[-empyre-] Meillassoux / Harman

frederic neyrat fneyrat at gmail.com
Fri Jun 15 06:16:30 EST 2012


Hi,

I would like - if possible - to get one or two examples about the
objects concerned by your statement:"all objects equally exist, but
not all objects exist equally." I guess - but I just guess - that the
first part of the sentence is ontological and the second part could be
political, but maybe I'm wrong. Thanks in advance.

Best,

Frederic Neyrat

2012/6/14 Ian Bogost <ian.bogost at lcc.gatech.edu>:
> Ok, sigh, let me try this again.
>
> The "as much as" is not a judgement of value, but of existence. This is the
> fundamental disagreement that played out in the comments to Galloway's work
> and in the many responses elsewhere. The world is big and contains many
> things. I've put this principle thusly: "all objects equally exist, but not
> all objects exist equally."
>
> It's possible that such a metaphysical position isn't for everyone. But if
> your idea of "being political" is as exclusionary and deprecatory as both
> Galloway's post and my limited experience thusfar here on empyre, then
> perhaps you can explain why that a model worth aspiring for? Why that is
> virtuous and righteous?
>
> Ian
>
> On Jun 14, 2012, at 2:57 PM, Rob Myers wrote:
>
> On 06/14/2012 07:02 PM, Ian Bogost wrote:
>
>
> As for queer and feminist formulations, I agree with the spirit of what
>
> you say, but I'll reiterate my observation that SR/OOO is moving in a
>
> slightly different direction—one that concerns toasters and quasars as
>
> much as human subjects (note the "as much as" here). Why not take this
>
> work for what it is, at least for starters, rather than for what it
>
> isn't?
>
>
> The "as much as" is precisely the problem.
>
> Galloway's critique of OOO that Zach mentioned explains why:
>
> http://itself.wordpress.com/2012/06/03/a-response-to-graham-harmans-marginalia-on-radical-thinking/
>
> But I wouldn't lump Meillassoux in with Harman. I think Meillassoux's
> philosophy can indeed be interesting for this debate because of its
> embracing of contingency and possibility.
>
> - Rob.
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre


More information about the empyre mailing list