TRIPLE O THE PSEUDO-FOE: notes on the Zizekian gentrification of OOO

Graham Harman’s OOO was born refuted. Incoherent in its fundamental premises, responding to a non-existent problem, positioning itself in a totally …

TRIPLE O THE PSEUDO-FOE: notes on the Zizekian gentrification of OOO

——- I feel obliged to represent rebuttals. Personally, I think many of them are kind of weak, and show really a misunderstanding of Harman’s proposals. I have read Harmon’s book “tool being”, I have read probably half of “gorilla metaphysics”, and I think the most significant thing that I’ve read by him is the essay that I have reposted called “on vicarious causation”. And I’ve read at least a few of those links that Terrence gives on agents form there, as well as agent swarms on critique. And I’ve read bits and pieces of arguments against Triple-o. To me, I’m not sure if any of them are really holding any water. I mean, they hold water within their own domain I suppose. But when I read Graham Harmons work, it’s like nothing I’ve ever read before. There is no phenomenologist of the 20th century that even comes close to the significance that I find in Harmons work . so that’s just me.

But that being said, Terrence has talked about Fayerband for sometime now, and I finally bought one of his books. And I got to say this dudes on point so, there’s that.

It seems that Terrence Blake and I overlap and concur in so many ways, but then in discussing it, we seem to differ on very basic and fundamental premises.

Anyways….

😘

I don’t know what I would say to someone who is giving me a rebuttal based on a misunderstanding of what I’m saying. Of course, I would try to explain it to them. But one should imagine that after a while of encountering the same kind of rebuttals, the same kind of questions, eventually, sooner or later, I would begin to be able to tell very quickly whether or not this person is “starting off on the right foot” toward or into my proposals, say. So after a while of repeated incidents.I would probably Learn that it is futile and just stay quiet and address those rebuttals which appear to me as Being closest to comprehending what I’m putting forth.

My analogy example that I’ve given at least a couple times in posts somewhere in my blogosphere here, is that there’s no amount of description of snow that I can give to someone who has never encountered snow to get them to understand what it is, let alone believe that it exists. Any approximation in their mind that they would have from my description of what snow is would fail at every instance until they actually encountered snow itself.

So I agree with Harmon in his celebration; “to the things in themselves!” 

But of course, as with everyone who has an ax to grind, if I don’t respond to your prodding, then that shows you evidence that I have no ground to stand on against your questioning. And ironically, indeed I wouldn’t! Because the ground of that persons understanding is fundamentally different. So indeed in that person’s domain there is no ground that I can occupy, because everything that I would say would necessarily sink into his quagmire of shifting sands. 

It would be as if I went into a programmer’s office and started telling him how the formatting of his coding is incorrect, or giving him arguments about how he should change things. Indeed, I know what all the numbers and symbols and letters are, I can even understand what lines of code are. I know where and what the computer is. Etc. But just because I know what the symbols are doesn’t mean that I understand one tidbit of the coder’s world so far as the coding functions toward an application. So it is the terms of discourse themselves likewise are analogous to this situation under certain conditions when two philosophers get together to compare notes.  The idea of discourse does not even then Keynote a common category through which we can all understand each other. In the same way that a professional baseball players understanding and approach to the world cannot be comprehended buy a librarian, nor vice versa.  there is nothing that either could say to each other, no description that either could give to the other, which would do justice to either of their experiences. We have to let a librarian be a librarian, and a baseball player to be a baseball player, in themselves.

*

So again, as I keep giving examples of as well as keep attempting to explain, we have evidence of two routes Upon objects. And, yes, I have attempted to give an example to round out how philosophy itself can be an object in my recently published essay “an essay concerning the possibility of a unified theory of counseling” (see my post with the link).

It is a kind of exercise in futility against which one retains more integrity by remaining silent.

Four, how loud would a baseball player have to be, how violent would she have to get upon the librarian in order for the librarian to agree that the baseball players world is actually the true world? And yet philosophers don’t see this as a violence, nor do they see themselves yelling, because they don’t even admit that within the category of philosophy there are baseball players, librarians, landscapers, and rocket scientist. Philosophers would say that all those categories must answer to philosophy and that philosophy is able to address The one in total category. 

It becomes obvious, though, after a while of trying to entertain people who claim to understand, as I’m trying to speak to them or speak to the rebuttals or comments, that they just plain do not get it. And it isn’t really as much that they don’t understand, as much as it is that the basis of their understanding is unable to formulate the conceptions. And this is not an insult. For the insult falls into the assumption that everyone who claims philosophy does have access to all things of knowledge. Actually, it is just a description of the facts. 

