[-empyre-] Smelly Objects

Michael O'Rourke tranquilised_icon at yahoo.com
Wed Jun 20 10:32:35 EST 2012


You're welcome Tim. 
Now that we're talking about affect and transitional objects I thought I would link to this new talk from the always wonderful Steven Connor:
http://www.stevenconnor.com/feelingthings/

It concludes: "Let me say again what I have said with as little circumstance as possible: we need things, because only things can guarantee for us the sovereign status of the no-thing we are and wish to be. And, precisely because that relation is a need, a matter of life and death, and not a mere abstract congruence, it hums with passion and pathos. Our relation with the world, which only the things of the world can keep alive, is a daredevil, do or die, midair thing, full of rapture, peril and unexpected comforts. So our dependence on objects is not one source of emotion among others – it is emotion (= ‘moving out’) itself. Things bear our weight, the weight they accord to us. They take the strain". 
Michael.




--- On Tue, 19/6/12, Timothy Morton <timothymorton303 at gmail.com> wrote:

From: Timothy Morton <timothymorton303 at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Smelly Objects
To: "soft_skinned_space" <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
Date: Tuesday, 19 June, 2012, 5:46

Wow Jack that is amazing. 
Michael I didn't thank you yet for introducing me to Christina McPhee. 
Tim

http://www.ecologywithoutnature.blogspot.com
On Jun 18, 2012, at 7:46 PM, Judith Halberstam <halberst at usc.edu> wrote:

Lauren: 
I have read your post several times, watched the video by Jennifer Montgomery, read some Winnicott and also looked again at Alison Bechdel's graphic novel memoir, Are You My Mother? which contains several episodes revolving around her readings of Winnicott and even has a chapter titled "Transitional Objects." Homay mentioned Bechdel last week also.
So, here are my short comments in response, I won't go on since this is not even my week but i loved your post and found that it opened up lots of new doors...
1. Bechdel's book is brilliant and each chapter begins with a dream and then uses material from her endless conversations with her mother to make sense of the dream. In the book's opening sequence for example, she dreams that she has trapped herself in her house's cellar while doing a home improvement project. She escapes through a small window and then jumps into a deep brook to try to find her way home again. This dream about being trapped and then getting lost recurs throughout.
After the dream, there is a mesmerizing cinematic sequence within which Bechdel is driving in heavy traffic and having a conversation with her mother. The panels tightly frame her upper body behind the wheel of the car and then slowly pull back until by the fourth panel we see that the passenger seat is empty. She has been rehearsing a conversation with her mother but in this scene the mother is (and she remains throughout the book) absent. This is a stunning illustration of what Lauren calls "the generative potential of withdrawn objects" and like the dreams that do not resolve, the absent mother keeps things moving throughout the memoir.
Bechdel seems to offer a way into the thinking about the queerness of the object - partly because she uses the comic/graphic novel format (the book's subtitle is A Comic Drama) and therefore makes the connection to the infantile in form as well as content and offers the cartoon itself as a transitional object. but Bechdel's queerness emerges out of her own transitional identity - the slippage she herself represents between male and female, son and daughter. Her gender ambiguity, she thinks, makes her unloveable to the mother and so she goes on a hunt for the good enough mother who will accept her transitional self. In the process she develops a series of (queer) relations with things...this is where she and the child in Montgomery's video overlap.

2. In the video by Montgomery, I was sort of amused by this passage from Winnicott:
"The transitional object may, because of an anal erotic organization, stand for faeces (but it is not for this reason that it may become smelly or remain unwashed)."
There is something about the use of the word "smelly" there that is disgusting but also humorous. Of course the stuffed animal is a kind of sponge (bob) in that it soaks up the child - his/her fluids - tears, milk, puke, slobber. It becomes an olefactory record of the child's misery and abjection. This is a history that smells.
When the object becomes smelly is its dirtiness part of its liveliness? is the washed object something else entirely? what is the relationship between the smelly and the loved? 
Second, in the relationship between the two voices in the video, the adult, Jennifer, who surgically cuts up stuffed animals with a razor blade and then sews them back to together again in hybrid forms, hardly acknowledges the rambling but compelling narration of the little girl:
Girl: "what is this?...no face...a teddy bear...with two hands...hands up in the sky....whatttt, no face..."Jennifer M: "no face"Girl: "why? did the face go away? what did it look like? what did it look like? a bear?"JM: no answerGirl: "what like this? this is silly? an elephant and a bunny. that's a monkey!"JM: "really"Girl: "yeah, look, it is also a bunny and a cat, a dog and a monkey, a lion. a little bit a cat, a little bit a lion, what else? that's all"JM: "uh huh."Girl: "a little bit a person...that's all...a person and a little bit a cat."
The little girl is trying to find something she recognizes in the hybrid forms that the Jennifer character makes, sort of sadistically, and so she ends up looking at one of the monstrosities (and I say this with much approval of the monstrous object) and calling it "a little bit a person and a little bit a cat."
Finding herself reflected in the hybridity of the altered object, the girl fashions a kind of identification with monstrosity...this way queerness lies. Perhaps we are little bit person and little bit cat/monkey/camel, donkey/dog etc...Lauren called us "cats" as in "Hey Cats"...
The girl, like Bechdel, finding herself blocked out somehow by the mother figure, begins to craft an intimacy with the object. It is this intimacy that might be the basis for access to the realm of what Lauren calls the "interobjective."
Anyone else watch the video? thanks for posting this and your comments Lauren...Jack 


