[FRIAM] Object Oriented Ontology

[Patrick Reilly]

I bought a copy. For real.

On Thursday, July 5, 2018, uǝlƃ ☣ <gepropella at gmail.com> wrote:

> I realize I'm that tool who always invites himself to these parties.  But
> I'm intrigued enough to read along with you.  At first I was skeptical
> because of this:
>
> https://philpapers.org/archive/BLAMSR.pdf
> > Harman's objectal reduction is an apodictic posit, invulnerable to
> empirical testing.
>
> But this revived my interest:
>
> http://www.re-press.org/book-files/OA_Version_Speculative_
> Turn_9780980668346.pdf
> > In this spirit, then, when we reflect on the basic questions of
> philosophy we note that in one way or another they all revolve around
> issues of difference. What are the relevant differences? How are
> differences to be ordered or hierarchized? How are dif- ferences related to
> one another? Let us therefore resolve straight away to begin with the
> premise that there is no difference that does not make a difference .
> Alternatively, let us be- gin with the premise that to be is to make or
> produce differences. How, in short, could difference be difference if it
> did not make a difference? I will call this hypothesis the ‘Ontic
> Principle’. This principle should not be confused with a normative judgment
> or a statement of value . It is not being claimed that all differences are
> important to us. Rath- er, the claim that there is no difference that does
> not make a difference is an ontological claim. The claim is that ‘to be’ is
> to make or produce a difference.
>
> In part because there's something counter-intuitive, self-contradictory,
> or paradoxical about *not* starting with a method like criticality, yet
> starting with the assumption that all the basic questions revolve around
> issues of difference.  What is critique *except* pointing out differences?
> So, that question will force me to learn more about OOO.
>
>
>
> On 07/04/2018 06:51 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> > One of you [wretches], assigned me this book <https://www.amazon.com/
> Object-Oriented-Ontology-New-Theory-Everything/dp/
> 0241269156/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1530754578&sr=8-1-
> fkmr1&keywords=Graham+Harmon+Object+Oriented> for a little light summer
> reading before I left SF in March.  It was a seductive assignment.  In the
> first place, the book is a little book.  I LIKE little books.  Cheap and
> easy to carry.  In the second place, as I read around in it, I see echoes
> of Peirce in its monism and realism and fascination with metaphors (aka
> “signs”?).  Every chapter begins in an ingratiating introduction that gives
> promise of progress in the rational construction of a complex idea.
> >
> > There my praise ends.  I have started all the chapters with the greatest
> of good will and have gotten thoroughly lost in every one.
> >
> > I deeply suspect that whichever one of you [wretches] who assigned it to
> me has never read it from cover to cover.
> >
> > SO:    Will you now do that with me?  And will others join?  It would be
> best if we could snare a few philosophers to join us because the author
> does seem to be rather deeply into philosophy, both post modern and the
> other kind.
> >
> > It’s hard to believe that it has /nothing/ to do with object oriented
> programing, but it may not.
>
> --
> ☣ uǝlƃ
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>


-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20180705/bf34382b/attachment.html>