Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Levi Bryant responds to my last post (and by extension to Chris Vitale’s) here. I agree with him that he and Graham Harman have made worthy efforts at addressing concerns that are central to process-relational philosophical communities (e.g., in Bryant’s Difference and Givenness and in the books of Harman’s that I’ve lauded on this blog); nowhere did I claim they have “made no arguments.” My point in the comparison was not to “appeal to authority,” as Levi claims. It was simply to point out the fact that one could fill a modestly sized room with the books that have been published by Deleuzians, Whiteheadians, Peircians, Bergsonians, Jamesians, neo-Spinozans, Hartshornians, Batesonians, panpsychists, biosemioticists, affective materialists, etc. etc. (not to mention Buddhist nondualists and other non-Western-based philosophers, at which point we would need a modestly sized building, not just a room). One could not fill a small shelf yet with OOO books.

This says nothing about the quality of any of these books. But it does say that the former (process-relational) traditions have been productive research programs (in philosopher of science Imre Lakatos’s terms), which is almost as good as one could hope for in a field as paradigmatically pluralistic and divided as philosophy. The difference between a productive and a moribund research program is not always easy to tell except in retrospect, but the level of continuing idea-generation and publishing, including efforts that traverse between and across the various sub-traditions I’ve just mentioned, is relatively healthy. Given that state of the field, Kuhnian paradigm shifts are probably not on the philosophical horizon anytime soon. But I admire OOO-ists’ efforts (and enthusiasm) to cut a wide swath through current philosophical discourse, and I actually cheer them on in doing this (since I share at least some of their interests). But let’s keep things in perspective.

On an unrelated note: my blogging will likely be minimal over the coming weeks. I may polish off a few half- or mostly-written posts from my drafts folder, and I will continue to update my Shadow Blog (since that takes no time at all). You may see a few guest bloggers here as well. But otherwise, don’t expect too much activity here, especially on this objects-processes debate.

Chris Vitale has “thrown down the gauntlet,” as he puts it, to the object-oriented ontologists to finally respond in a satisfactory way to process-relational critiques. (I admire his Sicilian bravado!)

Chris is obviously writing in a somewhat feverish mode, blogging at the speed of thought rather than in the tempered and cautious tone written philosophy has traditionally favored, and this no doubt accounts for a certain repetitiveness in what he’s laid out — which is itself a characteristic of the philosophical blogosphere (and therefore relevant to what I’m about to say). But he makes some very important points, which I would reiterate as follows: Continue Reading »

Reply to Harman

Graham Harman has written a post about me in which he says that I was trying to “refute” OOO in my “2 cheers” post, and that I “claim[ed] quite frankly that OOO is wrong.” I thought it worth pointing out that nowhere in that post did I mention OOO, or Graham’s philosophy under any other name. Those three magical letters appear in a quote from Tim, but I don’t take that part of the quote up in my comments afterward, which are about music. My entire post was a reply to Tim Morton’s 11-paragraph rejoinder to four short sentences I wrote in a comment on Tim’s blog. Those sentences concerned stability and instability, stability being an achievement, and the role of his “lava-lampism” notion in OOO. Continue Reading »

The results are in and both NOAA and NASA agree that 2010 is statistically tied (with 2005) for the warmest year on record, globally.

Nine of the last ten years are among the ten warmest years on record. (The exception was 2008. The records go back to 1880.) And the last time we had a year in which the global average temperature was BELOW the twentieth-century average was 1976. That’s 34 warm years in a row. And counting.

(And in case you’re prone to making some comment about the snow, we’re talking global climate, not local weather. If you don’t know the difference, you’re not qualified to comment on it.)

Puzzles

Graham is “puzzled that Ivakhiv thinks OOO can be refuted by the fact that objects have histories.” I’m puzzled why Graham would think that I think that. I’m also puzzled why my brief comment (on Tim’s blog) about stability and instability, and about stability as an achievement rather than a default mode, should have set off such a volley of responses (e.g. here and  here). Continue Reading »

Tim Morton seems not to have liked my comment suggesting that reality is a mix of stability and instability, and that stability is an achievement rather than a default position.

The universe, I would say, is an achievement as well. His much-loved (?) lava lamps are achievements, as are Graham Harman‘s Lego blocks. They don’t fall from the sky; they are made into objects that withstand a fairly high degree of turbulence in their environments. Humans have become great producers of such things — of things that can be shipped all the way from China (as Leonard Cohen used to sing) and that work for a little while according to their instructions, before we tire of them and order next year’s model.

But even in a world without humans, there are achievements aplenty: planets and galaxies (amazing achievements, they); oceans teeming with life, some of it organized into social groups; and ecosystems, geological formations, bacterial networks, individual organisms, and all the rest. Even the things that do fall from the sky — asteroids and meteorites, for instance — are achievements, though the more impressive achievement is the atmosphere that protects those other things from the onslaught of the meteorites. They all take a fair bit of work being made and maintained — not necessarily work by “themselves” (though that, too), but work on a multitude of levels and scales. And they are all in process (or, to be more precisely, in various kinds of process), always modulating between stability and instability but, fortunately (for us) crafting enough stabilities to make a pretty richly diverse world possible. Continue Reading »

Since there isn’t much available in English about Philippe Descola’s writings on animism, I thought I would share a piece of the cosmopolitics argument I mentioned in my last post. It will appear, in modified form, in the concluding chapter of the SAR Press volume mentioned there. Most of the volume will consist of ethnographic case studies from around the world, but these will be informed by the theoretical conversations of the week we spent at the School of Advanced Research in Santa Fe.

