So is this the new wave of philosophy? Is anyone on Veeky Forums interested in this stuff?

>reclaiming a realist Kantian noumena, inexhaustible and always partially withdrawn

Yeah, I think 'objects with 'personal 'lives'', scare quotes and all, captures the sense of it rather 'handily', which is why I employed the term.

You haven't augmented my understanding in the slightest.

Yes, this is good. ID for a post-human future. Scenic byways designed for tumbleweeds, etc.

This. Augment our understanding please.

Also, are there any Girard-aboos about to augment our understanding?

You rang?

I actually started this thread. I'm interested in OOO as it's tangential to acceleration but doesn't get me as much in the feels. Was hoping somebody else could make it more interesting. Wolfendale's book seemed to skewer Harman but guys like Bryant et al are way smarter than me, so there must be something going on here.

I've been preoccupied with seeding the Nick Land/acceleration threads with weird quotes borrowed from SC Hickman and various other nerd stuff from tumblr. I'm on the Land Rover for now and for the foreseeable future.

>object oriented ontology
they already have that
it's called "ontology"

Are the CCRU collected writings worth a read in your opinion?

Everything Nick Land writes is worth reading, imho. Much of his imagination seemed to have been formed in that weird crucible but whatever the fuck happened there it spawned one of the most godforsakenly brilliant readings of Kant, time and capital on the planet Earth. I'm not really so much into Hair-Raising Terror but it's not like we're any poorer for having some weird and arcane paper trail of how he came to know the things that he knows. If you're into Land - and I submit that there is diminishingly little reason not to be into Nick Fucking Land - then yeah, go ahead and read it.

Bearing in mind that, in the final analysis, I think Girard will always remain a teensy half-step ahead of him for a while yet. Because it will be a while before the AI really learns how desire works.

We will help it along, of course. We can't resist ourselves. And eventually the points will converge. But literary criticism still has wonders to disclose that even the coldest and most ruthless analysis of capital can't touch. See pic related for further details.

This is off-topic, though. I just found this today and I get excited when I think things line up.

Unless of course a machine can be produced that calculates within a future that is a fraction of a second ahead of humanity. Not a predictive programming, but an awareness of the future translated to another machine which acts upon us in what we believe to be the present.

Cool, I'll read it. I've never read any Land but this seems as good a place to start as any.

Isn't there some Woody Allen joke about this where there's a guy who can only travel ahead fifteen minutes into the future or something? I forget how it works.

I guess. Boehm-Bawerk thought he had solved Marx by making a distinction between capital as debit/credit and capital as labor. One machine acting upon another machine which subsequently acts upon us seems to result in the same thing. Of course it wouldn't, in one sense, but if you're about to drop some quantum mathematics on me I'm just going to drool even more quickly than I already am. Most of Badiou is off-limits to me for the same reason.

I'd actually recommend starting with Fanged Noumena (or, better yet, Anna Greenspan's PhD thesis). But if you want to do the CCRU go for it.

>Anna Greenspan's PhD thesis
have a link? Never heard anyone actually bring her up before except to create anti-semitic conspiracy theories around Land.

There she be. She's no slouch either, I've read chunks of her writing on China and so on and it's super-interesting.

wrap.warwick.ac.uk/4520/1/WRAP_THESIS_Greenspan_2000.pdf

>dedicated to my family
I wonder what their kids will think of them. I often wonder about Anton LaVey's son, whom he named 'Satan Xerxes Carnacki LaVey'. Where's 'Stan' these days? He'd be in his late 20s to early 30s I think. You have to imagine he's changed his name by now.

>inb4 I learn that Nick Land named his children Moldbug and Friedman

someone post the Nick Land tweet about failing to make popcorn for his kids, plz

That objects are the stuff of the real world. The best way to explain this is to A. assume it denies idealist ontology and B. through his idea of overmining and undermining materialisms.

overmining materialisms say that there are no solid, concrete objects, only relations between and among different actors, and things. the relationships, in fact, are constitutive of the things, rather than the other way around.

undermining materialisms say that objects dont exist, only their component parts do. a table can be broken down into plywood and screws, the plywood and screws and be broken down into compounds, the compounds into atoms, atoms into quarks, quarks into... wherever the "bottom" is, that is "reality" for undermining materialisms.

graham harman, one of the bosses of OOO, says, no, the table, the screws, the plywood, the atoms, the quarks, are all primary reality prior to any relation or reduction. the "ground floor" of the real world is in the solid things that can be identified in it.

