“Was not their mistake once more bred of the life of slavery that they had been living?—a life which was always looking upon everything, except mankind, animate and inanimate—‘nature,’ as people used to call it—as one thing, and mankind as another, it was natural to people thinking in this way, that they should try to make ‘nature’ their slave, since they thought ‘nature’ was something outside them” — William Morris
3 comments:
Clear, stylish, and humorous, like your books I'm currently reading for a paper on Thoreau.
Regarding the first of your statements on the profound claims of OOO (of which I wish to learn more, having encountered it through Florian Hecker's work and a guest lecture by Ennis), I ask myself, you, or any strange stranger:
- Is there a difference between "entity" and Spinoza's substance (Deus sive Natura)?
- Is "entity" (and perhaps God, substance) a "strange stranger"?
- Should that be the case, is OOO different from Arne Naess'non-anthropocentric ecology? Is "entity" not like a rhizome?
- And finally where does Harman differ from Guattari's refrain in Three Ecologies regarding the shift from a scientific towards an aesthetic paradigm?
Regards and thanks!
Good questions--I shall respond.
and respond you did. I just had to finish your books. It's been a great ride! "Here Comes Everything: The Promise of OOO" is perhaps the briefest and simplest introduction to both your thought and to OOO. Timely!
andreas.burckhardt@gmail.com
Post a Comment