“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

Thursday, July 21, 2011

The Ego of Objects

Thanks to a wonderfully suggestive hint at De Paul, I have now started delving a little further than usual into Freud's The Ego and the Id. Since the ego is nothing but a palimpsest of “abandoned object cathexes,” why couldn't we apply this theory to every object? 

Let's think it in an Aristotelian way. Formal causes are in for a return in quantum theory, and in OOO, for somewhat similar reasons. 

In what sense is the form of an object its “ego”? The formal cause of an object, rather simply, is just the record of everything that has “happened to” it. A blob of molten glass is blown and cooled, resulting in a wine glass. The form of the glass, its ego if you like, is the record of the objects that struck it, blew on it, snipped it while it was molten, left it to cool.

1 comment:

ulrich said...

“It is not enough to say that consciousness is consciousness of something: it is the double of this something, and everything is consciousness because it possesses a double, even if it is far off and very foreign.” (Deleuze, Difference and Repetition 220)

deleuzean support for the dreams of rocks, demons and temples