I'm placing my bets on "Mencius". It's sufficiently sinophilic...

>popcorn spawns infinitely, black and twisted
>swamps apartment, bursting walls like lovecraftian nightmare
>blackened corn floods the streets
>passerby fall into stupefied, bewildered horror, hemhorraging blood as alien kernels grow out of their eyes
>from the dark and twisted mind of nick land comes xeno-snax: can what is popping you make it to level-2

the most mind-bending part of it is when you think about the atoms and the table. harman says that BOTH the atom and the table must be respected as independent realities. you cant get at the table while you're saying "it's composed of atoms." you cant get at the atoms while you're saying "they compose a table." but each of those conditions are true simultaneously for OOO.

maybe the best way to think about it is as a philosophy of "not only." Atoms are "not only" the elementary particles of which they are composed, and they are "not only" the compounds and material things they compose themselves. Atoms are atoms, and this statement of identity is probably the closest you can get to first principles for OOO.

functional ontology when

>graham harman, one of the bosses of OOO, says, no, the table, the screws, the plywood, the atoms, the quarks, are all primary reality prior to any relation or reduction. the "ground floor" of the real world is in the solid things that can be identified in it.

My understanding was that he still allowed for 'levels' of object-reality, but that this did not entail a priority to any given level. So the interactions between subatomic particles are just as vivid, important, and 'substantial' as two pebbles clicking together as they tumble down a hillside.

unironically, urbit
it's ontologically frozen
you run functions off it
i'm pretty sure this is a gross distortion but whatev
no one understands urbit

Xeno-Snax, the only treat acceptable for the discerning Latinx Chinese Bigender (A)Sexual Transpecies Sexbot Filth of the 21st century.

>urbit
I might believe Yarvin if he didn't have a ponytail.

What makes Land's vision of the near future different than Ellis' Transmetropolitan?

moronlab.blogspot.com/2010/01/urbit-functional-programming-from.html

i think this was written during a non-ponytail phase of his life

what does he mean by this

i mean seriously, that's actually legit interesting

training your pet rock manual

very little.

cyberpunk: rebels are the heroes
gits: the government is the hero
nl: xenocapital is the hero

There is no truth but in things desu

I don't get the fascination with all these "new" philosophers.

Do they really have anything new to say? I mean even Land just can't admit that he's a suicidal schizophrenic, and just went through the rabbit hole to get to materialism again.

Such a brazen pulpifaction
will not go unpunished.

Is this what will come after postmodernism?
Did the deconstruction fags finally found another way to explain their philosophy?

I am sorry I pulpified the plums in the icebox

...

...

Maybe you should stop browsing this board and go work with your hands then

>Is this what will come after postmodernism?

Yes, the way out of postmodernism is realism, which can come in many varieties. Realism, by the way, can include, but doesn't necessarily entail materialism. OOO, for instance isn't materialist, because Harman rejects reductionism of any kind.

OOO is one such realist model floating around. One could say that forms of reactionary thinking or even people like Jordan Peterson are realistst, in that the basic argument and rejection of postmodernism comes down to "things are actually real". Then there the are other more materialist forms of realism, some of them more 'math-y' (Meillassoux), some are cold / cosmic pessimist (Brassier, Negarestani - basically any realist following after Nick Land's aesthetic), and then there's New Materialism (DeLanda, primarily, who is a new type of Deluezian, and much less pessimistic and reductive than the likes of Brassier, allowing for emergent objects to form rather than just focusing on the coldness or 'deathliness' of the universe).

And OOO is not even materialist because it doesn't reduce things to their material makeup, but it's also not idealist because it doesn't reduce things to their social relations or linguisticness.

>Did the deconstruction fags finally found another way to explain their philosophy?

