I’m curious to what extent Benjamin’s methodological aestheticism, which, in the Arcades Project, he nominates as montage in some sense, to be determined more specifically later, parallels object-oriented ontology’s concern with objects and their relations. For example, Benjamin’s method employs montage, I will suggest, in order to depict the manner in which we interact with objects in our world. In this very specific sense, the method depicts a realist method insofar as our daily lives comprise varying relations with objects and their relations. Furthermore, the generated meanings which emerge as a result of their interactions…we don’t possess any decoder wheel which illuminates the spectral history and vanished mediators…
The montage method shows; it doesn’t exposit. That is, a certain degree of maturity must accompany a montagiac relation or composition insofar as the objects comprising the world and, more importantly, their interactions do not come “ready made” in narrative form. Given that society, as a collective or group (not sure which…what’s Sartre’s distinction), entails an entire socio-economico-political history that constitutes its current form, even though “soceity”, contrary to the rumours, exists, and exists in its own way, with its own effects. How does Harman’s account of OOP parallel with this account? Furthermore, is it possible to merge OOP with a radical political subject?
when fluidly streaming through the copious objects constitutive of public and private space, in real life, what one lacks is an audio-guide, someone, the subect supposed to know, to navigate life’s object polluted waters in order to extract the vanished mediators and spectral histories of the voluminous and seemingly abstract products, buildings, companies, people, etc.
To what extent does the oversaturation with Capital, lies, fictions, interest-justifications delapidate our physical, emotional, and cognitive sensibility and sensitivity…that truly evental interruptions will henceforth be subordinated to “business as usual”. The evental lacks today any and all eruptive force. I’m thinking specifically here of Sartre’s claim in Critique regarding the existence of historical events…historical events, then, as a philosophical “myth of the given”…what does Badiou claim?
One’s confronted with a barrage of objects of which their interrelations have grown increasingly complex and abstract involving, now, even virtuality. The media, today, perhaps always, qua media, serves a narrative, web-spinning function insofar as it appropriates the tour guide occupation by calling to specific demographics’s attention and inserting the missing links into the blind spot of relationality: causation and connectives the veracity of which remains increasingly difficult to ascertain.
Harman’s position? The metaphysical insight, I believe, is quite simple. There’s an ontological duality constitutive of objects qua objects. That is, objects are inherently split insofar as, once entered into relations, they achieve a kind of dual existence. One in which, with whatever object or objects they’re currently in relation and one which defines that object as it exists in itself sans relation.
My claim concerns Benjamin’s methodological aestheticism. For what purpose does Benjamin introduce montage as his modus operandi? Is there a particular method with which he’s substituting? If so, what are the weaknesses and the reasons for introducing something new? Furthermore, what is political and “Left” about the montage method? I have a hunch…but, nothing more than that. Adorno expressed some reservations concerning the increasing aestheticism of Benjamin’s methodology. In fact, when he first encountered the work he exclaimed “my worst fears have come true”. Strange claim considering the influence Benjamin’s earlier, less developed notion of constellations came to exert on Adorno’s work. How does Benjamin’s montage differ from Adorno’s appropriation of Benjamin’s constellational method? Adorno makes a claim in a letter to this effect, doing the interpretive work for us so to speak. That is, Adorno claims that he proceeds according the Hegelian method…whatever that means.
One could perhaps interpret the montagiac method as annoyingly lazy insofar as much of the theoretical hard work is outsourced from the author to the reader.
Perhaps I can find an appropriate method to introduce which details the comparable philosophical program Harman and Benjamin attempt to formulate.
Is it possible to apply Taylor’s distinction between strong and weak evaluation to ACS? That is, suppose a subject were to deny
I’m curious about a particular passage I encountered tonight. A claim made by a rational choice theorist in which he detailed the normative and prescriptive nature of rational choice theory…that is, most of what follows does so only on a very theoretical and abstract model of human nature. Rational choice theory isn’t much concerned with the psychological or empirical status of human beings…instead, the mathematical models provide a wonderfully coherent fit within liberal free market capitalism.
This passage struck me as interesting because in Perversion and Utopia, Whitebook makes the point that both Cavell and the first generation Frankfurt Schoolers deemed Freud the representative of the outcome of German idealism…the kantian and hegelian transcdental framework’s received their empirical confirmation and elaboration by the famous Viennese psychoanalyst. I’d like to, if possible, develop rational choice theory in terms of Kant…that is, pit Kant against both Hegel and Freud…using Kant as a kind of philosophical foil against which to develop and elaborate my alternative to the ACS.