Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Governments (in this case, it was the Conservative federal government of Stephen Harper) like to host these big international gatherings; they think it builds their national and international prestige. Police like to provide the security for them; they get lots of $ for new toys and great opportunities to try them out. Protestors like, or feel they need, to demonstrate that the gathered political elites are corruptly entwined with economic elites and are not responsive to the needs of the people they are supposed to represent. (It helps them organize themselves collectively and define their political identities individually; let’s call it citizenship.) A tiny fraction of those protestors (whom we’ll call the Black Bloc) like, and probably love, to make that point dramatically, so as to “smash capitalism,” on the hypothesis that the more smashing that occurs, the more everybody will wake up to the necessity for more smashing.

Police like to have enemies – it makes their job easier – so they infiltrate the protestors, including the tiny fraction, and egg them on (in this case to burn a police car and smash some shop windows). This gives them justification for their efforts (and the $ they got). The media has a feeding frenzy; they love to have feeding frenzies. The police and feds say “we told you so,” which they love to do (who doesn’t?).

Evidence accumulates that the police not only overstepped reasonable boundaries but that they instigated some, and maybe a lot, of the violence. (The jury’s still out on the agent-provocateur hypothesis, but it’s important to have people connecting these kinds of dots.) People protest (which they don’t generally love to do; it’s more work than complaining). Public pressure builds. The police chief resigns in disgrace. The feds get booted out in the next election. Another government replaces them. (Hmm… then what?)

Continue Reading »

other matters

It’s very nice to see that philosopher and Deleuzian/Spinozist Jeffrey Bell has joined the blogosphere, with a set of very interesting posts up already. Graham Harman has been providing more useful writing tips, here and here. William Connolly has been posting to the impressive group blog The Contemporary Condition. Levi has been posting about flat ontology and flat ethics and about Whitehead’s relation to Levi’s onticology (with a bit of an exchange between myself and him in the comments). Andrew Ray has been posting some wonderful stuff on film/art and placescapes. Tim Morton and Ben Woodard are launching a very promising new journal called Thinking Nature.

Most of these things I’ve shared on my shared items page, visible here as the running list of items you see on the right-hand column of this blog’s main web page. You can subscribe to that from GoogleReader (or just choose to “follow me” there, which I suspect includes my occasional comments and “likes”).

I’ve been working on a new WordPress version of this blog, but haven’t quite gotten it ready. When it’s all set, I’ll give readers a chance to vote on whether to keep this one or opt for the new one (though you can sneak a glance at it here, and feel free to let me know if you think it’s worth the change or not).

In the meantime, I’ll be blogging less as I’m working hard on the last three chapters of Ecologies of the Moving Image, which I suspect will be one of the first books that could legitimately call itself “an ecophilosophy of the cinema.” The proximity of Caspian Lake in Greensboro, Vermont (longtime summer home of Wallace Stegner), is helping with the writing. Perhaps I’ll post a photo at some point.

I’m just catching up with this interesting exchange between Gary Williams (Minds and Brains), Graham Harman, and Tom Sparrow (Plastic Bodies). Williams takes issue with Harman’s and others’ portrayal of Speculative Realism as “revolutionary.” “The narrative of ‘finally’ moving beyond the ‘Kantian nightmare'”, he writes, “is tired and overplayed.” He argues that it’s not a big revelation that there is a world that’s independent of human minds. In reply, Harman and Sparrow defend the Speculative Realists’ originality and claim that Merleau-Ponty, Heidegger, and others did not sufficiently break with Kantian “correlationism.”

Continue Reading »

Glancing through a recent issue of the journal Subjectivity, I noticed that their very first issue — an impressive debut that featured an all-star cast of relational thinkers including Isabelle Stengers, Annemarie Mol, and Nigel Thrift — is freely available online (to non-subscribers). The issue also included an article by Paul Stenner that provides an unusually lucid articulation of Whiteheadian process philosophy in the context of debates about “subjectivity.”

It’s worth sharing Stenner’s 14-point description of “actual occasions,” which is Whitehead’s term for the most fundamental-level events, the process-relational building blocks of the universe (to use a mechanistic metaphor for something that’s the opposite of mechanism). While it’s full of Whiteheadian jargon, and hardly the most friendly introduction to Whitehead for the non-initiated, even if you’re unfamiliar with his basic terms you could still get a good feel for what they might mean and how they cohere into a fairly simple system. Just keep in mind the basic idea: that the universe, from the most microscopic level up, consists not of substances but of processes or events.

Continue Reading »

retreat

Being TV-free (but wifi-capable) in the wilds of northeast Vermont, Facebook has become my main news source about the G20 protests in Toronto.

I’m taking the liberty of posting a snippet of (anonymous) conversation involving a friend who is there and a handful of interlocutors watching from a distance:

Continue Reading »

There’ve been smatterings of commentary on the posts dedicated to specific chapters of Vibrant Matter, but not the kind of extended arguments I had originally anticipated (before reading the book). So I’m guessing we may be wrapping up this cross-blog reading group (though Scu may still post on chapter 8).

