it up with reading Harman’s chapter on the fourfold in Tool-Being, alongside Heidegger’s original essays, of course.
Nonetheless, Harman does move on from his argument in Tool-Being, and the article could be considered a speculative realist critique of Heidegger’s fourfold. This critique however seems to strengthen Heidegger’s original insights further, and can be understood as a retrieval of the essence of Heidegger’s argument. Interestingly the article also makes the connection with actor-network theory and Bruno Latour, although this link is not mentioned explicitly. However, the discussion of “infinite regress” and occasionalism in Heidegger will remind readers of Harman’s evaluation and critique of Latour’s metaphysics in Prince of Networks. Indeed this article could be thought of as the link between his interpretation of Heidegger’s fourfold in Tool-Being and Harman’s own fourfold structure presented in the final chapter of Prince of Networks.
Readings of immanence
9 September 2009Join Adrian Ivakhiv in his reading experiment to dissect Harman’s Tool Being and Prince of Networks.
Prince of Networks review
3 September 2009A review of Graham Harman’s Prince of Networks: Bruno Latour and Metaphysics in The Philosophers’ Magazine by Brian Smith from the University of Dundee.
The aim of Prince of Networks is twofold: it is both a secondary text, introducing Latour to a wider philosophical audience, and a primary text, presenting Harman’s own increasingly well-formed and complex “object-oriented” philosophy.
Another Heidegger
22 July 2009Check out Paul Ennis’s interview with Graham Harman on the anotherheideggerblog about, among other things, a metaphysics video game, writing and publishing advice, and, oh yes, Heidegger!
