
Today I posted a reply to a mailing list which has been discussing OOO off and on. One complaint registered was that OOO is not "fuzzy" enough, and fuzzy or "soft" things are more desirable.
It may not seem a very substantive comment, but I think it hits on what's really going on with many rejections of OOO on purportedly political grounds. OOO is threatening to many popular theories of art, culture, identity, politics, and so forth because it holds that a toaster is not an octopus. So much of poststructuralism deals with blending and bleeding borders. There is much to praise about such attitudes, which dampen our certainty about various kinds of borders and delineations. But somehow, we got so turned around in the last half-century, we took this idea so far toward its logical conclusion, that we decided that a toaster not being an octopus is oppressive and dangerous.
This is a fascinating lesson, one I will have to consider further.
The Electronic Book, circa 1995
The Walled Kindergarten
Seeing Ultraviolet
Object Lessons is coming...
Work With Me on Tinkering Platforms
Comments
Katie King on The Electronic Book, circa 1995
Warren on The Electronic Book, circa 1995
Rumen on Object Lessons is coming...
Alec on Preview: Why Gamification Is Bullshit
nicolas on Meteors
The Curse of Cow Clicker
Beyond the Elbow-Patched Playground
Shit Crayons
Aerotropolis
Against Aca-Fandom
There are no Blown Calls in Football
We Think in Public
What is Object-Oriented Ontology?
The Metaphysics Videogame
Cascading Failure
Top Ten Reasons I Returned My Kindle
Carrying On Over Carry-Ons
Reading Online Sucks
Chumby and the Rhetoric of Openness