The overwhelming and obvious evidence is that there are two fundamentally different views, what I say are Orientations, upon what knowledge actually is.

It is not an argument about some reductive quality of a unified category of “knowledge”. Harman clearly distinguishes this in his works. What is phenomenal, has a form in as much as what is formal is likewise a phenomenon. These two causes overlap, but in essence they do not reduce to either one successfully nor truthfully.

.As I say in many places in previous posts, what we are witnessing is that there is no traversal across a category. For any given category that I might bring up, it is apparently obvious that it fails, no matter how much or how detailed I would wish to describe the extent of that given category, the problematic category whatever it is, Communication is simply not taking place. It is not a communication that I don’t like, as some theorists would want to say that communication is always occurring, it’s just you may not like what communication is occurring. What people don’t like, in truth, is to admit that there’s no communication  in this case taking place. It is a kind of stubbornness, indeed a phenomenology of subjectivity involved in the assertion of its own privilege and privacy, instead of actually looking at, viewing, and understanding the truth of the situation that is presented. It is what we could call a modern denial and justification of an inherent offense to one’s own being. 

I say no; in this particular case of philosophy, there is no communication that is taking place. The open presentation of sensible discourse, of arrangements of clauses and disseminating of definitions is not being communicated in its integrity to these other parties. Definition, no matter how detailed, has failed. This is what is occurring despite the protestations. One can even go so far as the contemplations of the end of history, in the end of philosophy, and the decline of civilization, is coinciding with a denial and failure to address this inherent failure of communication . It’s like we have to double down on the denial because were so offended. 

So as I say, in these particular cases of philosophy and interaction, it is more responsible to allow a tree be a tree and a rock a rock, instead of demanding that there must be some sort of fundamental essence that makes a rock a tree, and a tree a rock, some essential ether, or some basic material of which both a rock and a tree are made of which thus negates the Rockness or the Treeness, except as a further abstract category. 

As I put in my previous post, the question that we have to ask ourselves is what are we trying to do when we engage with philosophy?

And this demands honesty. And this demands responsibility for what we are doing or trying to do.

Are we are trying to find some essential of oneness at the heart of everything, whether it is an infinite relativity of discursive gymnastics, or whether it’s a basic and fundamental big bang at the beginning of everything, or whether it’s a prime creator.

 or, are we involved in just talking about what there is without any presumptions about how knowledge should proceed in order to be knowledge.

Or, are we involved with something else.

Philosophy, often enough, as soon as I say the word philosophy, all the sudden the assumption is is that we are all involved in this grant process of reducing everything to one unitive truth.  So I guess another question I have is are we able to discuss things to their ends, to the fundamental causes, without then having to reduce whatever series of final causes, to a great and wonderful “big unitive cause”?

I don’t know. All I’m saying is that I’m not involved in trying to reduce something to one great unitive cause. There might be other projects. But I’m also saying is that most often people will not admit what they’re really trying to do, and this is why I ask for honesty and responsibility. Because it would go along ways not only to accept the situation as it is, but allowing people to be heard. 

*

While I respect Terrence’s Philosophical approach and work, and he and I have had lengthy interactions and discussions in years past, it is simply a matter to me that many people are simply not understanding the text in front of them as it is intended.

In fact, in a post that I wrote maybe four or five years ago, I talked about how Harmons answering and rebuttals to critiques or a bottle of that obviously do not understand where he’s coming from, amounts to an effort of bad faith on Harmons Part. Namely, that he is reifying the mistake, in terms of Lacan. But also, I attempt to correct that mistake by pointing to the issue of orientation, instead of standing in a firm position of object oriented ontology. The issue is orientation. The issue is not whether or not Harmon has an argument. Indeed Harmon Hass to have an argument because he makes his living doing philosophy. But the significance of his work, Ironically, is that he’s almost required to defend his position against three bottles from people who are missing the mark. (as I describe all through my blog).

The failure is not in the misunderstanding or the mistake that everything should be able to be understood of everyone else’s position philosophically. No; The failure is in philosophy, as a discipline, as a whole effort that various people think they are involved with, admitting where junctures and differences actually arise. It is not argumentative, in fact I would go to the extent to say that it is ante- or pre- argumentative.  The division or the juncture occurs before any argument can be made in rebuttal. Because what is required is the first understand the position that is being described. It is not a matter of understanding the position as an argument. see again my two routes. 

