tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1438289051411770399.post8295770726068328262..comments2024-03-28T09:51:55.365-06:00Comments on ECOLOGY WITHOUT NATURE: Materials: Objects: Environments Liveblog 6 (Stephen Muecke)Timothy Mortonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05067377804366363020noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1438289051411770399.post-38610988182702641292011-05-20T06:34:40.137-05:002011-05-20T06:34:40.137-05:00Anything that is has a life apart from it, David U...Anything that is has a life apart from it, David Unaipan<br /><br />Living and non-living beings become the media in which other beings exist, Timothy Morton<br /><br /><br />-Deconstruction and the Ecological Thought?<br /><br />The hypothesis that deconstruction has a capacity for contemplating ambience, the withdrawn, the vast and disturbingly decentered, and the ecological dissolution of the subject (whose attitude is one of distance to the world) is reasonable and empirically demonstrated in critical applications that articulate how meaning takes place within a structure that has strange properties independent of conscious intention. This view (flexible and robust in its handling of paradox and contradiction) insists on the presence of a withdrawn object outside the signifying system [--> climate change]. Is it possible to relate the deconstructionist 'withdrawn' to that of the point of view of the transduced (within OOO) where the conversion of energy via the transducer (acting on information within the aesthetic realm) is ignored/ withdrawn? Is this a structuralist-intentional-misprision on reality? Moreover, is there an analogy or greater degree of concord between deconstruction and the shift in ecological thought that reads all organisms as being made from pieces of other creatures, a palimpsest of mutations (difference) within a mesh of adaptations that is neither a syntactically well organized unified work nor linear by nature?<br /><br />If there is some truth to this, how do we clarify it - most simply - for literary critics? Futhermore, how do we take the clarififcation of this to the question of climate change? Or better, perhaps, how does the confluence or agreement between deconstruction and the ecological show how post-structuralist thought can assist our understanding of the following ecological (hyper-object based) concepts: (i) that materiality is a set of formal relationships; (ii) locality is an abstraction; (iii) process is simply an object; (iv) irony offers greater eco-awareness (gapsploitation) than a mind attuned to interconnectedness; (v) a totalising context is something for epistemologists, while hermeneuts prefer to be fragile?????<br /><br />Thanks again for such an inspiring presentation and thoughtfully open series of responses to questions throughout the day.tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15047005889814163787noreply@blogger.com