Orientation upon Objects and Significance of Significance

Like I say here and there…Object Oriented Ontology resonates with me; it resonates with what I am doing, with my work.  At risk of sounding retroactive, though, I already had this kind of…understanding, if you will, of object-Being; it began with Francios Laruelle’s Non-philosophy which I just stumbled on in the Philosophy Now forum that I used to be a part of about 7-8 years ago.  

I had been on that forum for probably two years, and someone then started talking about how I might like this Non-philosophy stuff over yonder.  Then I started checking out Laruelle’s essays, and then his books, and it re really resonated with me.

Somewhere in The Philosophical Hack, when it was still Constructive Undoing, I conveyed an anecdote of how I came upon Kiekegaard’s Either/Or…

… it was the same with Laruelle, and then by a strange extension somewhat similar with Harman’s On Vicarious Causation… 

…The post explained how I came to be interested in philosophy at all, but as well, the beginnings of what we are dealing with in philosophy itself at all times..for the significance of this moment is that I had never read (or if I had, then I didn’t understand it nor tried to understand it) a single word of philosophy until Kierkegaard, and yet…

        …In short, the pieces made perfect sense to me without even having to sit and ponder what they were saying.   In fact, the feeling was if I had wrote the pieces myself, yet as though in some other time or moment that I had forgotten until that moment of the reading.   I intuitively knew exactly what they all were talking about.  

        The incredible and truly unbelievable part of this was that I was so astounded, that upon starting to read (here: Kierkegaard) and having the feeling that I had written it, I made a little game for myself just to see if I was fooling myself somehow.   I would skip a chunk of pages and then guess what he might be saying where I landed.  For indeed the feeling moved me such that I could trace the trajectories of discussions through lengths of prose enough to skip chunks of pages (or paragraphs, as the case may be) and without looking prior, and guess where he were at in the argument.  I could literally formulate the discursive route he took (as I would later on go back and read the pages I had skipped )  in the pages I had not yet read, assess how much had been written in the pages I had skipped, and think to myself concretely where the book was at in the discussion, actually think about the exact argument he would be making in that point in the book, only to have it be confirmed then upon reading. I would even skip forward and backward.  This (but by extension, these) event to me was so absolutely unbelievable, that I doubted my sanity due to it. Contrary to some who might find it fascinating and pleasant, by contrast, I was entirely distressed and worried by it.  I was compelled forward by the desire in the attempt to prove my experience and understanding of the texts incorrect. 

       It happened with many philosophers, but With Kierkegard it was most profound and extended through every singe one of his books without any problem or skip.  Literally, after the first few sentences or paragraphs for orientation,  but sometimes only the first sentence of the page, and without reading even any forwards, introductions or commentaries by other authors (like Hannay, or Hong and Hong), I could tell exactly what was being discussed, why it was significant and what part it played in the larger extended argument of the book, but then also ( I would find) the entire project of the author. But not only this, I also knew why he had chosen all the particular literary stories, characters, myths and analogies that he does. 

       It took me a probably 5 years of encountering these kinds of events with many authors — from Hegel, to Heidegger, from Wittgenstein, to Sartre to Delueze and Guattari — before I could believe that I was not reading into the pieces something that was not there, making things up.  I doubted that I could know and understand as well as I did, even when the evidence arrived in front of me time and time again, and I felt that I was going, or had gone, quite insane.  Nevertheless, after may years, I could no longer deny the truth of the situation, and I just resolved to believe that the extended event was not false or some figment of a compromised psyche.  

     Indeed Kierkegaard, but these other authors as well, I knew before I had even looked to their pages.   By the eventual acceptance of this truth, thus I would over time come to formulate and iterate that philosphers were saying the exact same thing, indeed, talking about the same thing but using different terms and clausal structures.

Frustratingly, by conversing with other learned and knowledgable philosophers I was to find this view upon philosophy is quite controversial if not outright offensive to most. 

However, oddly enough and very strange, the truth is that reading these philosophers merely confirmed what I already knew — even as I did not wish or want to know it, that is, even as I doubted that I could know such things. 

Hence, the route by which philosophy come unto me is different than the way philosophy is come upon by most philosophers.  And this difference, coincidentally, is what is confirmed everywhere I read philosophy, both in content, context, syntax and semantics. 

It is what Kierkegaard calls absurd and ironic.  It is what Delueze and Guattari infer in their discussion about capitalism and modernity.  What Derrida labels difference.  What Lyotard describes as the differend.  And as well, What Zizek confirms by his Parallax view. Everywhere I read philosophy, what Heidegger calls the same arises to Being. 

I could go on.

                                                                       ***

 I don’t know what the post of mine was, but then, through kind of checking that Non-philosophy  stuff out, Harman and his object ontology came up.  I started checking OOO out, and those who were part of the Speculative Realist Conference in 2007, and they mentioned Laruelle also. The philosopher Levi Bryant also could be called an object ontologist.  He has a book called The Democracy of Objects, and other books on his version of object ontology.

All those SR guys seemed to have stumbled on the same problem, the same difference in view, that I stumbled upon, and they seemed now to be calling it realism.  This name for what they were coming upon allowed me to refine what I was talking about, as to what religion might be, to be able to distinguish what was real from what is true.  I just think that Harman has the most significant version of this truth toward Realism, for it resembles what I’m concerned with in my work.   But I think Harmon is more of a strict philosopher and so he says a lot of things way better than I am able to.   In essence, he’s kind of a voice for ideas I already kind of had, but he kind of feels them out a little bit better, develops the thoughts a little bit better, and speaks about them better, and of course, can argue about them better against other philosophers.

