Tag Archive: OOO

End of an ear…

I’ve added a menu of links to some of the key posts on this blog in process-relational theory: see “P-R Theory 101″ in the right-hand column (scroll down). This is a somewhat random sample, and readers with the patience for it can find much more by following other links and tags on this blog. A more systematic and refined exposition will come in time.

As a final comment on OOO (because I too am tired of that discussion), I’ll just say that readers interested in the objects-processes/relations debate can revisit my review of Harman’s Prince of Networks, which launched (as far as I can tell) a long series of back-and-forth exchanges on that topic more than 16 months ago, to see to what extent the questions posed there have been answered. That review begins here and ends here; my questions/objections come mostly in the latter segment. With that I’m signing off from that particular debate on this blog.

By the way, the title of this post isn’t a misspelling; it’s the name of Robert Wyatt’s first solo album after he left The Soft Machine. It’s a good one (as are the Softs‘ first four, up until Wyatt left).

Levi Bryant has proposed a ceasefire on the objects/relations debate, and followed that up with a nice post calling for self-moderation of our more confrontational urges and for a more affirmative writing (and blogging) style that would render the form of our writing more consonant with its content. I’m all for the latter; it’s something I try to practice when I’m not too overcome by impatience (which is easy to get in the heatedness of online exchanges like these). As for a ceasefire, we aren’t of course at war, but stepping back and holding our metaphorical fire makes sense, and could even be timely given the agreements that Levi and I, at least, seem to have reached (which I’ll spell out in a moment). It’s become clear to me over the last year and a half or so of discussions with Levi that while he responds to things heatedly, he always comes back in friendly and generous demeanor, and I value that quality in him.

As for those points of agreement — anyone wanting to trace how these arose can read backwards from his reply to my comment to his reply to my reply to his reply to Chris’s replies to our replies to each other, probably starting with my attractions of process post (!!) — they are these:

View full article »