Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Graham Harman replies here and here to my last contribution, and Paul Reid-Bowen joins in with an interesting and original take on the debate at Pagan Metaphysics. I’ll try to keep my reply to both of them fairly brief in what follows.

Graham writes that “You can’t find the cane toad by summing up all the effects it currently has and receives from all other entities.” I agree. To find the cane toad you would have to interact with it, and even then you would only find what you were capable of finding. If, theoretically, you could interact with it in such a way that you would be able to observe and summarize all its effects on and from all other entities, including the effects that manifested over the time of your observations (since these take time and, to some extent, always affect what is being observed) and all of its internal relations (which include its potentials or virtualities carried over from the past), then I suspect you would have come as close as possible to “finding the cane toad.”

Continue Reading »

JCS%20Armillaria%20ostoyae%2013062.jpg

A glimpse of Armillaria ostoyae, said to be the world’s largest organism (whatever that means)

Replying to me here, Graham Harman explains his objections to relational ontologies, arguing that they fail to make a distinction between the “two sorts of relations” in which an entity is involved. These are not “the famous ‘internal’ and ‘external’ relations,” but are what he “somewhat whimsically” calles the “domestic” and “foreign” relations of an object. (I like this distinction, though I’m not sure how it’s different from internal and external relations.)

GH: “Surely Adrian doesn’t want to claim that the cane toad is a set of all its relations? If Mars were five inches further along in its course than it currently is, would the cane toad be a different cane toad than it is now?”

Continue Reading »

Levi Bryant’s detailed and generous replies to my critical queries, both in the comments section of this post and at Larval Subjects, and Graham Harman’s replies here (and in an e-mail exchange) have helped me get a much clearer sense of where the main differences lie between their respective “object-oriented” positions and my relational view. In the process, I’ve been once again impressed with both of these philosophers’ willingness to engage with those who disagree with them, and to do that publicly, and practically at the speed of (digital) light. Here I just want to summarize what I see as the main difference between an object-oriented account of the world and a process-relational account.

Continue Reading »

advice

Graham Harman has been posting some very useful advice for graduate students (and aspiring academic writers) here and here. The five “lessons” at the end of the first piece are especially useful.

To the third – “Write for the specific occasions that called for the writing” – I would add: and create those occasions when necessary, but don’t create too many of them. (I used to try to attend too many conferences, which is a temptation when one is doing the kind of interdisciplinary work that has no obvious home but many potential homes-away-from-home.) And to the fifth – “Keep reading new things, and write about them after you read about them” – this is very good practice, a kind of mental/intellectual hygiene, and it’s part of the reason why I started this blog. (On the other hand, getting free books in exchange for book reviews can be more expensive, in time spent, than it’s worth, since book reviews don’t get you far.) The point is to keep reading, keep thinking, keep talking, and make connections between your teaching and your reading/writing whenever possible.

One piece that could be expanded on: How much time should you spend editing, rewriting, and refining what you write? There’s an art to this, and my tendency has usually been to overdo it. But there’s a place for the definitive article or book (which takes a lot of time and work), and a place for the quickie. The dissertation, for instance, could become the first kind of thing (which is why it’s best to write it with a book in mind). But the same material can often be turned into different formats, and it’s all continual work in progress. So usually it’s better to err on the side of getting something done and off, getting it “in the pipeline” for publication, and moving on to something else while you wait to hear whether it’ll need more work or not.

For what it’s worth (and probably of interest only to folks at the University of Vermont): According to the SmartViper web data analyzer, this blog’s home page is now the fifth most popular on the University of Vermont (blog.uvm.edu) server, and first among personal blogs.

The top four are Blogging@UVM, UVM Admissions, the Agricultural Risk Management office blog, and the Common Ground Student Run Educational Farm blog. Only the third of those is very active now, so I’m guessing the data for the others is historical. The second most popular personal blog is my Canadian studies colleague Paul Martin’s, As Canadian as possible… under the circumstances. The whole top ten list can be found here.

Colleagues, why so slow in using new media?

Jeff Carrera’s Philosophy is Not a Luxury has been posting some pithy articulations of the process-relational philosophies of James, Dewey, Peirce, and others in the American pragmatist tradition. It’s too bad that the word “pragmatism” in its everyday sense doesn’t do justice to these thinkers — rather like the terms “stoicism” and “epicureanism” don’t do justice to the philosophies of Seneca, Epicurus, Epictetus, Lucretius, Marcus Aurelius, et al. As Pierre Hadot pointed out years ago, philosophy was a way of life for the ancients. The pragmatists came as close as any American philosophers to continuing that tradition. To anyone familiar with Whitehead, Bergson, or Deleuze, the resonances with these descriptions of experience should be obvious. Theirs is a philosophy of the present moment, but when the present moment, in its radical openness, is all there is, that’s the best (and only) place to start.