It is not difficult to find this occasion of failure, and then begin to comprehend what is actually happening socially and in reality. Not only in the context of race relations, but mental health in general, we find everywhere in critical circles that intention is not sufficient. It does not matter what my intention is, because it fails. What matters is that I become open to the possibility of other despite my intention.

And we see this in the political realm presently also. It is not difficult to see what is happening in American politics is conservatism sticking to the centralized intentional subject, as its values and beliefs are understood as essential to the universe and human beings, or at least people who live in the United States, the citizens. This conservatism is located in the figure of Donald Trump. This figure at every turn just claims hey, I’m a good guy, I don’t mean to offend anyone I’m just speaking my truth. As Zizek suggested 4 years ago, Trump is the epitome of phenomenological intention, Despite what the left would want to say about its subjectivity.

But then we could say on the other side is the Black Lives Matter kind of thing. This side represents the opening to the possibility of the other. The willingness to give up my concrete intention and good willingness for the sake of believing someone else and their experience might fall outside of what I am able to understand.

*

So when we Juxtapose these two situations, philosophy, politics and reality, and we have a sort of triad of mixture of juxtaposition Ing, we can find a reason why I am able to speak to philosophy itself being viewed as an object. And as well that there is this “thing” that I call “conventional philosophy” which demands that anything I say is able to be understood, comprehended, and addressed by anyone else using language, But so long as we play the game of phenomenalism and its brother in law, discourse.

  yes, I say, it is possible and indeed we do find that demand. But in the end, again I say, it is not very responsible for what is true of the situation at hand.

Hypermodernity podcast on Lovecraft

Hypermodernity podcast on Lovecraft

https://doctorzamalek2.wordpress.com/2020/03/31/hypermodernity-podcast-on-lovecraft/
— Read on doctorzamalek2.wordpress.com/2020/03/31/hypermodernity-podcast-on-lovecraft/

If you don’t know, then here you go.

What else you doing during your Corona Seclusion?

Not only how technology inscribes spaces of knowledge, but how the being of that situation is weird !

A Phenomenological Critique of Object Oriented Ontology

HERE is a recent published journal paper critique of OOO.

I think of the most salient issues that forms the divide between these issues, these ideas, is: Is though sufficient in-itself to achieve the object of argumentation?

The answer, I feel, forms the pure reason which makes to divide substantial. I enjoyed where this author ended.

Here it is at ResearchGate.

Here is another comment on the situation.

interview on Baudrillard

interview on Baudrillard

https://doctorzamalek2.wordpress.com/2020/02/11/interview-on-baudrillard/
— Read on doctorzamalek2.wordpress.com/2020/02/11/interview-on-baudrillard/

One might imagine that Harman’s Kierkegaard investigation might have some concern of how the absurd actually indicates the attainable object found by the love of wisdom, rather than indicating a limit that we know within ethically negotiated universal relative objects which remain utterly contained in correlational knowledge, that is to say, known through knowledge of what things do and what they are made of, as if indeed such arguments of wit and prowess are all there is.

Perhaps his discussion of Kierkegaard will involve the multiplicity of perspectives that is ordained by an inability to uphold an authenticity which informs all decision to the absurd matter of having a choice that is no choice.

I wonder if Graham ever looks at the post links he is allowing?

I am going to send him a letter I think. 😉

I guess we will see.

“On Progressive and Degenerating Research Programs With Respect to Philosophy”

“On Progressive and Degenerating Research Programs With Respect to Philosophy”

https://doctorzamalek2.wordpress.com/2020/02/08/on-progressive-and-degenerating-research-programs-with-respect-to-philosophy/
— Read on doctorzamalek2.wordpress.com/2020/02/08/on-progressive-and-degenerating-research-programs-with-respect-to-philosophy/

Read: The Philosophical Hack

Oh Kaay!

I finally took a minute and got some things in order.

THE OBJECT OF THE SUBJECT : The Second Part of the Philosophical Hack  is available in EPUB HERE. 

Screen Shot 2019-08-29 at 7.15.12 PM

                 and in paperback HERE.

