[-empyre-] the real and reality in speculative realism and OOO/P
fneyrat at gmail.com
Thu Jun 14 18:37:46 EST 2012
Sorry, I didn't see this email before my post... And thanks for the
link to Galloway's "response to GH". It's very important to analyse
OOO - before going beyond this weak - and really flat... - ontology
(that is less a "réaction" than a "restauration" (cf. substance and so
By the way, it's important to avoid the confusion between Speculative
Realism and OOO: fortunately, as Steven Shaviro says (in Milwaukee
during a conference), OOO is only ONE kind of speculative realism.
But, in any case, flat ontology is my nightmare, for sure the
nightmare of Deleuze, of Simondon, of Derrida, of every lover of
singularities, of absolute and definitive differences. Against
flatness, long life to the relief of life.
2012/6/13 Zach Blas <zachblas at gmail.com>:
> hi all--
> thanks to jacob, jack, homay, and micha for these last few posts.
> unfortunately, michael o’rourke seems to me MIA, which is too bad
> because i’d love to hear his thoughts on the real and queerness in
> relation to his work on speculative realism and object-oriented
> do any other empyre subscribers have any thoughts they’d like to share
> on the real and what’s at stake in the real in speculative realism and
> how that might relate (or not) to queerness?
> michael has a really interesting essay on speculative realism and
> queer theory: http://independentcolleges.academia.edu/MichaelORourke/Papers/469661/Girls_Welcome_Speculative_Realism_Object_Oriented_Ontology_and_Queer_Theory_
> i can’t really speak on michael’s behalf but i can say that it’s clear
> he finds something productively compatible (or incompatible) with
> queerness and speculative realism that he is trying to work through.
> for example, in meillassoux’s “after finitude,” meillassoux introduces
> the necessity of contingency, that the only necessity of the world is
> contingency. this certainly (conceptually) destabilizes any
> normalization or stabilization of the real or a real real. and i know
> i’ve read somewhere that michael finds this bit useful for queerness.
> however, alex galloway has recently written a strong critique of the
> apolitical nature in speculative realism, specifically with
> object-oriented ontology and graham harman:
> galloway basically claims that their ontology perfectly aligns with
> capitalism today. we can take from this that most (probably not all)
> of the writers that fall underneath OOO/P are not concerned with this
> “correlation,” (they’re concerned with another correlation).
> i think this brings up issues of not only politics but also desire. it
> is a question and position about the reality/realities we desire and
> our political commitments to thinking and enacting them.
> this seems to be a big trap with the theoretical work on the nonhuman
> today. it easily falls into apolitical territory.
> so, now that we have speculative realism, OOO, glitches, animation,
> cliches, transitional objects, and the queerreal & transreal on the
> table, i wonder if we can think more about how we politically figure
> the nonhuman in our work (such as technical / new media objects and
> systems) and how that bears on conceptions and ontologies of reality
> or the real.
> and please, we’d love for all you empyre subscribers to jump in and
> share your thoughts with us!
> zach blas
> artist & phd candidate
> literature, information science + information studies, visual studies
> duke university
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
More information about the empyre