The
book is divided into two parts: (1) What are hyperobjects? and (2) What do they
mean for humans?
The
introduction argues that hyperobjects have activated a philosophical
“earthquake” that compels us to refashion what we mean by a thing in the first
place (ontology).
In
five long sections, part (1) argues that hyperobjects have five properties.
Hyperobjects
are viscous: they stick to us and penetrate us, thus abolishing concepts of
distance and norms concerning meaning and propriety (metalanguage).
Hyperobjects
are nonlocal: they do not manifest at a specific time and place but rather are
stretched out in such a way as to challenge the idea that a thing must occupy a
specific place and time.
Hyperobjects
have a temporality so different from current human ones that they force us to
drop the idea of time as a neutral container. Instead, hyperobjects “emit” time
just like planets (Einstein).
Hyperobjects occupy
high dimensional phase spaces that are unavailable to direct human perception. Computational
prosthetics are required even to think them (mapping global warming requires
petaflops of computing speed, for instance).
Hyperobjects
exist “interobjectively,” which is to say that they consist, of, yet are not
reducible to, interactions between a large number of entities.
In
three long sections, part (2) argues that hyperobjects have three major
implications for humans:
“The end of the
world” as a meaningful horizon against which (human) events take shape has
already occurred.
Instead of
inhabiting a world, we find ourselves on the insides of a number of hyperobjects.
This fact reduces all human styles of engagement to forms of hypocrisy, thus
ending the reign of cynicism (otherwise known as modernity).
Culture has
entered an age of asymmetry in which
the nonhuman matches human cognition equally, but not in a neat Goldilocks way.
Rather, humans are sandwiched between two giant beings that increase one
another in a feedback loop: (human) reason and hyperobjects. Some contemporary art
is already showing signs of this paradox.
This is really interesting. Can you point to any contemporary art work in particular that exemplifies what you're talking about in the third consequence?
ReplyDelete