Here’s a quick reply to Levi Bryant’s reply to my post from this morning on objects and relations:

Continue Reading »

cinema poetry

I just discovered the video blog Cinema Poetry, which has collected twenty (so far) of the most remarkable scenes in the history of cinema.

The first of the two ride films below, the Lumiere brothers’ rickshaw film from an Indochinese village, is beautiful (watch it in full screen with the sound turned all the way up):

This makes good viewing alongside Sean Cubitt’s description of cinematic firstness, which he calls “the pixel” in The Cinema Effect.

Kvond’s “great scenes” suggestion of a wonderful clip from “Andrei Rublev” (starting at 3’24”) reminded me of Yuri Illienko’s brilliant camerawork in one of my favorite films, Sergei Paradjanov’s “Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors.” Cinema Poetry includes a scene from that, but here’s another:

There are moments like this in the film where the camera swirls around as if it were the eye of a tornado, or alternatively as if it were the tornado circling around the eye. What would Deleuze call this? The spiral-image? It’s not quite Michael Snow’s La région centrale”, but it’s heading in that direction. (Snow’s specially constructed camera swings, swirls, twists, and circles around for a couple of hours, like Emerson’s transparent eyeball gone wild in the subarctic tundra of northern Quebec…)

Illienko’s “A Forest Song” (Lisova Pisnia: Mavka) is full of that kind of delirious camerawork (unlike Snow, integrated into the narrative). Unfortunately all I can find of it online is a poor copy of what appears to be the whole thing chopped into segments, dubbed into Russian with no subtitles. See also his Eve of Ivan Kupalo, perhaps the peak of Ukrainian magic realism.

(This post spun off from the last, where I concluded by noting the increasing amount of debris out in the upper atmosphere. Somehow I couldn’t resist pulling that image into the vortex of ecopolitics and the objects-relations debate, which is carrying on at hyper tiling, Object-Oriented Philosophy, Larval Subjects, and elsewhere.)

Like the tail of a dog who, in his immersed excitedness at any signs of life, notices movement behind himself and lurches back to catch it, humanity’s material ecologies are wagging behind us in various ways: from reports of melting glaciers and impending crashes of the ocean’s fish stocks to images of the Pacific Trash Vortex, space junk accumulating in the atmosphere (anyone remember the rains of space debris on Max Headroom?), the mountains of e-waste accumulating around the world (which, in our future history, take over the terrestrial landscape around the time of Wall-E), and the repositories of toxic and radioactive waste that dot the landscape all around us, though we rarely see or think about them. Sooner or later, the trash will hit the fan, somewhere at least, if not everywhere at once.

Our social ecologies work the same way, with “blowback” to social injustice arriving in the form of terrorism and other forms of political violence. If, as I’ve argued before, it’s better to think in threes than in twos — with our material ecologies (“nature”) and social ecologies (“culture”) supplemented and filled in with mental or perceptual ecologies, the actual interactive dynamics out of which the material and the social, or the “objective” and the “subjective,” continually emerge — then what is blowback in the perceptual dimension?

That’s easy: it’s guilt, bad dreams, and the other affective undercurrents that plague our “unconscious.” These are our responses to the eyes of the world (human and nonhuman). It’s what makes us feel that things aren’t right. It’s the traumatic kernel of the Real, which Lacan (and, somewhat differently, Buddhism) place at the origin of the self, but which in a collective sense is coming back to haunt us globally. (I’ve made the case for a psychoanalytically inspired ecologization of Fredric Jameson’s political symptomatology of culture here and here.)

We misperceive the nature of the world for the same reasons that we misperceive the nature of the self. Every social (and linguistic) order interpellates its members somewhat differently, but, over the course of humanity’s long history, most such orders have incorporated into that process some sense of responsibility to more-than-human entities or processes. In whatever way they were conceived — as spirits or divinities, or in terms of synthetic narrative or conceptual metaphors (life-force, the Way, the path, the four directions, etc.) — these have generally borne a crucial connection to what we now understand as ecology. Modern western capitalism has fragmented these relations, setting us up individually in relation to the products of a seemingly limitless marketplace, but leaving us collectively ecologically rudderless. So even if scientists, the empirical authorities of the day, tell us we’re fouling our habitat, we haven’t really figured out how to respond to that, at least not at the global levels where many of the symptoms occur.

Continue Reading »

triple digits

At some point over the past few weeks the number of GoogleReader subscribers to this blog inched up into the triple digits. (That doesn’t include subscribers on other feed readers.) While that’s no big deal compared to some of the blogs I follow, in terms of blog growth, which is probably more geometrical than arithmetical, one could think of it as akin to breaking out of the troposphere, where the bulk of the atmospheric mass is, into the stratosphere. The mesosphere, the next layer up, would be where the four-digit blogs are, like Leiter Reports (the most popular philosopher’s blog I’m aware of), Crooked Timber, Savage Minds, Culture Matters, Henry Jenkins’s Confessions of an Aca/Fan, Mark Fisher’s k-punk, David Byrne’s Journal, and some others.

