Alex Reid

"Since OOO isn't a cohesive position, there are likely many answers. My answer would begin by observing that the border between the living and the non-living is not an absolute ontological condition. We have legal arguments over whether a person is living or dead. We have scientific disagreements and uncertainties over whether certain objects are living (e.g. viruses). We have philosophical debates about whether or not a machine can be living.  That said, one might begin with the difference between autopoietic and allopoietic systems as Levi Bryant does. That's one way of thinking about adaption. However I do think the issue of panpsychism (a la Whitehead) is open for consideration here." - Alex Reid

"I am as likely to offer up a dissatisfactory rhetorical performance as anyone. In fact, I suspect I am soaking in one right now." - Alex Reid

"Raul and Matt. yes, and yes. This is such sticky business. What I am trying to talk about here are the rhetorical practices by which we try to understand object relations. It's a methodological question that arises from this ontological perspective. How are we going to investigate and discuss object relations? And from my perspective, more precisely, how will will investigate/discuss the rhetorical relations among objects?" - Alex Reid

"I see your point. When I suggest that we might move beyond metaphor, I do not mean to suggest that we reach a point where language or understanding reflects some external reality, "beyond" language, in some perfect way. Instead, I mean that metaphor is a particular concept for grasping the encounter between two objects and that we might have other concepts." - Alex Reid

"I'm afraid this post is a little meandering and unclear. I don't think that the litany is a rhetorical trap. I think the choice of the word "litany" is curious and I wonder what it implies, if anything, beyond "list." I am dissatisfied with metaphor as the controlling concept for relations. This isn't particularly about your book Ian: metaphor also runs heavily in Harman's and Morton's work. Metaphor is a starting point, but I am interested in moving beyond it, as I believe you are as well. However I do think that "metaphor" can be an example of the challenge of trying to turn a concept into a method. Beyond that, I would say I disagree with Berry's critique of OOO. Hopefully it is clear here, and in other posts on this issue, that I find this critical move unconvincing. I will say that one thing I have encountered at these conferences is some dissatisfaction with the rhetorical performance of OOO. The apparent contretemps of the nonhuman conference (in which I did not participate so..." - Alex Reid