Adrian’s Response to Recent Vanishings of OOO objections
So I wasn’t planning on doing another blog post today, but I just read Adrian’s first response to my so-called conversion experience. I dunno if I’d call it quite that, I’m still a relationalist, there’s no question about that, and I must say, the way Adrian framed so much of his response made me smile because, well, he speaks my language.
Isn’t this gorgeous prose (and I agree with the ideas completely!):
There is, then, at the finest level of reality, an ongoing circulation, a vibration, by which subjectivity and objectivity continue to arise wherever reality arises. You could say that, in its horizontal dimension, the universe appears as a vibratory oscillation, a sinuous wave, continually generating its own oscillation, in many directions all at once. In its vertical dimension (which is where I follow Peirce), each of these oscillations, if sliced into, contains a firstness, which is something irreducible; a secondness, which is the responsiveness and interactivity, the one-thing-arising-in-the-presence-of-and-after-another-ness; and a thirdness, which is the proliferation into, or consummation as, meaning, habit, and regularity, that builds worlds and makes the universe a genuine universe.
What’s nice is that I don’t think there’s ANYTHING about this worldpicture, at least now that I consider the four objections to OOO (genesis, decomposition, change, discrimination) to have been semi-solved, to be incompatible with OOO. Others may raise points I’ve overlooked. But I do think there’s interesting things afoot.
I think we’ve yet to fully understand the real radicality of Peirce, and I’ve got to say, I’m so excited to see that cinema book Adrian, so don’t stop working on it! I want that one first! (Ok, most of my teaching lately is in cinema, so, that’s understandable I guess . . . )
But I do think that this side of Peirce is what has been missing from OOO up to this point – a real interface with semiotics. Perhaps it is coming with Levi’s upcoming work, because of his Lacanian heritage. But the emphasis up to this point has mostly been phenomenological. But I think Peirce is a great way to start bringing language into this.
But has it been missing before? For example, I for one have never heard graphemes referred to as objects in OOO before.
Anyway, Adrian’s whole post is definitely worth reading, particuarly as it talks about the development of SR as a whole.
PS – lest Adrian think I’ve in any sense divorced matter and mind in my description of ideas as things, some of this has to do with how the networkological project has developed. I think MATTER AND MIND ARE TWO SIDES OF THE SAME. In the spirit of the preceding post, here’s a clip from the manuscript in process on this. How this relates to cognitive science and artificial neural networks (for me, one of the primary inspirations for the entire networkological project) is an extensive part of both manuscripts.
* * *
Matrix. As a philosophy of relation, the networkological approach does not firmly separate ontology from epistemology, matter from mind. Following Baruch Spinoza, the networkological perspective grounds all that is in a single fundament, of which matter and mind are simply aspects. This fundament is called matrix, or the oneand (one-and), for it is within all, as well as that which gives rise to all, it is the self-differing which gives rise to all existents. All forms of matter and mind are so many various incarnations of matrix, and matrix is within all of these beyond them all. It is the potential to be of all that is, as well as what potential becomes as it unfolds into the actual. When matrix has not come to be it is called potential, when it comes to actualize itself in a location it is called matter, and when matrix comes to experience itself, it is called mind. Mind and matter co-permeate, if at differing degrees of intensity and in different forms, at all levels of scale. For the networkological approach, and unlike the inheritors of René Descartes and Immanuel Kant, mind is not the exclusive province of humans or even animals, but something which ‘goes all the way down’ to the quantum level and potentially beyond. Unlike those who rigidly bifurcate the world into mind and matter, or subject and object, the networkological approach does not need to bridge a mind/body gap, for it sees none. Rather, its task is to explain the diversity of combinations of matter and mind that give rise to the varied phenomena in the world. Within matrix, there are several aspects of the oneand which manifest as the open, and whose avatars structure its modes of appearance, or matrixology, thereby giving rise to variety in the world. From the epistemological perspective, the open manifests itself as the undecideability of the fundamental obstacle. From an ontological perspective, the open takes the form of originary potential. And from the ethical point of view, the open takes the form of the call to maximum robustness. While these sides all present themselves, and will be explained in turn, they are all refractions of the same fundament, matrix in its process of self-differing. The networkological approach, which frames itself relationally at the intersection difference and relation at the site of emergence, is thus ultimately neither a philosophy of ‘the One’ or ‘the Two’, but of the ‘oneand’ – the one which exceeds itself. Thus, it finds common ground with any approach to entities which finds them in the process of self-differing, or becoming-other, for this is the necessary fundament for any truly relational philosophy. In the section that follows, the manner in which matter and mind intertwine within matrix will be examined in its most general sense. From there, the examination of matrixology will describe the ways in which forms of matrix emerge from one another, from the simplest to most complex.