THE PHILOSOPHICAL HACK: The First Part is available HERE in paper back.

img_5039

“The Philosophical Hack a hack into philosophy. A hack in one sense is someone who knows how to use the technology but nevertheless assembles useful objects in non-conventional manners. A hack is someone who adeptly utilizes standard methods but is not employed to make marketed products. Yet in another sense, a hack is a repeated application of a specific yet broad algorithmic protocol upon a closed problematic space. The role of the hack is at once to disrupt and to consolidate. The hack is a check on the security of closed functional systems, as well as the impetus for its growth. Defining this problematic space through a careful assault on weak points in the philosophical facade, Nathaniel offers us a way into a “science of philosophy”.  Mr. Nathaniel is writing to a wide intelligent audience. It is written in such a way that the philosophical mind will not be ostracized but will indeed be challenged. It is indeed a philosophical hack.”

 

Using Slavoj Zizek’s EVENT! as a platform, Nathaniel moves us beyond Zizek’s more political subjective confines into an object orientation.  Graham Harman, of noted Object Oriented Ontology, posits that knowledge either speaks to what a thing is made of or what it does, and that while we need knowledge to exist and to thrive as human beings, cognition is not exhausted by knowledge.  Objects, in this sense, exist at once as present and withdrawn.

Further, he suggests that philosophy is not only about knowledge, not only about what what objects do and what they are made of, but about the love of wisdom. 

He also tells us that Object Oriented Philosophy includes the human being as an object, what Nathaniel calls a universal object.

Setting up a few steps back from Harman’s front, and in Harman’s terms, the Philosophical Hack sets up the contours of a philosophy as an effort of love toward or involved with wisdom. Nathaniel thereby begins to lay the groundwork toward a hopefully more substantial and meaningful practical philosophy for mental health and counseling.  In this new understanding, the conventional and traditional modes of human Being, such as science, biology, psychology, religion, and spirituality, as well as the traditional philosophical theoretical (as many we know) constitute contributing components of the object that is the subject.

The Philosophical Hack is the beginning of a philosophy which includes other disciplines to form a more coherent and seamless cognition of what the human being actually is as a universal object infinite in its involvement with other objects, as opposed to what the human Being is able to be as a transcendental and special phenomenal subject limited in its ideological nothingness.

This new way is to retain everything, as opposed to excluding.

#mentalhealth, #objectorientationcounseling, #truth, #loveofwisdom

*

 

video of Harmans visit to Tijuana

video of my visit to Tijuana

https://doctorzamalek2.wordpress.com/2019/12/31/video-of-my-visit-to-tijuana/
— Read on doctorzamalek2.wordpress.com/2019/12/31/video-of-my-visit-to-tijuana/

Knowledge is not the whole of cognition.

Knowledge either overmines or undermines. We do need knowledge to survive. What things are made of and what they do.

But knowledge is not the whole of cognition.

Philosophy is not a type of knowledge, not a claim of how to have knowledge. 

Philosophy is the love of wisdom..

Harman’s Folly.

I submit that Harmans OOO is concerned with philosophical objects, and due to this focus, understands reality is hidden behind a screen of sense. We can begin to see that Harman’s real objects reflect that he sees himself as dealing with thought as the foundation of everything else, Becuase obviously he is using his proposal in a field of other equally valid proposals of thoughts, the actual object they talk about, then, withdraws from the discussion. In this way. Harman’s proposal falls flat so much as it indeed might have to do with real things.

I am skeptical of the kind of hinting that uses thought as unapproachable while foregrounding the discourse as though he is not merely using sleight of hand to not be using his centrality of thinker position, a specifically phenomenal and postmodern tack. Despite his speculative realist claim.

Even so, his does have use. As we see, and discuss elsewhere.

Mark Foster Gage and OOO

Mark Foster Gage and OOO

https://doctorzamalek2.wordpress.com/2019/12/15/mark-foster-gage-and-ooo/
— Read on doctorzamalek2.wordpress.com/2019/12/15/mark-foster-gage-and-ooo/

Interesting article.

While reading it, I was come upon a significant issue where Harman is revealed to his metaphysics.

It appears Gage is an architect that only makes art, but his art uses the state of technology to make structures that appear like they are photos of actual buildings, even though the art may defy what we are able to physically construct as a usable building.

And here is where the issue appears, and is where I think Harman and OOO is finding most of its purchase in at least architecture (Harman works as SCIarc in Los Angeles, an architectural school).

Gage says that he likes to deal in structures that appear real, but are not.

Now, I know what he means, and that’s why in the paragraph above I tried my best not to use the word “real”, And instead use the words “actual” and “usable” and etc.

And this use of “real” by Gage appears to me fitting with OOO Becuase Harman says the real object withdraws from view, or is always kept neatly out of sight, harboring itself in the shadows.

