When I checked Graham Harman’s lectures re Objects, It seemed to me a bit cool. Interesting. Sure. An Object. A objective. A clear. A clarity. Clarity. Klarity. Boom.
However. what rang. Home. Unlike ET – was the multiplicity of connections, of beings, of centrality free beings that are moving about. At least in my. Sense. Senses.
It reminded me the 1st time seeing stuff Through an actual microscope. I still recall the view of the movements. Of the blobs. Of the darkness and light. And of a mind scraping and ranging the experience, the process, the scope of the eye with its glasses. And it wasn’t an it.
THrough the microscope it seemed like I was looking into the night’s sky. It felt like space. So much so that my mind went:
What is right now some giant that isn’t a giant for itself in its own well proportioned mirror, looks via a microscope and inside that is where our universe? Is it not like this little amoebae might sense me? Does it not live on that blob that moves about like a planet on a different universe?
I might think of it as a space of non universality because of size – but if I was that amoebae, as I might be for our universal giant – would I not consider my space to be the universe that there is?
Another element, or rather operation that I can recall, and which seems to correspond, or vibrate, or somehow rate, or cross, or use a sort of term Harman is employing to reason for Objects, is the following: there seem to be no objects, in the sense that the blobs seemed like objects to begin with, and in-between them, so called space, is only an object if I force the term onto it because in fact its borderless, as this is exactly the stuff, the operations objects seem in my understanding or mis appropriation of it do – the y do that not explaining the in betweeness. Between the borders, that inevitably rise, if, and perhaps only if, we have objects, a clear, a clarity that differentiate between one object to another. This might seem like I am seeking a theory of all yet its not, this is just using Graham’s own terminology. He talks about deficiencies in others’ theories from the view of them not explaining stuff, phenomenas that should be easily related to. Personally, am very happy to have various explanations that might be partial or mistaken even – however challange, extend, playful, and radical for the senses. As for the senses not all all visual, nor all is aural, or neither all is not conceptual, or not practical, and even not all impractical. However we cross, and cross, and criss and cross information, data, streams, each other, and via the connections the collisions the transmissions the gravities the searches the strands the entanglements the soups the entrainments the links the relations that rise – confabulatory and some even realisation processes rise. No? Well
for a person who might seek realisationsal sensations.
I am just more limited.
Am more like the amoebae – am stuck on the sensation. Sensation operations.
The sensations of rhythms however, harking back to OOO and Harman, do seem to “explain” to enable using their own terms for the seeming objects and in between. If we are borderless, when the seeming edges are so only for convenience of the viewer – not in and of themselves, in their own realities, in their own dis-clarify processes, and cultivations, in their own scopes of micro and macro, in the own ranges that rolls like waves of beats into one another?
And so is time-sapce that makes up the vibes when and where the blobby vibrational vibrators seem to be moving towards, through, and from.
No?
Indeed aesthetically speaking. From the most rudimentary visuality of making images of drawing with a pen and a pencil/chalk/etc – one of the 1st lessons of seeing the world is precisely the impressionistic culture of light, and objects, and movements. The border as an imposition, and of fuzz as the taste of life that unlike coke – is not encaptuable. Not in the scale that is from us, nor that from the amoebae. Not without brutality.
Perhaps we need brutality for encapsulation? And encapsulation is a worldly requirement. Well and then it might have to criss and cross other stuff that will, in a dark ironic way, from the encapsulated own view, erode its edges.
No?