‘The stronger ones were ones of Flat Ontology’

Overall our feedback was quite diverse.

Incorporated in our video were the static sounds made from the microphone and phone when in close proximity to one another. This sound was one of the main subjects of our feedback, as it’s unnatural presence ‘within a garden’ caused people to become confused about the soundscapes situational nature. Although I can understand the initial confusion regarding the static’s sounds ‘right’ to be there, I think its use within our video is important as it demonstrates ‘things’ that prevalent but not noticed. Similar to the chilis in Bogost’s introduction.

The feedback thus was beneficial, as it allowed us to question the production of our soundscape whilst simultaneously deepen our understanding of what our soundscape means and why.

In last week’s class discussion, Adrian proposed the idea of writing our essays in paragraph or point format in order to obtain the course’s decentralisation from anthropocentrism. Moving away from traditional models of writing (that Adrian calls essentially the ‘VCE way’), I have started to brainstorm ideas about how I can persuade my argument in a new academic mode. Although we were shown examples of text that use isolated paragraph structures to communicate meanings and ideas, i think for this essay task I shall incorporate both traditional and contemporary methods of writing.

Starting with an initial introduction and perhaps first paragraph, I aim for these two body of texts to communicate Bogost’s ideas. Elaborating on the essay statement, “Lists of objects without explication can do the philosophical work of drawing our attention toward them with greater attentiveness”, I will use essay writing’s academic format to clearly portray my thoughts and ideas regarding Object Orientated Ontology. However, for the analysis regarding the practical side of the assessment (soundscape), I am going to attempt to use dot point format to exemplify the essay statement itself.

By incorporating the two I hope to 1) show my understanding regarding the subject matter, but 2) also try something new and really push myself to understand what the statement is trying to say, and why.

Neo-materialism explores the meaning of the world’s commodities and reintroduces various notions of dialectical materialism. “Where the focus of labour has moved from production to consumption, the commodity has become the historical subject and symbols now behave like materials” – Joshua Simon.

Over the weekend I went to a feminist writer conference, which discussed issues of fictional, female protagonists’ ‘likability’ and the questions and answers of the publishing world to date. One of the issues which came up was a feminist’s role regarding capitalism and how ultimately, no feminists should subscribe to the capitalist agenda as it’s roots are based off the exploitation of workers for the obtainable success of the unobtainable 1%. This got me thinking about neo-materialism, feminism, object-orientated ontology, which ultimately lead to the last and final stage of nihilism.

Ultimately, (in my understanding) the nature of a philosophy (whether it be speculative realism, or scientific naturalism, or social relativism) all depend on one another to essentially create their own existence. Thus, one philosophy does not prove ‘more correct’ then another but is simply a reaction to an action.

However, the deeper I go into my Bogost reading and essay, exploring his ideas of ‘ready to hand, ‘present at hand’ and neo-materialism correlationism the more I see a link yet devision between all three.

Lets take my group’s decision to pick ‘a garden’ for our soundscape. In attempt to encompass OOO’s primary principle of objects not relating merely though human use but through any use, including relations between one object and any other, our decision to pick a location that wasn’t orientated only for human benefit was intentional. The garden’s nature, although constructed initially for the enjoyment and pleasure of human interaction, benefits numerous agencies, especially those who are of a living entity. However, although simply perceived the present at hand function of the garden is to serve as a home and an eco-system for living nature (possums, trees, grass, worms etc), OOO’s philosophy requires us to think deeper about the agency of all it’s beings.

This includes the agency of the playground, the concrete, the left over-not picked up rubbish. These are all in essence consequences and traits of neo-materialism, with the production of these items becoming a symbol for what they mean in our society. (How do we know we put the recycling in one bin and food scraps in the other). Thus, neo-materialism’s / Joshua Simon’s emphasis on the symbolism of our materials must be rejected in order to achieve OOO.

But how does one achieve OOO without being accidentally applying our own intersubjectivity. In the same way that how does a feminist apply a notion for equal rights / pay when that pay is made off the exploitation of someone else’s lesser circumstance and obtainability of power?

It’s the links between and seperations opposing each philosophy that makes me think that maybe I am getting somewhere in this course, and that hopefully soon it will all come together in an corresponding understanding, similar to OOO’s equality of existences.

Thoughts, thoughts, thoughts.

A list of objects without explication can do this philosophical work of drawing our attention towards them with greater attentiveness… In response to my last post which communicated confusion regarding PB1’s script, we decided to narrate our ‘object’ through a list format. A discussion in class today, questioned whether perhaps an object itself tells us more then its relativism/relationships that surround it.

Lists have the ability to leave open interpretation, whilst simultaneously closing the door for subjective objectification. This is due to the nature of explanation, and that is can’t help but simplify objects because of its abstracts.

Attached is a list of items I experienced whilst at our object – a park.

“Lists of objects without explication can do the philosophical work of drawing our attention toward them with greater attentiveness”. Bogost, Alien Phenomenology, pp. 40-41. Discuss using your item or locale and the soundscape to provide evidence. How does your soundscape draw attention to your item or locale by not explicating? (up to 1000 words)

Firstly, lets highlight the main words in the quote and try make sense of what it is saying.

“Lists of objects without explication can do the philosophical work of drawing our attention toward them with greater attentiveness”

Rewrite: By refraining from using correctionist methods of explication, and instead using an OOO perspective, we are able to understand ‘objects’ with greater attentiveness on philosophical basis. …..

Explication meaning: the process of analysing and developing an idea or principle in detail. 

So basically, the question is asking me to use Bogost’s OOO theory on my chosen object (a garden), and by applying that theory was does it teach me about the locale from a non-correlationist viewpoint…

BUT how am i suppose to know the ideas of a park when I cannot speak to a park. Will i be talking about its relationship to all things not-human. eg, its relationship between birds, and bees, and trees, and sun, and grass, and insects?

Does ecologies of noticing mean look at the environment?