Above the mesosphere is the five-digit thermosphere, which is the atmospheric layer where you find communication satellites. In the environmental or political blog worlds, those satellites would include WorldChanging, Grist, Dot Earth, Tree Hugger, Paul Krugman’s Conscience of a Liberal, and the big political blogs like Huffington Post (61,000 subscribers), which tops Technorati’s authority list, and The Daily Kos. GoogleReader’s count puts the Daily Kos at a stunning 270,000 subscribers, which ranks in the ionosphere, by my count (like the Aurora Borealis). The New York Times, with 1.7 million subscribers, is close to the moon, but that’s a feed, not a single blog. (The Times’s Opinionator is more like a blog aggregator, and that has just under 5,000 subscribers, though individual Times-hosted blogs, like Krugman’s Confessions or Revkin’s Dot Earth, get a lot more readers than that.) Of actual blogs, as opposed to feeds from popular web sites, even the top celebrity entertainment blogs like Gizmodo, TMZ (eBizMBA’s current popularity leader), and PerezHilton.com, are only in the upper thermosphere or, in the case of Gizmodo (115,000), just getting into the ionosphere.

I’m not sure how other blog readers correlate with popularity or influence, but from what I’ve seen they bring in far fewer subscribers than GoogleReader, probably because GoogleReader is so convenient: all your blog feeds come into one place, automatically, like your e-mail, but even more quickly, and they’re always there no matter where you are, since they’re saved on Google’s servers. Best of all, you can do almost anything with the click of a key: ‘like’ or ‘star’ a post (which adds it to its own folder), e-mail it, comment on it, forward it to your own blog, search all your feeds, follow others’ recommendations, organize them into folders, etc. While not all blogs can be read in full in GoogleReader — this one, for instance, usually only appears as the first bit of text — clicking on the title of the post will take you to the actual blog. It’s much easier and quicker than reading blogs by individually visiting every blog site you’re interested in. This is beginning to sound like an ad, so I’ll stop… But if you don’t use it, I do recommend giving GoogleReader a try.

Actually, most of the more specialized theoretical/philosophical blogs of any consequence are in the three-digit stratosphere, so I’m happy to be able to join them. (Well, just barely, and with the reality-suspending illusion that 100 is closer to 900 than to 10; on a geometrical growth curve it may be, but in real numbers it is far from it.) The numbers of ecocritics (i.e., working in cultural/literary/media studies) or ecophilosophers here are, in any case, pretty sparse. Maybe I should head over to warm my hands at the speculative realists’ bonfire — their excited conversations over in the distance (to gently mix metaphors) make up one of the brightest star clusters in the galactic vicinity.

(All that said, amidst the weather balloons and satellites of the blogosphere, there is still a lot of hot air and an increasing accumulation of space junk. The last thing I want to do is to contribute to it.)

normPage-10.jpg

Greenpeace has done a nice (counter) intelligence report on Koch Industries’ funding of the climate denial machine. According to the report, the Kansas-based petroleum and chemical industry conglomerate funded a network of lobbyists, think tanks, and front groups including the Mercatus Center, the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, and others, to the tune of $80 million since 1997, and $25 million in funding and $39 million in direct lobbying since 2006. (Apparently, the father of CEO Charles G. Koch, who ranks as the ninth wealthiest American, was a founder of the John Birch Society and of the Cato Institute.)

The report, which is well worth reading, is available here. Ever on top of things, Rachel Maddow takes on Koch (pronounced “Coke,” like the drink) here. (You can also watch the video on interviewee Jim Hoggan’s DeSmog blog). For more, see here. Koch Industries’ response is reproduced at greeninc, and some other memorable Koch quotes can be found here.

Seems someone else beat me to reviewing Bernd Herzogenrath’s anthology Deleuze/Guattari and Ecology for Deleuze Studies, and the reviews editor failed to tell me that (which he must have known for a few months now; I hope that’s not common practice for them). In any case, things like that happen, especially with academic journals that operate with little or no administrative support, as is the case with DS. I could send it to another journal, but DS is the leading venue for anglophone Deleuze scholarship and the book’s been out since late 2008, so I’ll just share it here, in its extended-length and hyperlinked (and thus ‘value-added’) version.

Incidentally, if anyone else would like a venue for online publishing of reviews related to Deleuze, eco/geophilosophy, and the like, I’m quite happy to make space available here for that. The print publication process, after all, takes time (and costs money), and journals are better used as venues for peer-reviewed scholarship, which also takes time, than for reviews, which are useful as soon as they’re written.

Continue Reading »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Skip to toolbar