[-empyre-] Hello Object, I destroy you, I love you.

[Jordan Crandall]

Hello all, I am trying to find a place to introduce something, but
perhaps I'll just hit the ground running.

I am appreciating Lauren's positioning of the "object" as having

> nothing to do with that which is held together by the apparent skin of a
> thing
but
> a cluster of investments, of attention and attunements, that
> make a scene (an affectively overwhelming situation) that demands an
> aesthetic/coding.

The object would seem to come about as an excess, a welling-up into
the field of awareness, to the extent that it demands to be accounted
for, counted, coded.  And perhaps there is a difference to be made
between an object and an event - the first, a kind of regularization,
the second, a kind of rupture.
And then the matter of how you invest or attune to something that
hasn't yet coalesced.  I think of a scene with hunters in the woods,
their bows and arrows poised, scanning the horizon, waiting for that
object to congeal within the field of awareness.  Where their
attention goes, the object is, but where the object is, their
attention goes. Of course we are thinking peformatively, with mutual
constitution, so it is not necessarily a matter of which came first.
But still.
I think of the questions of endurance and expectation and I am
wondering, Lauren, if the cluster of investments is on the order of
the "cluster of promises" that you've written about?  Do we invest
because we attune to the promise (however apparent, obscure,
incoherent, enigmatic)?  Attune to it in order to extend our agency
through it, and endure in it -- to reside with the offering/promising
actors, or anticipate what it is possible to become in residing with
them.  Is this investment a kind of holding in the grip of
expectation?