the proliferation of new materialisms since the 20th century indicate a radical turn in the social production of reality away from object-oriented ontologies and toward body-oriented ontologies
-
Show this thread
-
object-oriented ontologies are actually class-oriented ontologies — that is, they are concerned primarily with the essences of things rather than the things themselves
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
i'm not sure where i'm going with this but i'll add more as the day goes on
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
a body-oriented ontology is concerned primarily with unique instantiations rather than essences or classes. it allows for the description and classification of objects as themselves rather than as types, classes, or derivatives of transcendental forms
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
body-oriented ontologies allow the consideration of the vital materialisms of things and people — something that object-oriented ontologies will always fall short of, because they are concerned with classifications rather than vital instantiations
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
this is all to say: body-oriented ontologies are concerned with the vital lives of things and beings, while object-oriented ontologies are concerned with abstract concepts of things and beings.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
crucially, this means that a body-oriented ontology lacks the rigid structure of an object-oriented one. it is defined rhizomatically and relationally, allowing things to become rather than to be inscribed within systems
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @theflowingsky @devinhalladay
been thinking in a similar direction recently, coming from dissatisfaction with object-oriented approaches to qualia - qualia are not objects, they lack critical properties of objects, e.g. permanence
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @allgebrah @devinhalladay
object-oriented approaches are useful when dealing with consensus reality because they map neatly to symbols. Symbolic thought and language are natural tools for negotiating the contents of consensus reality. But they fail when it comes to the contents of minds
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @allgebrah @devinhalladay
whatever happens in (at least) a human mind is grounded in experience, and through that in the body and its agency, so yeah, the best ontology for one's mind's contents is going to be body-oriented
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
throwing out object-oriented ontology altogether seems unwise though, body-oriented ontology is bad at establishing consensus since people feel very differently, it's a right-tool-for-the-job situation
-
-
Replying to @allgebrah @devinhalladay
open questions: - what's the best interface between the different worlds - what does an egregore's ontology/reality look like, and should we humans care about how it interacts with consensus reality
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.