“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?

It was as if the chapter Flat Ontology was written in response to my previous blog post.

Initially, I interpreted objects of our reality in a hierarchal structure, where one object was ultimately ‘more real’ than the other. However, the opening sentence of the chapter – all things equally exist, yet they do not exist equally – literally blew my mind, resulting in me writing the quote as my Facebook status and creating a social implosion within my computer’s internal world. * See image below 

This chapter made me realise that by applying a hierarchy to beings, my own ontology applies posthumanist ideas, which then results in correlationist conceit – something which I definitely do not want to be identified with. What Flat Ontology does thus, is make us realise that there is no ‘super object’ and therefore no object that proves worthy of deciding the power of things within our reality. Therefore, granting “all objects the same ontological status” (pg 12). This bridges the gap between the two most present and contradicting idealogies of the contemporary world – scientific naturalism and social relativism. Scientific naturalism’s assumption that one can discover reality through scientific persistence, whereas social relativism’s focus on the descent of machination in human society and its impact on the now, both hold out-dated correlationist views despite the fact that they’re used currently. As both think from a human standpoint, that is the theories are developed by human surrounding humans, they leave out the entirety of an object’s right and agency, not only within the limit of human contact but also within the contact of it with other objects.

However, the Turing Test further shows how that even when we are mindful to take into consideration the agency of an object, one still employs the characteristics and therefore limitation of human ideology. How can we test the true agency of a computer’s computerism if we compartmentalise its agency with human terminology (‘think’)? How accurately can we study and believe to understand the ‘truth’ to dogs, when the only thing that knows the truth to a dog is the dog itself, which we are unable to communicate with?

Thus, Flat Ontology seeks multitudinous truths, making it “less likely to fall into the trap of system operational overdetermination” consequent to human reasoning.

*

So, what I have gotten from Alien Phenomenology thus far, after re-reading just the introduction, is that OOO (Object Orientated Ontology) interprets that everything exists equally, ultimately putting ‘things’ (‘things’ relating to both living and inanimate objects) at the centre of being. This philosophy I understand. You cannot have the chicken without the egg, the extended extendable thumbs (which science have predicted us humans shall soon have) without the Game Boy and the Iphone.

Although I commend OOO’s decentralisation of man in its argument against anthropocentrism, I do question whether its emphasis on the importance of stuff is consequential to our society’s fixation on consuming… Philosophy progresses and is reliant on the discourse of its prior history. In the same way that the Modernist era gave wind to the Expressionists, perhaps speculative realism (as “an event rather then a philosophical position” pg 5) and its demand to reject correlationism falsely glorifies the importance of ‘stuff’ due the glistening diamonds of 21st century consumerism.

Personally, I think I identify with environmental holism where “all beings are given equal absolute value and moral right to the planet – so long as they are indeed living creatures” (pg 7). I think this is due to my believe that ‘we’ (living organisms of the world) could continue to survive without ‘stuff’ but not without the food chain and circle of life of one another. I do acknowledge and have no doubt in my mind that ‘our’ (living organisms) interaction with ‘stuff’ (inanimate objects) have consequences and therefore effects the way in which the world progresses – I think this is demonstrated in the diverse abilities of a Baby Bloomer on a Ipad vs a 2 year old, and the affects of global warming on the planet). However, I think that by prioritising such ‘stuff’ to the point that it becomes equals to that which is living, it credentials the inanimate objects of the world with too much ‘power’.

However again, this being said the internet – which would be classified as ‘stuff’ – has achieved an unprecedented level of education regarding minorities and activism, which has allowed our society to perform a much needed gender revolution and progression into a ‘new future’…

Why I think I should blog:

Blogging provides a casual medium to express ideas. Ironically, this question reminds me of one of the first blogs I wrote, To Blog or Not To Blog, in the Media 1 course which was prompted by Adrian’s article Blog’s in Media Education (http://www.mediafactory.org.au/jocelyn-utting/2016/03/07/to-blog-or-not-to-blog/). In this article Adrian discusses the rhetoric of blogging, discussing an author’s assumption of being read changing the nature in which they write. Although my own media blog platform is a extremely causal, with my lack of fans patting my ego firmly as oppose to stroking it, I can’t help but associate myself and thus my blog with the intention of being read by an audience, which means ultimately means I am writing with my ego.

Although this blog is extremely casual and is used more as a notes and ideas platform that helps me expand ideas and development my writing, the awareness that comes with the blog’s platform and (in my case limited) audience still prevails. This however necessarily isn’t a bad thing. Throughout the blogging process of last year and this, the ever-looming possibility of being read has actually made me become more crafty in my writing and opinions. Thus, strengthening my ability not only to write, but feel comfortable in what I say.

Ultimately, blogging is used in this course to allow us the comfort of media training wheels before we attempt to ride mountain bikes across the slopes of media’s social functioning profession. My initial hesitance surrounding blogging which was consequent due to my fear of being ‘egocentric’ has subsided and instead now I feel grateful for the opportunity to have had a medium where I feel, to some extent, ‘heard’.