To the list of entries, which can be found here, you can add my last two (on Signatures and Partitions of the sensible), and Scu‘s followed by my response to it. I don’t have much more to say beyond what I’ve already said. So instead what I’ll do here is to interleave several quotes from different posts (including Bennett’s own words from her interview with Peter Gratton) to create a kind of unresolved, non-chronological quasi-conversation among them. I apologize in advance for the selectiveness and for any inaccuracies in perception that may result from such a procedure. They’re merely intended to remind us of a few of the things that have been said. A brief summary comment follows.

Continue Reading »

Just as I was getting ready to wind up the Bennett discussions yesterday, Scu posted a substantial piece about chapter 7, and promised more to come on chapter 8. I’m glad to see it, since I thought there could have been more discussion about both (and about some general issues throughout the book).

Picking up on the same lines I had noted (“Since I have challenged the uniqueness of humanity in several ways, why not conclude that we and they are equally entitled? […] To put it bluntly, my conatus will not let me “horizontalize” the world completely”), Scu writes:

Continue Reading »

_wikipedia_commons_thumb_b_b1_Vinyl_record_LP_10inch.JPG_800px-Vinyl_record_LP_10inch.jpg

It’s difficult to say this, but I’ve decided to – [sob, sniff, sob] – sell my record collection. It took many years building it, though there was also a lot of sifting through and whittling down every time I moved (including two major cross-country moves in the past decade). From what remains (about 900 pieces), I’ve compiled a list of categories and approximate number of units in each; you can find that list here.

I know this goes against the current, just as records have made a solid comeback, at least among the hipsters in the know. But they take up a lot of space, I’ve duplicated most of the best of them in CDs and digital files, and, frankly, I could use the money for a new (used) car. (Horrors. Cars can’t take you where music does…)

I’m planning to post the list to eBay, in case someone wants to take the whole thing as a package off my hands. But I also have an interested buyer here in B-town — the excellent Burlington Records — and I’m not willing to watch it go in drips and drabs, or to do all the work that that involves. It will go as a collection, back into the flow of soundable vinyl that’s been circulating around the planet for some 120 years now. This little dam will break and will release a long, steady flow of very good music (with tears and memories mixed in), the product of many years of searching, finding, and delighting in vinyl and the magic that happens when the needle hits the groove…

signatures

In Chapter Eight of Vibrant Matter, Jane Bennett asks: “Are there more everyday tactics for cultivating an ability to discern the vitality of matter?” and, in response, mentions allowing oneself

to anthropomorphize, to relax into resemblances discerned across ontological divides: you (mis)take the wind outside at night for your father’s wheezy breathing in the next room; you get up too fast and see stars; a plastic topographical map reminds you of the veins on the back of your hand; the rhythm of the cicada’s [sic] reminds you of the wailing of an infant; the falling stone seems to express a conative desire to persevere.

What I like about this is not so much the argument for anthropomorphism (specifically) as the implied and more general argument for ‘morphism’, that is, for allowing one’s imaginative capacities — the capacities to take on and think with images — to build the forms of one’s perceptions and conceptions of the world. We’ve lost this ability somewhat since the decline of the epistemologies of resemblance that characterized the pre-modern and Renaissance imagination (according to Foucault and others). The ability to read the “signatures” of the world is something poets, of course, have not forgotten, but it’s also something that semiotics (of the Peircian variant) holds, or should hold, as central to the ways sense is made of things.

As for anthropomorphism, as John Livingston taught me, there’s nothing unusual about it. Dogs canomorphize, birds avimorphize, humans anthropomorphize. All of these morphic practices can be tested by trial and error for their validity in specific circumstances. The idea that something that looks somewhat like me and acts in some ways like me is like me is a reasonable starting hypothesis for a relational epistemology and ethic.

(See here for more on theorizing imagination.)

(Note: This post was originally called “Gibson-Graham live on.”)

The latest issue of art & theory journal e-flux is on the “postcapitalist self”, a term taken from J. K. Gibson-Graham’s brilliant work on postcapitalist politics. It features an insightful interview with commons theorists Massimo De Angelis and Stavros Stavrides.

The issue is dedicated to Julie Graham, one half of the Gibson-Graham writing duo, who, sadly, died of cancer back in April of this year. See here and here for tributes. Gibson-Graham are best known for The End of Capitalism (as We Knew It): A Feminist Critique of Political Economy and its follow-up, A Postcapitalist Politics. I’ve always thought of them as a kind of female/feminist analogue to Deleuze & Guattari: their work captures the antiessentialism of D & G, but is more grounded in the real-life struggles of women and communities around the world.

Katherine Gibson continues to work and write. But Graham’s death was a bit of a shock to those who thought they were developing one of the most promising political theories around.

Jon Stewart’s history of US energy policy…

The following began as a summary of the final chapter of Vibrant Matter, but it somehow mutated into something more like a position statement (which I hope doesn’t sound like too much of a rant). But I’ll let it go as it is, running the risk of speaking too loudly to no one in particular, since it doesn’t directly address the core issues my cross-blog reader-colleagues have identified so far. I’ll revisit my thoughts about the book in a couple of days.

“Vitality and Self-Interest” is the title of the final chapter of Vibrant Matter, though it’s an odd title, since the “self” is clearly something more like the extended self deep ecologists speak of than the liberal, humanist self. Like the previous chapter, it is among the strongest in the book, and it serves as a worthy conclusion to the project Bennett pursues in this slim but very readable volume.

A quote or two should suffice to demonstrate the relevance of what she is writing about:

Continue Reading »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Skip to toolbar