Anyways, and so it is, my work is more about “orientation upon objects“, than it is about an ontology of objects; I actually play around with the notion that I am concerned more with teleology.  

20 thoughts on “Orientation upon Objects and Significance of Significance

  1. …. Oh hey. Just one last thing on the psychobabble end: I’m not telling you these things like, oh feel sorry for me, oh what a tragedy or anything like that. Please remove from your thoughts about me that I need sympathy or something like that. It’s fine. But please just understand that I’m actually just kind of conveying things to you. I’m not depressed or sad or whatever might go with this picture that maybe you might get of me. To me philosophy is not just some cerebral rational active tearing apart freezers. For me philosophy involves the whole thing. Whatever that hole is.

    (look, there’s a wart! Lol)

    Liked by 1 person

  2. It helps me, and indeed one could say it is part of my self-care, it is part of my practicing of building normal relationships lol. To be able to tell you about my life without excuses, as to a friend.

    Ok. We can leave the psychobabble compassion to stop right there for now. 😎🤙🏾

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Being honest to yourself is always good. But you do not have to tell me or anyone about it to be honest and true to you. Sometimes those out there are unkind (trolls, etc). While I believe a certain vulnerability is necessary to be genuinely honest, I also believe the the world is not just me, but me in the world (ego, superego, id, blah blah blah).

    So please don’t feel you need to tell me anything you don’t want.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. I suppose a kind of ironic coupling of my post and then these comments: My whole life was a mistake. Lol filled with making meaning by random accidents and following those accidents and instances of arbitrary meeting along the various paths.

    And so now I try to be more intentional. But I hear what you’re saying. And I agree in general and concur with the sentiment.

    I suppose, if I can get into a brief analysis of my life in this regard: I am a very sensitive and emotional person, And just in the past few years I’ve been coming to terms with the repercussions of, first, getting an implicit message that something is wrong with me because of how sensitive I am, and, two, attempting to live a life that was guided by People who, those loving me, did not accept me for the person who I was. Instead they gave me an implicit message that something is wrong with the way that I am. And so pretty much I’ve spent my life trying to “follow my bliss” in the very Joseph Campbell way. Because I did not have supportive and guide for parameters of how to become a person in this world.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. I don’t mind mistakes. Sometimes (I stress ‘sometimes’) accidents lead to interesting routes. Most times they are mundane and may or may not warrant correction (example, spelling mistakes). Other times, they are significant and also warrant correction (example, inconsistent concepts).

    Mostly, the normal mundane ‘warts’ can be left alone. Humans are very good at filtering out inconsequential errors. But once in a while, a mistake can lead to misunderstandings. Think of it as post-covid ‘contact tracing for dialogue’. We may have gone down a path to which we cannot trace back to where it came from. ‘metaphysics’ is an example I would use. After it denoted order in the editing of Aristotle’s physical writing it ended up to mean an entire enterprise of transcendental philosophy.

    Sometimes, also we don’t intend certain things. But those unintended things may have a lot to say philosophically. Of course, mostly, not.

    I have had heated spoken and written arguments where we (mostly myself) say things we regret. If we cannot take responsibility for our verbal actions in writing then we cannot be sincere and genuine. Leaving things (writing) as is a way to trace our processes, our thoughts, our mistakes, philosophical or otherwise.

    So in this comment The last line of the penultimate paragraph may be “I’m not sure the warts and all will be very efficient Nora useful in that regard” but I find that slip of voice recognition useful. For Nora (James Joyce’s wife) as useful connection to understanding slippages and hidden influences. You (and voice recognition) may not have intended it but I certainly like to be reminded of the shortcomings of the objects of reality and the play that occurs among the objects of the mind.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Lol. OK. Yeah I like to read things from the actual site because, for one thing it appears better, it appears in a more reasonable way to me. And also I think when I am staring at the editor for so long I miss things. So I look at the water to look at on the actual post.
    The “warts and all“ thing: I know that Kierkegaard talks here in there about how “mistakes“ often turn out to be ironically fortunate and intentional in a kind of non-intentional way. (not, of course, referring to the Hursel or later use of the philosophical intention, but just colloquially)

    But for me the “warts and all” I feel would make us have to discuss things that were not intended, Potential meetings that neither of us meant to say. I mean, if you want to open the manifestation of our writing up to a further philosophical issue, that’s one thing. But if we’re really trying to communicate what we are saying to each other, I’m not sure the warts and all will be very efficient Nora useful in that regard.

    What is your idea behind the warts and all thing?

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Sorry. It was from something else you wrote on your blog. My mistake.

    For your information, I get notifications of any changes that occur. It seems you reread your posts from the editor. To which it then makes changes (autosaves, etc).

    The safest way is to read from the blog page itself. Then no changes will occur.

    So when I didn’t see the Derrida info on this post, I had mistakenly assumed it was removed.

    As I said, let’s have a “once posted, no edit” policy. This way nobody can point fingers at one another. This is fair, is it not?

    Like

  8. Wait. I only ever made one comment I’m very die and that is a single sentence saying referring to his “difference”. And it’s still there. I don’t know what paragraph you’re mean?

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s