On Jun 18, 2012, at 4:52 AM, lauren.berlant at gmail.com wrote:


Hi cats!  I have
been trying to figure out how to respond to so much of this without dilating in
bloated paragraphs that become unreadable.  I will try therefore to stick
to the genre of the prompt (as opposed to genres of exegesis) so that we can
always point to outsides with which we can read/relate and therefore continue
talk later.   


I am also going to introduce this week artists I would like to bring into the conversation--Doug

Ischar, Tina Takemoto, and today Jennifer Montgomery, in case watching their
work might clarify some questions, e.g. make them more questionable.
Here is thebackground for today's prompt:  Jennifer Montgomery's brilliant Transitional
Objects (from which the title to my post is taken).  http://vimeo.com/21270312 







11.  The structural zeitgeist: Patricia points out that we're undergoing a transformation in the ways we think about structure,
and as Zach and Jacob will attest, I've been going around for the past year saying this too, and the first sentence of my next book is "This book
offers a concept of structure for transitional times.  All times are transitional, but at some times, like this one, politics is defined by the
collective struggle to determine the terms of a transition in relation to collective social existence." This is how I have long understood the
OOO discussion as a prompt for thinking not just being but for a new structural understanding of relation from which worlds can be described.
Interobjectivity replacing intersubjectivity as the new ethical/political/analytical scene.  I think Christina McFee’s work is
extraordinary in this way, an aesthetics of attention dedicated to an analytic of modeling that never subtracts from itself a scenicness for sensual
absorption. 


22.      Laplanchean psychoanalysis, which props relationality on the impersonal intimacy of beings passing their enigmatic
signifiers (affects of the encounter that is not an event) between each other, I have
long thought, has something to contribute to the image of the withdrawn object
whose very resistance to a sufficient coding can open up dark, maybe even
queer, passages of relating and mutual extension (that might even be thriving). 



34. The idea of a transitional environment for the relating
that always involves losing the habit that appears to be sovereign, for
producing change without the melodrama of a trauma that appears to be a
sufficient coding, is what Jennifer’s piece is about: making. Winnicott: “In
relation to the transitional object the infant passes from magical omnipotent
control to control by manipulation involving muscle eroticism and coordination
pleasure.”  He doesn’t sound too different
from Ian.  



4.  4.   Is the “object” in (imaginative) psychoanalysis
the same as the “object” in OOO?  Neither
external nor internal, but holding up an environment/world? In my work the object
has nothing to do with that which is held together by the apparent skin of a
thing but it’s a cluster of investments, of attention and attunements, that
make a scene (an affectively overwhelming situation) that demands an
aesthetic/coding. 



5.   5  What’s queer about all this? In our first weeks
of discussion “queer” seemed a name for the erotically invested non-normative
procedure or orientation. Is that sufficient? What’s the fantasy investment in
calling the appearance of a withdrawn thing queer?  My second post will focus on the play of
security/insecurity re this, but I’d love to hear from the subjects who wrote
towards/from the queer. 