Where I differ with Harman and this kind of OOO metaphysics is when I ask if the art that gage is making is itself real. Are the structures in his art real ? And my next question thus asked in what way am I able to even perceive Gage’s structures in the art itself is not real.

I have a comment on Harman that will only get answered after I die, maybe (lol) For the simple fact that Harmon will never stoop to answer my question or address my point. 🙂

Nevertheless, I submit that Harmans OOO is concerned with philosophical objects, and due to this focus, understands reality is hidden behind a screen of sense. We can begin to see that Harman’s real objects reflect that he sees himself as dealing with thought as the foundation of everything else, Becuase obviously he is using his proposal in a field of other equally valid proposals of thoughts, the actual object they talk about, then, withdraws from the discussion. In this way. Harman’s proposal falls flat so much as it indeed might have to do with real things.

I am skeptical of this kind of hinting that uses thought as unapproachable while foregrounding the discourse as though he is not merely using sleight of hand to not be using his centrality of thinker position.

And I think I thus see an irony that Harman attempts to avoid by simply remaining in philosophical space as though it is able to address all things outside of it. 

I side more with Bruno Latour, one of Harmans hero’s, ironically again. Latour suggests that reality is right in front of us at all times, harboring no actuality of itself, nothing hidden, but objects occurring within networks of objects.

What is in the shadows appears to me to be merely another kind of phenomenalism, yet of a kind that Harman decries.

I cannot but wonder how OOO has taken the full power of phenomenal assertion to argue a metaphysics that only has substance due to the motion that Latour describes in his book “The Pasteuriszation of France”. Namely, that Harmon must argue a shadowy reality Becuase Harman is involved in a kind of Pasturian scientific phenomenon where time moves due to a certain kind of religious adherence to phenomenal intension and its power to ignore what Adler and Hillman might call “inferior”. Harman, while his idea to me appears sound, is being used in a particularly dishonest manner, one which only acknowledges the “presence of the superior”.

See my posts on bad faith.

Nathaniel: Revisiting “On Vicarious Causation”

This excerpt from Graham Harman’s “on vicarious causation” from 2007 in the journal called Collapse (it is not difficult to find the PDF online) represents succinctly what Cedric Nathaniel means when writes that his philosophical work is not concerned with “what is behind the scenes”, what he generally ascribes to metaphysics, what he calls “conventional philosophy”, and what Francois Laruelle refers to as “sufficient philosophy”.

Harman’s article here puts in very clear terms what Nathaniel means when he talks about what is ‘actually occurring’, that is supposed occurring right in front of our faces, as opposed to what our introspective minds might dredge up from the underworld of “subjective” or what Nathaniel generalizes as phenomenological truths. (Nathaniel inverts Harman’s categories and says that what is phenomenological is ultimately real, where what Nathaniel calls true is what Harmon calls real).

It is how Harman says; phenomenological sensual Truths ride along top of the real object, and as I’ve said recently in a post of mine, That ideals based in subjective, discursive, linguistic etc. modes ride along top what is actually in front of us (that is, once we get beyond the appearance of the phenomenon) like the Hawaiian islands ride along top of a hotspot in the earths crust.

This (object, as opposed to subject) orientation upon things of philosophy I see is much more useful in its truth than grounding whatever theoretical activity in whatever subjective imagination of sense that an individual might be able to fit together; That is, if we are ever trying to get anywhere in philosophy besides a crate load of artistic freedom of expression. Hence I find in Cedric Nathaniel’s books an interesting move towards a science of philosophy.

I would suggest revisiting Harmons seminal article written in 2007, “on vicarious causation”. And consider it in light of James Hillman’s “healing fiction” just what sort of fiction that conventional (phenomenally based)  philosophy writes for itself, given the evidence of the condition of our world, and where intentional communion with the object of thought might be creating more destruction than indeed healing.  perhaps what we are considering imagination it’s not so imaginative after all.  Perhaps there is a weak consideration of what imagination is so far as it might be applied to real activity, which is to say, a weak estimation, a correlation even, between imagination and what is good for the world, as evidenced by the shape or condition of the world, so far as whether we are actually harming or helping that condition. Slavoj Zizek is tight in his discussions about capitalism as quite difficult to imagine beyond: as Nathaniel says, It is due to the phenomenological redundancy which sees in its own reflection an infinity of objective truth obtainable from intuition of a transcendent other (religious communion), the excess that profit and investment arise from.

…..

And I imagine over December I’ll produce a paper along these lines. 😛

Grow. Begin the hack.