Welcome to The Valve
Login
Register


Valve Links

The Front Page
Statement of Purpose

John Holbo - Editor
Scott Eric Kaufman - Editor
Aaron Bady
Adam Roberts
Amardeep Singh
Andrew Seal
Bill Benzon
Daniel Green
Jonathan Goodwin
Joseph Kugelmass
Lawrence LaRiviere White
Marc Bousquet
Matt Greenfield
Miriam Burstein
Ray Davis
Rohan Maitzen
Sean McCann
Guest Authors

Laura Carroll
Mark Bauerlein
Miriam Jones

Past Valve Book Events

cover of the book Theory's Empire

Event Archive

cover of the book The Literary Wittgenstein

Event Archive

cover of the book Graphs, Maps, Trees

Event Archive

cover of the book How Novels Think

Event Archive

cover of the book The Trouble With Diversity

Event Archive

cover of the book What's Liberal About the Liberal Arts?

Event Archive

cover of the book The Novel of Purpose

Event Archive

The Valve - Closed For Renovation

Happy Trails to You

What’s an Encyclopedia These Days?

Encyclopedia Britannica to Shut Down Print Operations

Intimate Enemies: What’s Opera, Doc?

Alphonso Lingis talks of various things, cameras and photos among them

Feynmann, John von Neumann, and Mental Models

Support Michael Sporn’s Film about Edgar Allen Poe

Philosophy, Ontics or Toothpaste for the Mind

Nazi Rules for Regulating Funk ‘n Freedom

The Early History of Modern Computing: A Brief Chronology

Computing Encounters Being, an Addendum

On the Origin of Objects (towards a philosophy of computation)

Symposium on Graeber’s Debt

The Nightmare of Digital Film Preservation

Richard Petti on Occupy Wall Street: America HAS a Ruling Class

Bill Benzon on Whatwhatwhatwhatwhatwhatwhat?

Nick J. on The Valve - Closed For Renovation

Bill Benzon on Encyclopedia Britannica to Shut Down Print Operations

Norma on Encyclopedia Britannica to Shut Down Print Operations

Bill Benzon on What’s an Object, Metaphysically Speaking?

john balwit on What’s an Object, Metaphysically Speaking?

William Ray on That Shakespeare Thing

Bill Benzon on That Shakespeare Thing

William Ray on That Shakespeare Thing

JoseAngel on That Shakespeare Thing

Bill Benzon on Objects and Graeber's Debt

Bill Benzon on A Dirty Dozen Sneaking up on the Apocalypse

JoseAngel on A Dirty Dozen Sneaking up on the Apocalypse

JoseAngel on Objects and Graeber's Debt

Advanced Search

Articles
RSS 1.0 | RSS 2.0 | Atom

Comments
RSS 1.0 | RSS 2.0 | Atom

XHTML | CSS

Powered by Expression Engine
Logo by John Holbo

Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

 


