“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

Monday, April 9, 2012

OOO as First Philosophy

John asks:

I guess what I'm asking, Tim, Ted, is this: is OOO a "first philosophy" with or ithout a "second philosophy", so to speak? Is it a "difference that makes a difference"?

For shizzle John. It explains why things exist and how they exist, what causality is and so on.


John B-R said...

Thanks, Tim. Fo shizzle. But what about the "second philosophy" part? I don't mean epistemology, I mean "ethics", as in "How do we then live?" Are there ethical consequences to the democracy of objects, living within and as part of the mesh, etc? Or do we want to avoid specifying them?

Specifically, is there an OOO-ish way of thinking about a hyperobject like ALEC? That leads to any particular ethical stance in relation to it.

I do recall your comments about learning to enjoy -if that's the word- being a hypocrite. I guess that's one ethical consequence. ... (which i don't argue with, I'm as big a hypocrite in these matters as anyone ...)

cargan said...

What about starting at 0.000nth? Then you have plenty of room for the subreifications

cargan said...

Okay, I've started this with the note that starting at 0.000nth leaves a lot of room for sub-reifications, and I still haven't talked the control robot into signing me on with the Venn diagram test. Well, each of those words is another order of argument.