Adrian just sent us all an email stating that he’s been very busy recently, and hasn’t been checking the blogs as much as he previously did. I feel like I also have dropped the ball a bit.

Looking back at the beginning of semester where Adrian made us write a list of things we’d like to achieve over this course, being mindful of the fact that we’ll mark ourselves on them at the end of semester, I’d like to acknowledge that I have been lazy but am determined to change that now.

Initially, I was aiming for a HD regarding participation and commitment to the studio. Although I started well, I do believe that for the last couple of weeks I have been working at a credit mark. Thus, I am going to sit up straight and delve back into my computer, as I am eager to get a good mark on this studio, not just for academic sense but because I honestly think that it houses a lot of interesting concepts, all of which I would love to understand.

In reaction to Gruppe 3’s existential recording, where the narrator sits under a tree and discusses existentialist topics, our script is going to take on the subject matter of mortality mixed with a little nihilism. However, decentering post humanist thought will be difficult as it’s *mans’* consciousness that seperate human from ‘animal’. It is due to human kind’s “I think therefore I am” attitude, that our progression as the human race has surpassed and dominated all other nature of beings, as our ability to question not only our surrounding, but ourselves allows us to consciously adapt (as oppose to the unconscious process of evolution). Thus, Gruppe 3’s focus on man’s existence makes it difficult for our soundscape to obtain OOO’s tiny & flat ontology, as we ultimately manipulate the narrative to question themes more relevant to human nature then existence’s nature.

However, I guess in theory existentialism questions ‘existence’ against ‘purpose’, which is ultimately the aim of the studio as we attempt to detach human associations of ‘why’ and object existence and instead focus on ‘who’ this object is. Thus, I guess whilst producing our narrative we must not only to attempt to continue Gruppe 3’s focus on existentialism, but also focus on existentialism component of purpose and try extract the human questioning of the philosophy, from the philosophy itself.

Ian Bogost in Alien Phenomenology analytically examines Object-Orientated Ontology’s rejection of correlationist views, to embrace the multifarious complexity of being among all things (Bogost, p 5). By decentralizing anthropocentric theory, OOO’s objective is to give all objects equal status in the importance of their existence. However, by deeming all objects equal and thus equating all being’s existence, Bogost cautions placing misguided inter-subjectivity upon an object’s relativism and agency. By avoiding such, it draws our attention and transcends the limits of an object’s conventional purpose whilst simultaneously encouraging more possible ways to join and relate ideas not previously associated with an object’s existence. Thus, doing the philosophical work of drawing and expanding explication’s confines as it expands transmission model’s linear discourse and hierarchal connotations of being.

Therefore, by applying a combination of what Bogost describes as flat and tiny ontology we unite two worlds and synthesize the human and nonhuman into a common collective (Bogost, p 17), whilst a list’s succinct yet open-ended format makes us less likely to fall into the systematic trap of over-determination. In class we investigated this method by producing a one-minute soundscape, attempting to create ontology for a locale void from anthropocentric and teleological explanation and restraint.

Our locale was ‘a garden’ – Carlton Gardens. In an attempt to encompass OOO’s primary principle of objects not relating merely through human use but through any use, including relations between one object and any other (Bogost, p 6), we intentionally selected a location fundament of a natural eco-system. Initially focusing on relativism present in the garden’s eco-system, birds to trees, trees to soil, soil to worms etc., a serendipitous moment occurred making us reconsider our applied approach. As Ben held his phone and the recording equipment close to one another, a static noise appeared and was recorded. This provoked recognition of objects that were prevalent, but overlooked (radio signals, Wi-Fi, telephone tower range, etc.) (Similar to Bogost’s capsicum), and exhibited our unconsciously applied anthropocentrism. The moment was consequent to the delusion and naiveté of contemporary scientific naturalism and social realism, which enforces that although all things equally exist, not all things exist equally (Bogost, p 11).

This hierarchy of being was further disrupted through editing’s transformation, as networks of human and nonhuman actors behaved on one another through entering and exiting relations (Bogost, p 19). Working in assistance with one another’s subjectivity (what humans have recorded and what technology can record), flat ontology’s democracy of objects allowed us to transcend restrictions due to the reliance of one another’s object’s distinction. However, the narrative’s contribution was difficult to decipher as the use of language, (let alone the English language), seemed like a dominating, constructionalist attribute. However, by applying tiny ontology and viewing each actor as a unit, whilst using flat ontology’s method of flattening out previous hierarchal relationships, we attempted to keep all objects decentralized, thus denying a dominant narrative arc and structure. Hence, producing a file that invites creativity rather than enforces previously associated detachment. Rushkoff asserts that stories don’t work in a technological environment as their un-engaging nature with an active audience creates a narrative collapse, whereas lists and games interactivity can attract new relationality and interpretations.  Rushkoff describes games surpassing all other forms of entertainment and cultural importance as they engage with player they expand the infinite structure of a list, as opposed to the grammatical formation of a sentence. Thus, allowing the audience do the philosophical work of drawing our attention to an object with greater attentiveness, through experience rather then the act of telling (Rushkoff, p 62).

Our list was constructed in random subject sequence avoiding traditional hierarchal connotation. Instead of depending on thoughts relativity and nature of ‘what comes next’, we observed the locale and encourage our site to be constructionalist. Attempting to liberate from the determined associations of our psyche, my involvement with a chain of ‘choice’ was still subject to preconditions taught by my own cultural context. Thus, making it harder to reject humanist determining, as systematic subject patterns appeared due to my engrained psychological context – viewing left to right, seeking similarities rather than differences, making connections through subject matter, etc. This is demonstrated in my list below.  

–  

– Grass

– Metal

– Stones

– Pebbles

– Sand

– Roots

– Trunk

– Trees

– Bark

– Leaves

– Stems

– Water

– Dirt

– Duck

– Moss

– Algae

– Spider

– Bubbles

– Coins:

– $2,

– $1,

– 50c,

– 20c,

– 10c,

– 5c

– Metal

– Fences

– Plastic

– Plastic bags

– Cigarette

– Juice popper

– Bark

– Phones

– Cameras

– Clothing

– Smoke

– Books

– Umbrella

– Glass

– Walls

– Dust

– Wheels

– Cars

– Pens

– Check boards

– Crowds

– Keys

– Ratio

– Doors

– Locks

– Footprint

– String

– Possum

– Birds

– Bat

– Ant

However, even though relations and association between subjects can be identified, the list’s format enforces that there is no super object, but instead a demonstration of objects gathered together in a harmonious unity.  This draws our attention to each object individually, and with greater emphasis, as we attempt to do this philosophical work of making sense of ‘what we see’ but with greater attentiveness.

Thus, a list does not explain but instead leaves open interpretation. Liberated from the grammatical confines of a sentence that attempt to establish narrative arc, a list format prompts us to question the nature of connection between two objects, as oppose to its purpose. In conclusion, the list itself communicates simply the multifaceted relations and possibilities of an object’s very complex existence.

‘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.