Blogroll

2blowhards
About Last Night
Academic Splat
Acephalous
Amardeep Singh
Beatrice
Bemsha Swing
Bitch. Ph.D.
Blogenspiel
Blogging the Renaissance
Bookslut
Booksquare
Butterflies & Wheels
Cahiers de Corey
Category D
Charlotte Street
Cheeky Prof
Chekhov’s Mistress
Chrononautic Log
Cliopatria
Cogito, ergo Zoom
Collected Miscellany
Completely Futile
Confessions of an Idiosyncratic Mind
Conversational Reading
Critical Mass
Crooked Timber
Culture Cat
Culture Industry
CultureSpace
Early Modern Notes
Easily Distracted
fait accompi
Fernham
Ferule & Fescue
Ftrain
GalleyCat
Ghost in the Wire
Giornale Nuovo
God of the Machine
Golden Rule Jones
Grumpy Old Bookman
Ideas of Imperfection
Idiocentrism
Idiotprogrammer
if:book
In Favor of Thinking
In Medias Res
Inside Higher Ed
jane dark’s sugarhigh!
John & Belle Have A Blog
John Crowley
Jonathan Goodwin
Kathryn Cramer
Kitabkhana
Languagehat
Languor Management
Light Reading
Like Anna Karina’s Sweater
Lime Tree
Limited Inc.
Long Pauses
Long Story, Short Pier
Long Sunday
MadInkBeard
Making Light
Maud Newton
Michael Berube
Moo2
MoorishGirl
Motime Like the Present
Narrow Shore
Neil Gaiman
Old Hag
Open University
Pas au-delà
Philobiblion
Planned Obsolescence
Printculture
Pseudopodium
Quick Study
Rake’s Progress
Reader of depressing books
Reading Room
ReadySteadyBlog
Reassigned Time
Reeling and Writhing
Return of the Reluctant
S1ngularity::criticism
Say Something Wonderful
Scribblingwoman
Seventypes
Shaken & Stirred
Silliman’s Blog
Slaves of Academe
Sorrow at Sills Bend
Sounds & Fury
Splinters
Spurious
Stochastic Bookmark
Tenured Radical
the Diaries of Franz Kafka
The Elegant Variation
The Home and the World
The Intersection
The Litblog Co-Op
The Literary Saloon
The Literary Thug
The Little Professor
The Midnight Bell
The Mumpsimus
The Pinocchio Theory
The Reading Experience
The Salt-Box
The Weblog
This Public Address
This Space: The Fire’s Blog
Thoughts, Arguments & Rants
Tingle Alley
Uncomplicatedly
Unfogged
University Diaries
Unqualified Offerings
Waggish
What Now?
William Gibson
Wordherders

Thursday, December 08, 2011

What’s an Object, Metaphysically Speaking?

Posted by Bill Benzon on 12/08/11 at 01:07 PM

When I first got interested in object-oriented ontology (OOO) I wondered just what qualified as an object, metaphysically speaking. I suppose the question was particularly acute because, at that time, I was reading Tim Morton’s early thinking on hyperobjects, which presupposed ordinary metaphysical objects and seemed to extend it in some (possibly strange) way to some special class of objects, objects, Tim, said, that were massively distributed in space and time. Such as global climate change. What’s to be gained, I wondered, by saying that climate change is an object, as opposed, say, to a process?

And that question—what IS an object?—was still very much on my mind at the OOO meetings in New York City in mid-September. A brief exchange between Graham Harman and Levi Bryant clarified that at bit. I forget just what they were talking about, but they decided tnat, no, it wasn’t an object, it was a set, an arbitrary collection of objects. So, (metaphysical) objects are one thing, sets another. We’re getting somewhere.

Then I discovered, perhaps in reading The Quadruple Object (which I’m still studying, it’s a dense little book) that imaginary objects are as much under consideration as, well, real objects. Except, you see, that imaginary objects are real objects, don’t you see? but not real in the way that real objects are. Now, of course, that’s not what Harman says, nor is it quite what I was thinking or am now thinking, but it’s a useful index of potential confusion.

What I was looking for was some special definition of what constitutes and object. And there isn’t one. Objects are in opposition to relations, and there’s this story about a hammer, or an orange or a tree, whatever, that’s always withdrawing itself from us and from other objects: “. . . an object is anything that has a unified reality that is autonomous from its wider context and also from its own pieces” (Quadruple, p. 116).

OK. So, is a shadow an object? Here’s a photograph of a shadow:


IMGP5761rd

It’s perhaps unnecessarily complex for this purpose, but it will have to do.

The shadow is of a rail fence as it is cast on a field of grasses and wildflowers. The bottom rail is clearly visible about a third of the way up from the bottom. The top rail is above the middle but it tends to get lost in the darker green of the remaining leafage on the tops of the plants.