Bye! LB 



 



Lauren Berlant 



George M. Pullman
Professor 



Department of English 



University of Chicago 



Walker Museum 413 



1115 E. 58th. St. 



Chicago IL 60637 



 



-----Original Message-----


From: Clough, Patricia <PClough at gc.cuny.edu>


To: soft_skinned_space <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>


Sent: Sun, Jun 17, 2012 1:15 pm


Subject: Re: [-empyre-] the real and reality in speculative realism and OOO/P 



I have just finished
reading a piece by Latour on big data  for
a paper I am  



writing  with three students (Josh Scannell,  Benjamin Haber and Karen Gregory   



who are lurking on the
site).  One of Latour's points is that
the two level  



analysis carried on in
sociology (but everywhere else as well) 
of individual  



and structure are the
result of technologies for navigating sets of data.   He  



also proposes that
digital technologies--the way they collect and circulate data   



or the way they navigate
data sets-- is eating away at both elements of a two  



level analysis   allowing for another way for
understanding  social order.  Of  



course Latour  has in mind 
his own ANT approach and something close to  a flat  



ontology   But I am really interested in what his
proposal makes us think about  



the concepts we have
been using  like individual and
structure  and how they are  



an effect of or a
compensation for the ways we  "do
data,"   including  



narrative, performance
but cinema television--or writing technologies generally  



speaking and carrying a
bit of Derrida along here as to the sensibilities coming  



with his use of
Writing.   I have been thinking that when
there is noise  



produced in
philosophical circles (especially when it produces an aporia between  



epistemology and
ontology as noise probably always does) like OOO/SR is making   



but which
poststructuralism also made (still makes) it is because technology is  



giving another way of
doing data.   And when I say we have to
know how that is  



working in order to
critique it, I mean  we will have to
critique  it  in the  



terms of the constraints
and freedoms of that very technology.   I
don't believe  



there can be another
ontology then the one that arrives with a technology, our  



differences in how to
articulate it notwithstanding .(so that is how I read  



Combes on  Simondon)  
Indeed I think ethics or  politics
comes with inserting   



noise in the aporia
produced by the provisions for data navigation given with a  



technology and that
the  differences between us --- how we
are articulating  



ontology  ethics etc. 
are already noise.   I am not sure
those differences  



should be so easily
resolved  but taken as widening contrasts
at any moment. 



So when I take up OOO/SR
in my work   I also use poetic form or
sound scapes to   



contrast with
OOO/SR  as some of the poetry is
autobiographic  performing  



something close to a
confessional subject   some quite
Deleuzian  more a body  



without organs   some 
psychoanalytic. very much a body and queer.     I don't  



believe these things are
compatible  and if I were just making an
argument  they  



could not all be in one
piece   But  when composed artistically they can be near  



each other  and 
become contrasts.   What holds the
pieces together is the  



modulation of affect
that the composition hopes to be its effect.  
I think the  



current interest in
affect is about digital technology in that it is asking us  



to rethink  these two levels of individual and
structure  and asking us to think  



about how we present our
thoughts or ideas    how we compose them. 



 



  Also the way technologies shape the way  we do data 
is not just a matter of  



method  or analysis, it is at the same time  about governance and economy  and   



I think these words are
changing what they refer to  and what
they can do when  



we use them  as new ways of navigating  data are arising.  And so too what we  



mean by life.  I love Eugene Thacker's book   After Life just to show the many  



ways (all impossible) we
have tried to define life  in
relationship to living  



starting with
theology.   Eugene writes such a book
just at a time when  the  



definition of  life 
is undergoing a change in relationship to living. 



 



 



 



 



 



________________________________________ 



From: empyre-bounces at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
[empyre-bounces at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au]  



On Behalf Of frederic
neyrat [fneyrat at gmail.com] 



Sent: Sunday, June 17,
2012 4:02 AM 



To: soft_skinned_space 



Subject: Re: [-empyre-]
the real and reality in speculative realism and OOO/P 



 



Hi Patricia, 



 



1/ You wrote: "They
are lively before or without human consciousness. 



 I think this arouses more respect for the
environment and the cosmos 



not to mention human
beings and other living things": 



I'm not sure about that.
I would like, but I'm note sure. I'm just 



thinking about the
hunter killing the living prey. Or about Sade in 



his dark castle. I think
it's not possible to pass directly from 



ontology to ethics or
politics. It depends a/ not only on the 



definition of life
(first problem: if everything is alive, who cares 



about life? because if
Yellowstone trees die, no problems, there still 



will be stones, yellow
and washing machine) but b/ on the politics 



built on this
definition. 



 



2/ may you explain this
sentence: "If those technosciences we worry 



about are doing what
they are doing that worries us  we need
to 



imagine an ontology that
meets their capacity in order to think the 



possibilities of
politics". Because I was thinking: maybe the 



technosciences ontology
is wrong. Maybe - for example - life is not 



only a pure matter on
which I can put a patent. Maybe - as Muriel 



Combes says in "La
vie inséparée" - a living being cannot be separated 



from its form. Maybe we
need absolutely another ontology to fight this 



one. 



 



Best, 



 



Frederic Neyrat 



 



2012/6/17 Clough,
Patricia <PClough at gc.cuny.edu>: 



> I am not sure this
got through    since I am also missing
some of Tim's  I  



think  but I will put it here below but first.   Just to say that objects in OOO  



are not
objectifications   or mere things or
commodities.   A  turn to ontology   



(whether OOO or feminist
queer ones) is to give us a sense that objects differ  



from themselves; they
exude temporality.  They are lively
before or without  



human
consciousness.   I think this arouses
more respect for the environment and  



the cosmos not to
mention human beings and other living things.  
This seems  



especially important in
raising questions about the boundary between species and  



organic and
nonorganic.   If those technosciences we
worry about are doing what  



they are doing that
worries us  we need to imagine an
ontology that meets their  



capacity in order to
think the possibilities of politics.   
But of course  



OOO/SR isn't everything
that is needed.   And so I am interested
in how we write  



or argue or
philosophize   We need poetry a 



>  nd 
artistry  so we can have hesitancy
and allusion  where causality is  



alluring....  And so the reference by Michael ( I
think)  to transitional  



objects is something I
want to take up.   I prefer  Bollas's transformational  



objects that Lauren
Berlant makes such good use of  in her
work  recently again  



in Cruel Optimism.    Patricia 



>   



> (repeat maybye ) 



> Well starting off
in the last week is difficult.   So much
going on over the  



last three weeks.   Thanks to Zach and Micha for the invite
and  to everyone  



else offering some great
thoughts  to ponder. 



>   



>   



> As for discussion
around feminism, queer and OOO/ SR  There
are (still/even  



more)  worrisome issues  of oppression, exploitation and
repression   that come  



to mind with queer,
feminist, postcolonial, anti-race, debility  



theoretical/political
formations  but there also are troubles
which are before  



us,  feminist neoliberalism or  pink washing and queer, for examples.   



Politically,
institutional arrangements are much more complicated than identity  



politics sometimes
presented itself as being  in the demand
for subject   



recognition  which led to decades of debate on the truth
of representation and  



the deconstruction
of  the authority of discourse with a
hesitancy  to reference  



the real in
support.   Here a certain
Althusserian/Lacanianism played a weighty  



part  and then add  
Derrida  Spivak Butler Foucault
Berlant, Sedgwick  and  



more. For many of us
this work has been a go to intellectual and political  



resource for some
time.  Clearly these authors  put philosophy  intimately i 



>  n play with a politics (often  Marxism, and then Marxism plus) that was  



easily felt in their
work.   In  OOO/SR , this tight connection is less
obvious  



if there at all.  What I do not want to overlook however is
that OOO/SR came  



when the former (not
necessarily the thinkers themselves) was not easily working  



as an intellectual
resource in the face of several issues: 
what to be said  



about political economy
except to say again and again neoliberalism or even  



biopolitics (even though
I keep saying those);  what is to be said
about  



subjectivity and the
unconscious after deconstruction and along with a profound  



transformation in social
media;  what is to be said about the
human, the  



organism as figure of
life, about matter  after posthumanism
and with the  



development of various
technologies we should call biotechnologies (but now all  



technology seems to have
always been) or even more incredible nanotechnologies?   



What to say about the
persistence but varied forms of racism oppre 



>  ssion exploitation?  How to let all this feed back to rethinking
our  



philosophical
assumptions? 



>   



> I think that for
some of us OOO/SR made us think again about the intellectual  



resources for our work
and how to address some of the questions I just raised by  



turning us to
ontological issues beyond constructivism asking us to critically  



address the assimilating
act of human consciousness embedded in most of our  



materialisms (thus the
new materialisms and  a recent paper by
Liz Grosz on  



matter and life is
exquisite here) .  This new materialisms  comes in part as a  



response to recent
developments in technoscience  and as a
social scientist (of  



sorts) I am so aware
that social science leans on scientific assumptions if not  



ideals that need
updating to say the least. But I think this is the case for  



many of our
materialisms. This rethinking of technoscience including digital  



technologies has in part
raised interest in OOO/SR   and  that is the case for  



me.   But I am not sure that  the elective affinity between  digital  



technologies,  the growth of computational studies  and al 



>  gorithm studies etc.  and OOO/SR yet has been well stated.  I do not think  



that all OOO/SR thinkers
find this to be  central while some
do.   Debates  



around OOO/SR with which
Steven Shaviro is involved usually speak to digital  



technology  (and Bogost of course)     All this to say that the 'affect' that I  



have most written about
is the Spinoza Deleuze Whitehead Masssumi 
Parisi  



version (although I want
to talk more about feelings and emotions this week).   