Following this excerpt I have added some comments relating the ideas (discussed here) of Descola, Latour, and Stengers to some of the concepts I’ve been working with from Whitehead, Peirce, and the fields/discourses of biosemiotics and panpsychism. I haven’t seen these connections made (in this way, at least) in any of the literature by or on these authors, and I’m still working out these ideas myself, so that part is work-in-progress.

From animism to cosmopolitics

Animism, like the “primitive,” “pagan,” and “savage,” but also like “religion” itself, is a term has been used to classify cultural difference into a hierarchically valenced series: animists, for Edward Tylor and other evolutionists, were thought to have maintained a “lower” and more “primitive” conception of the universe, one peopled by spirits and with objects being ascribed human characteristics. In Tylor’s view, the animist “stage” of belief was followed by a polytheistic one, and in turn by a monotheistic one. This evolutionism has since been largely rejected, and more recently, a loose coterie of anthropologists and scholars of religion have reappropriated the term “animism” to mean something rather more interesting (Bird-David 1999; Descola 2005, 2006, 2009; Harvey 2006; Ingold 2000; Viveiros de Castro 1992, 2004). Continue Reading »

I’m reorganizing the piece I wrote for the School of Advanced Research workshop on science, nature, and religion so that part of it will fit into the introduction of the book we are producing (which I’m co-writing with the workshop organizer and chair, Catherine Tucker) and the rest will make up the book’s concluding chapter. The original piece had a coherence to it that will be lost somewhat, so I thought I would share the first couple of sections of it here.

(Graham Harman’s recent comments about the slowness of traditional scholarly publishing versus the rapidity and accessibility of open-access publishing, which reiterate the argument that got me to set up this blog in the first place, has encouraged me to want to share at least something of this SAR event that happened a year and a half ago, and that won’t culminate with a publication for several months still.)

The remainder of this piece, including the “cosmopolitical” argument I alluded to in this post at the time, will remain in the book’s conclusion. You’ll have to wait for the book to read the finished version of that. It will be a very good collection, and I hope SAR Press doesn’t make it too inaccessible for the general public.

Here are a couple of excerpts… Continue Reading »

For some inexplicable reason, my post on Spike Jonze’s movie Where the Wild Things Are keeps getting an inordinate number of hits, seemingly from casual passersby. These are people from all over the world, coming (sometimes) in droves to that one blog post, generally dropping into this blog directly from Google, and I can’t find any connecting link to an outside source that would account for all that traffic.

It’s old, and it wasn’t a particularly substantive post, even compared to some of the other film reviews I’ve posted here. So why all the interest?

Tim Morton has kindly posted about the cover art Indiana University Press gave my nearly decade-old (but none the worse for wear) book, Claiming Sacred Ground, which he likes for its “polyvalent symbolism” incorporated into a Mondrianesque design. The photo in the midst of that design is one I took looking up to the top of Glastonbury Tor. Glastonbury is one of the two sites I focus on in the book’s analysis of landscape, nature, “practices of place,” and the politics of imagination.

I have some copies to spare, which I’d be happy to share at cost ($10 inclusive of shipping, or really whatever you’re willing to reasonably pay). First come, first served. Send me an email with your address; and bear with me, since I’m terrible with sending things through the mail. (In this day of clicking on keys and tapping on screens, it seems like an impossible task to pack something and carry it to the post office during business hours. But I would do it, for the cause.)

Added later:

It seems I jumped the gun in offering to send the book internationally at that price. The U.S. has eliminated its surface mail rate (sometime in the last few years), thanks apparently to paranoia around ‘homeland security,’ and the cost of shipping the book by air mail works out to $15 U.S., which doesn’t include the cost of the book. So it’s best to get it through your local Amazon or some other venue. I believe that parts of it can be found at aaaaarg, but if your local library doesn’t have it, you can always ask them to order it. Sorry for any confusion about that.

The Zoosemiotics and Animal Representations conference in Tartu (the leading center for biosemiotics research) promises to be a good one. Plenary speakers include Jesper Hoffmeyer (one of the leaders of the field), ecophilosopher and musician David Rothenberg, postcolonial ecocritic Graham Huggan, and philosopher of science Colin Allen.

The deadline for abstracts has passed. Two publications are planned. For more information, see the conference home page.

Consider the Wilfrid Laurier University Press Environmental Humanities Series for your next manuscript… The new series poster is here.

The Environmental Humanities Series features research that adopts and adapts the methods of the humanities to clarify the cultural meanings associated with environmental debate. The scope of the series is broad. Film, literature, television, Web-based media, visual art, and physical landscape—all are crucial sites for exploring how ecological relationships and identities are lived and imagined. The Environmental Humanities Series publishes scholarly monographs and essay collections in environmental cultural studies, including popular culture, film, media, and visual cultures; environmental literary criticism; cultural geography; environmental philosophy, ethics, and religious studies; and other cross-disciplinary research that probes what it means to be human, animal, and technological in an ecological world.

New or forthcoming titles include:

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Skip to toolbar