How casual can it be? (Fifteen ‘Dollars’) 

Extremely casual, you just have to remember that this platform is a reputational network. Ultimately, this means you can do what ever you like in your blog as long as it does not break the law. This includes copyright, slander against individuals and illicit activity.

How are we suppose to notice? (Fifteen ‘Dollars’)

We need to start looking for the density of relationships within a  specific location e.g. organisms that live on human. You just need to start noticing the relations that surround us that we have become ‘blind’ too due to their prevalence.

Why five posts a week? (Six ‘Dollars’)

We need to achieve the endorphin rush that comes from repetition or ‘training’. This turns the process of thought into a habit, meaning that the ‘ecology of noticing’ would stop being a concept and start being a reality.

What is expected in the blogs (some ideas / starters)? (Twenty ‘Dollars’) 

Anything and everything. Stuff about the course (obviously), but also extra things you notice!

Also, read other people’s blogs! Make your own ecosystem and think about what each other says! You can also pick a singular sentence from the reading and write three sentences about it. Scale does not matter. A blog post however should be self-sufficient. 1 blog per idea. This makes it easier for people to connect.

Should we use our blogs as note taking for class? (Eight ‘Dollars’) 

If it works for you yes, but there is no exact template to follow.

Can we have blog time in class after different discussions? (Twelve ‘Dollars’) 

Yes, but you must use the time wisely and not just to check social media.

Can we have a criteria template to guide us? 

Sure, but Adrian will forget. Lol.

Here are some notes on Rushkoff that I did personally and then in class. Also featured is the term teleology.  WEEK 2’s GLOSSARY:

Materiality: ‘the quality of being composed by matter’

Relationality: ‘concerning in which the way two or more things are connected’

Agency: ‘action or intervention producing a particular effect’.

Anthropocentrism: ‘regarding humankind as the central or most important element of human existence, especially as opposed to God or animals’.

Teleology: ‘the explanation of phenomena by the purpose they serve rather than by postulated causes’

Postulated: ‘suggest or assume the existence, fact, or truth of (something) as a basis for reasoning, discussion or believe’.

Constructivism: the idea that knowledge is constructed, and therefore social

Intrinsic Motivation: Intrinsic motivation refers to the behaviour that is driven my internal reward.

Rushkoff describes in this reading the cognitive shift present at the turn of the new century and its demonstration of such within the present. I found this reading really interesting at it portrayed to me (a young millennial whom was present but not fully conscious as a human being) the infamous ideas of Y2K, and its past promises of today. Despite being beautifully written, illustrated with poetic prophecies about the past, Rushkoff clearly communicates how our society has obtained present shock through future shock due to today’s fast moving ‘current’. (The play on words was not intentional but I am glad it happened).

‘Going into the new millennial, everyone was looking forward… [there] was a shift of an uncertain nature, but certainly of unprecedented magnitude’. This statement really stood out for me as recently I have been pondering my belonging and purpose within an age that seems subject to constant change. The gender revolution, the emergence of technology, veganism and Trump. Why was I lucky enough to be born into an era where the boiling pot of minorities have finally expanded their social heat, making my generation “the ones we have been waiting for. We are the change we seek”.

This change is consequential but has also resulted in the dismissal of what Rushkoff describes as ‘Big Stories. These stories are narratives told by the once elite, whose traditional power and linear arc structured narratives, dictated the culture of prior eras in what Matthew Arnold calls ‘elite’ or ‘pure’ culture. However, the new age brought forward the the promise of individual success due to the the 20th century’s established advancement in eras of electronics and finance within the Western world. Technology’s impact and new the millennium brought upon literal ground-breaking change, with the fear of Y2K’s implosion of infrastructure making people anticipate the refiguration of Western society – one perhaps in which they were higher up the ladder of success. However, Y2K did not happen and the millennium was instead introduced by the shock of an anti-climax. Therefore, disrupting the Big Story’s dramatic arc of progress and change, and instead providing a sense of present shock ‘wtf now?!’. Consequently, “a larger societal shift [formed] from future expectations and instead towards current value” (p.16). Making futurisms crafted agenda for change and ‘new’ winded in its blow of a culture now forced into a sense of stagnation.

Nowadays, we see within the rise of pop-culture a focus on ‘short stories’ as oppose to the traditional ‘big story’. Television has increased in popularity, with a surgent of episodic narratives and reality TV which focuses primarily on 40 minute ‘challenges’ as opposed to long winded adventures. The truth is – maybe we’re becoming growingly dependant on short stories who’s primary motive is to distract rather then educate, due to the mundane regulations of Western society that transcribe a way of life for us before we’re even born. If what Rushkoff says is true, and gaming is the media of the future due to it’s interactive agency, perhaps we as a society should sit reflect upon our own controller and switch the mode entirely.

Lets not follow our own narratives with teleoligic tradition but instead disrupt the story’s movement of today and act as if we don’t know its finite end (retirement, kids, care homes, death). Because unlike a book and/or a movie, life does not have a spine that dictates its end, and therefore we must live every day like its our last – because one day you’ll be right.