...an object that withdraws when you try to grasp it? And that can merge sensually with other objects?
The perfect analogy, human-scaled of course, is a liquid.
I find it beyond stunning that there is a school of thought or two out there that swears we are into solids and that solids are bad and liquids are good.
Of course entities merge.
"Do not touch ontologically" doesn't mean "are separated by empirically measurable hard edges."
Come on Professor Alaimo! You say transcorporeal, I'll say spectral, it's the same. And Professor Lunning! OOO objects have all the abjection added back in. They don't behave like normalized patriarchal subjects at all. You say abject, I'll also say abject. Also spectral.
I guess I'm still sore from when this guy on this feminism panel told me I didn't like body fluids and because I used lists of nouns I was a Nazi. (He did use that term.)
I guess he used lists of nouns too: shit, sperm, blood.
You are a Nazi if you use nouns? And nouns are about solid things that can't merge?