I never managed to get my head around object oriented ontology but relational ontology I can intuitively understand! Makes immediate sense. Thanks for this.
Yeah, I read a bit about object oriented ontology (ooo) some while back, mainly because it was associated with that fellow who invented the term "hyperobjects," who is an interesting enough thinker. But I'm just not constituted to think of things as objects. I tend to see "things" as events, processes and relations. It's rather instinctual for me, I think.
And I do believe we who are more instinctively oriented to relational ontology are also more likely to embrace a deeply relational sense of what is called "politics" -- one rooted in relational ontology. For example, we're likely to be more drawn toward communalistic forms of politics, but also toward forms of communalistic politics which are anti-authoritarian. Or just plain non-authoritarian.
I'm using "instinctive" in a loose, poetic way, not so much in a strict biological sense.
I'm slowly discovering that there are truly bunches and bunches of people around the world exploring how to conceive of a fully relational sense of agency. There are lots of emerging theoretical orientations on this. I'm too new to the field to say much more, but glad to have discovered that such a field exists in a serious and multiplicitious way!
I'm becoming rather fascinated with the work of the folks at Perspectiva.
Okay. I didn't get very far with this. I'm not one of those who'd stop reading because of politics--I'm very interested in politics. But I have no interest in philosophy. It did occur to me though, that this might answer the question of, to whom can I give my copy o fThe Master and His Emissary by Iain McGilchrist. This guy was interviewed by Nate Hagens, his basic thesis is that the left hemisphere of the brain has taken over Western culture and that's what's gone wrong. So I bought the book, am about 3/4 of the way through it and will finish it--but I consider a book worth buying if either I will reread or refer to it again many times, or I can pass it on to others. I'm getting so little out of this book I'm not going to want to read it again, and who can I pass it on to? It's full of philosophy, which I don't understand or find interesting, and history, and neurology which I also really don't understand--I've read a LITTLE about the brain but can't be said to be even a beginning student. So reading the above I thought--maybe James would want this book. If so, send me your mailing address and I'll mail it to you when I'm done with it.
Thanks, Mary, but I already own a copy. My local library has a tiny little bookstore run by the Friends of the Library, and they accept book donations, then sell softcovers for dollar and hardcovers for two dollars. I found a softcover copy there a while back, and haven't read it yet.
Not everyone will appreciate philosophical inquiry around politics, but, as I see it, politics is built out of philosophy. And never have we needed to re-imagine and re-invent politics more than at this time in our history. So, again, as I see it, we need to bring philosophy to politics.
I never managed to get my head around object oriented ontology but relational ontology I can intuitively understand! Makes immediate sense. Thanks for this.
Yeah, I read a bit about object oriented ontology (ooo) some while back, mainly because it was associated with that fellow who invented the term "hyperobjects," who is an interesting enough thinker. But I'm just not constituted to think of things as objects. I tend to see "things" as events, processes and relations. It's rather instinctual for me, I think.
And I do believe we who are more instinctively oriented to relational ontology are also more likely to embrace a deeply relational sense of what is called "politics" -- one rooted in relational ontology. For example, we're likely to be more drawn toward communalistic forms of politics, but also toward forms of communalistic politics which are anti-authoritarian. Or just plain non-authoritarian.
I'm using "instinctive" in a loose, poetic way, not so much in a strict biological sense.
Hi James. You may be interested in eforts to redefine agency as relational: https://emergentfutureslab.com/innovation-glossary/agency
Thanks Thom!
I'm slowly discovering that there are truly bunches and bunches of people around the world exploring how to conceive of a fully relational sense of agency. There are lots of emerging theoretical orientations on this. I'm too new to the field to say much more, but glad to have discovered that such a field exists in a serious and multiplicitious way!
I'm becoming rather fascinated with the work of the folks at Perspectiva.
https://systems-souls-society.com/
Okay. I didn't get very far with this. I'm not one of those who'd stop reading because of politics--I'm very interested in politics. But I have no interest in philosophy. It did occur to me though, that this might answer the question of, to whom can I give my copy o fThe Master and His Emissary by Iain McGilchrist. This guy was interviewed by Nate Hagens, his basic thesis is that the left hemisphere of the brain has taken over Western culture and that's what's gone wrong. So I bought the book, am about 3/4 of the way through it and will finish it--but I consider a book worth buying if either I will reread or refer to it again many times, or I can pass it on to others. I'm getting so little out of this book I'm not going to want to read it again, and who can I pass it on to? It's full of philosophy, which I don't understand or find interesting, and history, and neurology which I also really don't understand--I've read a LITTLE about the brain but can't be said to be even a beginning student. So reading the above I thought--maybe James would want this book. If so, send me your mailing address and I'll mail it to you when I'm done with it.
Thanks, Mary, but I already own a copy. My local library has a tiny little bookstore run by the Friends of the Library, and they accept book donations, then sell softcovers for dollar and hardcovers for two dollars. I found a softcover copy there a while back, and haven't read it yet.
Not everyone will appreciate philosophical inquiry around politics, but, as I see it, politics is built out of philosophy. And never have we needed to re-imagine and re-invent politics more than at this time in our history. So, again, as I see it, we need to bring philosophy to politics.