The Spinoza Deleuze
Whitehead Masssumi  Parisi version of
affect I believe has  



always required an
ontological shift (which is central to the Affective Turn  



volume). That  ontological shift has everything to do with
the way affect is  



experienced through a
technological intensification  since it
is otherwise  



preconscious if not
nonconscious and a-social   While
language generally is an  



intensifier  I have been more interested in intensifications
that did not  



necessarily raise to
consciousness but simply intensified experience 



>   inciting resonances rhythmicities   oscillations etc.  and which then could  



be about bodies other
than human ones or organic ones--queering body. 
This  



seemed to require an
ontological shift, one involving 
matter.  I have been  



arguing for some time
that matter is affective or informational (well maybe we  



should just say energy)
and this  led me to OOO/SR.   But before checking out  



OOO/SR  I was much indebted to Deleuze and the
others   and  since 
studying  



OOO/SR  I feel the noteworthy tension  between Deleuzians and  OOO/SR (although  



there are those trying
to negotiate the tension as I am).  
During the next week   



I want to offer some
thoughts (and can't wait for response and interventions)  



about  this tension in relationship to affect.  I hope we can discussion  more  



the recent focus on
aesthetics which has enabled me to think in the tension  



rather than against
it  and find a way as well to dwell  in rather than  simply  



put an end to the  aporia between ontology  and ep 



>  istemology that affect and non-human
perception produces.   I think   



aesthetics and the turn
to Whitehead's rereading of Kant points to a way to  



engage the liveliness
of  what Eugene Thacker calls a world
without us  or not  



for us. 



>   



> Finally,  during the first week  I much enjoyed all the sites to which I was  



sent and all the efforts
to make stuff, queer stuff, with  digital
technology as  



well as with other
technologies.   This doing along with
thinking (crude way of  



putting it) seems
important to a critical engagement with what we once would  



have called  knowledge production.    Looking forward to ongoing
conversation(s)    



Patricia 



>   



>   



>   



>   



>   



>   



>   



>   



>   



>   



>   



>   



>   



> ________________________________________ 



> From: empyre-bounces at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
[empyre-bounces at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au]  



On Behalf Of Michael
O'Rourke [tranquilised_icon at yahoo.com] 



> Sent: Saturday,
June 16, 2012 7:40 PM 



> To:
soft_skinned_space 



> Subject: Re:
[-empyre-] the real and reality in speculative realism and OOO/P 



>   



> Hi Tim! Cheers for
your thoughts. Take a look at Christina's work here: 



>   



> http://www.christinamcphee.net/ 



>   



> I think it
resonates in many ways with yours. 



>   



> M. 



>   



>   



>   



> --- On Sat, 16/6/12,
Timothy Morton <timothymorton303 at gmail.com> wrote: 



>   



> From: Timothy
Morton <timothymorton303 at gmail.com> 



> Subject: Re:
[-empyre-] the real and reality in speculative realism and OOO/P 



> To: empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au 



> Date: Saturday, 16
June, 2012, 23:25 



>   



> Hi Everyone, 



>   



> This is my first
(or possibly second if the other got through) message to the  



list, and I'm responding
to a brief discussion of the notion of flat ontology  



initiated by Michael
O'Rourke (hi Michael!) and Frederic Neyrat. 



>   



> OOO comes in
various flavors and is not necessarily flat. Mine and Graham  



Harman's has two levels.
Levi Bryant's and Ian Bogost's have one, but differ in  



how that one level
works. 



>   



> Other forms of
realism such as Manuel De Landa's are flat, or flatter, than  



OOO. 



>   



> Frederic I'm a
Derridean and the idea of the singularity is my idea of the  



strange stranger, which
is Derrida's arrivant. 



>   



> Just apply this
notion of arrivant to non-life and you get the OOO "object." 



>   



> You can have all
the singularities you want in a non-all and by definition  



non-hierarchical set,
which is the OOO universe. 



>   



> Yours, Tim 



>   



>   



> -- 



>   



> Ecology without
Nature<http://ecologywithoutnature.blogspot.com/> 



>   



>   



> -----Inline
Attachment Follows----- 



>   



>
_______________________________________________ 



> empyre forum 



> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au</mc/compose?to=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 



_______________________________________________ 



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 



 




 




_______________________________________________
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
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
empyre forum
empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
http://www.subtle.net/empyre
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20120619/2ed51d35/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the empyre mailing list