No, deconstruction IS postmodernism, which these new realisms are rejecting. It's anti-postmodern, but not modernist either. That is, post-structuralism / postmodernism / deconstruction's argument of the 'social-construction' of things, of reducing everything to a mere linguistic tic with nothing existing outside of the realm of human or social thought, is the very thing these new realisms are moving past. And Harman finds a way to move forward without resorting to materialism. He has even said that, in addition to acknowledging the realness of 'fictional' entities, is even open to the possibility of living immaterial entities.

Also, Harman, as well as DeLanda, very explicitly oppose Derrida, Foucault, Said, and even Badiou and Zizek as obvious idealists and anti-realists. And they reject Marxism's tendency to reduce everything to as they call it 'reified generalities' like Capital. DeLanda thinks of Marx's so called 'materialism' as actually an idealism, and completely wants to reformulate things without Marx. Harman, for his part, although he is not a right winger, has flatly stated that he is not a leftist, because his ontology sees things as withdrawn and mysterious, so he is not going to put so much faith in solutions necessarily coming from an ideologically left side, like he has said that some form of Capitalism or Neoliberalism might be just fine (him and DeLanda both dislike Marxist thinking partly because they don't believe in the arguments about this pervasive capital C Capitalism, but that there can be many different ones completely unrelated, some better than others).

>Also, Harman, as well as DeLanda, very explicitly oppose Derrida, Foucault, Said, and even Badiou and Zizek as *being obvious idealists and anti-realists.

I mean here of course that Harman and De Landa oppose such idealism and anti-realism.

I wanted to make one more point for this thread, that it would be a mistake to think of OOO is some kind of cold posthumanism, which it very much isn't. OOO opens up an awareness of things beyond the human, but it isn't saying the human is irrelevant or mere dust. Harman has said something to the effect that he is not at all trying to say that a toaster is as important as a human life, merely that it EXISTS as much, and that it exists as more than its function we give to it. Like, he took Latour's groundbreaking idea that there are non-human 'actors' out there, a very important step, but made just as important distinction in pointing out that such actors (objects, in his formulation) don't just exist in their relation to each other as they do in Latour's. For Latour, actants only exist in their interrelation, in doing things to each other. For Harman, such things still exist even if they are having no contact, effect on anything else, and exist even if nothing else is aware of them. This might seem like an obvious point, but it's something that postmodern thought has countered by trying to reduce things to their relatedness and human-constructedness.

Also, one more thing, on my point about OOO not being some cold posthumanism, as well related to his rejection of Marxism, leftism, and 'reified generalities'... Harman is not really compatible with Land, because Land's whole emphasis on Capital and certain singular generalities reducing everything to a single historical thrust towards technocapital is very much the type of reductionism and post-Marxian historicism that OOO is countering.

Same poster here. Have to go out now, in case anyone responds and I can't answer you back, but that's what I can offer for the moment after having been reading a lot of this stuff for quite a while now.

Thanks for the explanation user, very illuminating.

>argument of the 'social-construction' of things, of reducing everything to a mere linguistic tic with nothing existing outside of the realm of human or social though

When will undergrads stop perpetuating this stupid strawman?

For the last time, social construction of facts does not mean the unreality to nature, and the social construction of power does not mean the unreality of the science through which it is wielded.

You're a fucking charlatan.

il n'y a pas de hors-texte

Even allowing that this is merely meant to direct our attention to the notion that there is nothing outside a con-text, it is still a kind of 'logocentric' and therefore anthropocentric approach to 'things', generally.

I think the thrust of OOO is that things are obviously and radically subsistent in themselves, regardless of how they are 'situated', and especially vis-a-vis human beings. It's a deflationary move, a way of displacing the privileged position of Dasein in the order of being.

Graham Harman and OOO is not good.

This guy has consistently critiqued his work for a few years now.

terenceblake.wordpress.com/2013/12/04/20-theses-on-graham-harmans-monist-idealist-ontology/

I've read the Manifesto of New Realism by Ferraris (which spews a lot of vitriol on post-structuralism, hermeneutics and such. Surprising from a guy who was a disciple and friend of Derrida and Vattimo) and Quentin Meillassoux' After Finitude and I'm going to start a thread about it when I've got the time, since he goes straight to the root of anti-realism: HUme's paradox and the kantian response. It would be nice if some math-student would join since his thesis hinges on particular interpretation of Cantor's Theorem.

Would a Levi Bryant be any better?