OOO and objects

In OOO all object are said to be on equal footing. The question though is whether it is equally 0 or equally 1.

I tend to think it is without value whatsoever except for a value produced by systematic difference between them. This difference, and therefore value, exists only when observations are made.

It therefore means if there is no observer there is no value in the situation.

So, what exactly is an observer is now the question.

13 thoughts on “OOO and objects”

  1. To answer your last question: there is a issue so far as one would have to ask, as you do, is there a difference between concepts or thoughts, and things. Of course we have Kant Who in one way or or another seems to have laid out a paradigm that we cannot escape; at every turn it seems that we fall in to a condition of human thought.

    For the past 200 years or whatever people have been trying to get back to the thing in itself somehow, to find that particular object of science that somehow gives us information of itself despite what thoughts we might otherwise have about it. It would seem that the object of science already gets outside of thought; But philosophy has yet to figure out how to put into words and sentences, how to frame a concept that argues where that is able to present to logic why an object of science behaves the way it does even as philosophy has inscribed all objects to human. thinking.

    This is the issue before us. This is the issue as Quentin Meillassiox (sp?) has been noted, that he called “correlationalism”. his book “beyond finitude” he grapples with this very question.

    I’m not sure that he comes up with a satisfactory answer but I think he frames the question fairly well.

    It seems presently, at least as I have noticed with speculative realism and those guys and then gram Harmon seems to also have fallen into this way of doing things and his ooo —

    It seems the current way that you get outside of this correlational infinity is to merely step outside of it, and begin to speak from the outside.

    It is a kind of contradiction that then allows one to be able to get outside of what is otherwise correlational. The answer for now seems to be to simply stop talking about it.

    Personally I think that is a weak way. But at the same time it is effective, or it has been effective to allow people to begin to consider what might be involved in the possibility.


  2. Yes. That is the usual objection. And also: if objects withdraw from view then how can we have any sense of them at all.

    The “central phenomenal thinker” is how I usually put it.

    The question indeed is how to get outside of the (correlational) phenomenal subject.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. OOO seems to say that it is possible to observe without subjectivity.

    I say it is not possible to fully do so. I am happy that we try to give equality to everything but that we can only do so from being this thing, the human being, and that any attempt is only an attempt as a human being. We can never fully reach objectivity, only something like it.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Thanks for the detailed reply.

    I agree. I do not think ahuman being are any more or less unique than grass, black hole or an electron.

    I am puzzled though why Harmon does. It acknowledge that perhaps subjectivity is a characteristic of us as objects. Being subjective is not unique or special. It is not anything more or less special than the electrons behaviour inside an atom. Just that this is what we do and what electrons do.

    Is value “one”? That would entail a positive existence. A zero entails no value. In the absence of an observing being do they have a positive value along with their positive existence? Personally, the value of a thing is only there if observed. To phrase it differently, value is the from the observation. Value is a concept, not there to begin with. Hence zero. The actions of the being is to create the value (through its characteristic as value maker). So concepts are not things. Concepts are of things.


  5. 😄. I have not thoroughly researched everything that Graham Harmon has Written. At some point I would like to read his guerrilla metaphysics book tho. But I’ve read a fair amount from him and I’ve heard a couple of his lectures.

    I am not sure if Ooo has any comment to make on value. But I think it might fall into context to say that Harmons object ontology or object oriented philosophy proposes that human beings are not unique in the universe; rather they are unique or we are unique in as much as grass is unique or a planet is unique or a black hole or an electron. He proposes that all objects withdraw from view, in themselves, but they do have sense, and tthis sense can be noticed through relations.

    Mind that he is developing an ontology of things, and when you understand his comment, or for that matter the general asour comment on phenomenology Kant and such philosophies of subjectivity, then it is possible to understand that we as human beings are also things.

    I feel like there was a lecture That was put on YouTube he gave about ethics.

    I’m not sure if ethics might coincide with what you’re referring to with value right now.

    My own perspective would say that it is both zero and one and also one. But this goes into a kind of ontology where there is no vacuum, even the values zero has value and that value is exactly “zero”. And in so much is that value of zero is indeed a value than it is consistent to say that that zero value is likewise one.


    Liked by 1 person

Leave a comment.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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