As far as I can tell, this shadow, and any other shadow, fails the autonomy requirement. Shadows exist ONLY in context. If you eliminate either the light source (or sources), the occluding object (or objects), or the receptive surface (or surfaces), and there is no shadow. Thus shadows aren’t objects. But they can nonetheless give rise to sensual objects, an example of which is captured in that photo, and I’ve got other photos of that shadow, other sensual objects. That shadow is as perceptible as any of the many plants on which it is projected.

So, a shadow is something that isn’t itself an object, a real object, but gives rise to sensual objects. Imaginary objects give rise to sensual objects too. But what sort of thing is a shadow that it has effects in the world like those of, well, real objects and imaginary objects?

I don’t know what kind of question this is in the context of object-oriented ontology. I don’t know how to resolve it or to weigh it. But it’s not shadows that I’m concerned about. It’s those imaginary objects, some of which are more or less like real objects, except that they’re imaginary, some of which are completely fantastic and only like real objects in this or that property or component, and some of which may even have been thought to be real but have now turned out to be only imaginary (dragons? phlogiston?). As far as I can tell, the imaginary objects of which we know require the support of human culture (though I wouldn’t be surprised if at least some animals experience imaginary objects) and human culture, conceptually, is a mess.

What worries me is that human culture may well rest on vast assemblages of things that exist and dissolve like shadows. To the extent that that is so—and I’ve certainly not demonstrated it—I’m not sure what object-oriented ontology is going to have to say about it. The physical set-up that gives us the shadow of a rail fence on a field is much like the physical set-up that gives us the image of Wily Coyote going over a cliff and hanging suspended in the air for a moment until he looks down and then, zip! he falls. Instead of the field we have a motion picture screen; instead of the sun we have the projector bulb; and instead of the occluding fence we have the film strip rushing through the gate. Eliminate any one of those and zip! no more Wily Coyote over the cliff.

There are other ways to cut that, but I’m not sure where any of them lead. What I’m wondering is whether or not, in claiming to talk about things like Wily Coyote as easily as it talks about hammers and tsunamis, whether object-oriented ontology isn’t claiming the prize before having run the race. The funny thing is, perhaps OOO in fact deserves that prize. But I’d like to see how it runs the race.


Comments

I am hoping that you have had time to finish the The Quadruple Object and are now in a position to clarify this matter for us, your reading audience (a set of reading objects?). I think these questions have practical value in understanding aspects of human culture and social organization at various scales. At a very low level (perhaps not the lowest) humans are a collection of cooperation cells. We recognize the aggregate as perhaps the quintessential thing--a person. These “things” aggregate to make families, communities, political parties (tribes), and (if they are lucky) unified nations. Perhaps there is an upper bound represented by some global entity (but why stop there?).

In any event, I really like your brief exploration of the ontology of a “shadow"--I will be using that example (with vague attribution “something I saw on the Internet") in my future discussions :) .  I would love to see anything else that you have written on this subject.

Perhaps you or someone else reading this could direct to the philosophical literature on this topic. I am interested in complex adaptive systems and understanding the evolution of cooperation. I am looking for formal and maybe, falsifiable examples of what constitutes an entity.

John Balwit balwit-at-gmale.com

By on 02/20/12 at 12:37 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Well, I HAVE written quite a bit about OOO, and while all of that is somewhere on The Valve, the easiest way to get it is to go to this link at my other blog, New Savanna. That’ll take you to all I’ve written on OOO so far.

As for whether or not a shadow counts as a object, I sent that post by some OOOers, including, as I recall, Harman, and have gotten no response. I’ve mostly finished The Quadruple Object and, on the basis of that reading I’d have to say that, no, a shadow is not a real object because it’s not autonomous. But if that’s so, then it’s not clear what it might be.

My impression is that OOO is still very much in process and these things are still being worked out. Tim Morton has a useful tutorial on OOO at his blog.

By Bill Benzon on 02/20/12 at 01:29 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Add a comment:

Name:
Email:
Location:
URL:

 

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below: