<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p> </p>
<p><img onload="google.aft&&google.aft(this)"
src="cid:part1.078E771F.05F1079E@ziggo.nl" class="irc_mi
iDrovRGBsFqk-pQOPx8XEepE" alt="Afbeeldingsresultaat voor
quadruple object" style="margin-top: 103px;" height="355"
width="418"></p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.zero-books.net/books/quadruple-object-the">http://www.zero-books.net/books/quadruple-object-the</a><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 09/20/2016 11:19 AM, J.N. wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:24940b94-c084-d16e-648c-9f64aaa5f255@ziggo.nl"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">De Object-geörienteerde filosofie van Harman; flux en honden.
Undermining and overmining objects
'The same problem arises if objects are rejected as too static and
dethroned in favor of some "play of difference" or primordial flux of
becoming. Tt might be said that reality itself is flux, and that talk
of objects merely crystallizes becoming in an abstract state, deprived
of its vital inner dynamism. But the same problem arises here as
before. For if we say that any specific dog or moon is merely an
abstraction from a deeper flux, we still need to ask whether the world
is one flux or many. If only one, then we are back with monism. But if
many, then The Quadruple Object each has some sort of specific and
integral character, and this already makes it an object. The same holds
true for philosophies of difference, which claim that a thing has no
identity but instead always differs from itself. For whatever it means
to say that an object differs from itself, the fact remains that
airplanes, carrots, electrical pylons, triremes, walls, and men differ
from themselves in different ways. The philosophy of difference may give
us blurry entities laced with negation and relationality, but they are
entities nonetheless.
More could be said about each of these strategics. But for our
purposes it is enough to call them strategies that undermine objects
as the root of philosophy. All of them claim that objects are too
specific to deserve the name of ultimate reality, and dream up some
deeper indeterminate basis from which specific things arise. They find
it naive to think of dogs as basic elements of the world, since dogs
really must be just aggregates of organic chemicals, or fragments of
apeiron, or an active "dogging" rather than the stasis of a solid
dog-thing, or the result of a long evolutionary struggle with climate
and predators. All such strategies assume that a dog, candle, or army is
built of some basic physical or historical element whose permutations
give rise to these objects as a sort of derivative product. All arc
versions of reductionism in which objects only gain their reality from
elsewhere. All are forms of critique that view individual objects in a
spirit of nihilism, destroying them with bulldozers to make way for
something more fundamental. They view objects as too shallow to be the
fundamental reality in the universe.'
--p. 9-10 The Quadruple Object, Graham Harman
_______________________________________________
D66 mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:D66@tuxtown.net">D66@tuxtown.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.tuxtown.net/mailman/listinfo/d66">http://www.tuxtown.net/mailman/listinfo/d66</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>