“an object is a postmodern subject”
Granted I’m not laying out my whole theoretical base here in these comments. If you’re interested I’ve written a couple books or you could check out the rest my blog.
Objects may go along with representational thinking but I would challenge anyone to not have some thinking that is representational despite how you wanted to define it.
The problems we are confronting in our day is the perpetuation of postmodern kind of D construction or postmodern kind of application of theoretical forces.
I simply take The method of such applications and the results as facts. When we consider the ontological result of what we might generalize as postmodern thought, my argument is that it is found to be an incorrect method. And that due to this incorrect manner, what I call an orientation, I place the whole tradition which supposes to find itself in the postmodern condition in the category of object.
What this means then is that objects are subject to postmodern condition. And that the subject being at self an agent of post modernity itself becomes an object of its own estimations, it’s own constructions as well as its own deconstructions. The totality that this situation indicates can be called thus an object in itself, because it defines itself by its limitations.
This is where I see Adams robust ontology, The ability to have such an analysis, text From, again despite all the theoretical postulates and name associations.
I have a feeling all the stuff is going to be in my third book which will be out sometime in 2017.
For those interested, you can find my latest book HERE.