THE
PUBLIC
SCHOOL
TELIC ARTS EXCHANGE

If we can't find a "teacher", would anyone be opposed to a reading/discussion group?

What about selections from Grant's "Philosophies of Nature After Schelling". I could scan and post to AAARG (if it's not already up). Might I also suggest Harman's "Prince of Networks" as opposed, or in addition to, "Guerilla Metaphysics" (could also scan/post). In it he specifically outlines Object-Oriented Ontology and distinguishes it from Meillassoux and Brassier's projects.

See also Harman's blog, http://doctorzamalek2.wordpress.com/ , for of-the-moment updates on OOO and the minutiae of his daily life (all of which exists on an equal level).

Jared & all,

I think that just having a normal discussion group is the way to go.

The Grant text is not on AAARG, so it would be really helpful to upload it.

I haven't read any of the Harman. My impression was that Prince of Networks implied more familiarity with LaTour, but if that's not the case, or if it's clear enough on its own, that's great and we can do that one instead.

Maybe a revised list would be something like:

Brassier's Nihil Unbound
Harman's Prince of Networks
Grant's Theories of Nature After Schelling

How would people feel about meeting in early June? That gives us a month or so to read one or two of the texts...

Best,
Zen

How does Saturday, June 5th sound to everyone?

I think a reading/discussion group would be productive.

June 5 works for me.

June 5 is great!

Perhaps someone with more familiarity with the texts could suggest what to do first. I am most inspired to read Brassier and Harmann second. What do y'all think?

- Zen

June 5th is good.

Zen, I didn't mean to radically alter the reading list. I think your suggestion of After Finitude is very important for the topic. For the sake of time, we could read only the intro to Philosophies of Nature, which gives us the argument without all of the gory details. I'm away from my library and won't be able to scan/upload it until later this month. Prince of Networks is available online at:
http://www.re-press.org/.../OA_Version_780980544060_Prince_of_Networks.pdf

The last three chapters are of importance to us. The first half of the book is Harman's defense of Latour as a metaphysician, totally enjoyable read, but not entirely necessary to understand OOO.

Do we know any Kantian or Heideggerian scholars who may want to join the group? Their input would probably be very useful here. I went to the School of Autodidacticism so my philosophy background is like swiss cheese.

I have no attachment to any particular list.

I have read the Meillasoux and find it pretty uninteresting and easy to sum up in about 10 words. I'm fine for axing it -- but I'd like to hear from others...

Maybe we could read Prince of Networks (last 3 chapters) and Nihil Unbound for the 1st meeting and the Grant book in late June or early July, after you scan it.

I'd like to hear from other people if they have any preferences.

I'm certainly no Kant or Heidegger scholar, but I work on aesthetics at UCLA, so I certainly know the main arguments of the two and how they're related to correlationism.

Best,
Zen

Hi everyone,

I scheduled the first meeting for June 5 at noon. We can figure out when the subsequent meetings will be at the first session.

If anyone has a problem with the 5th, let me know!

-c

I can probably assist on topics related to a number of relavent philosophers, including Heidegger, Kant, Husserl, late Foucault, Zhuangzi, Laozi, Kongzi, and some other relavent explorations in non-western contexts. However, I have trepidation about whether the purpose of the group is to really explore our lives and our being, or instead to develop attacks against certain academic positions. Any thoughts? The other concern is that I will need to finish up a load of writing that has deadlines before coming; probably open around late June.

Well, I see now that my question was ill-formed; looks like you want to consider the difference between being and thinking, and not merely being. That is also fine; although it will be interesting to see what some different people consider to be really thinking. :)

Hey All,

We should probably decide on the readings by this weekend or so, so we have a good 2+ weeks to read them.

My suggestion is we stick with the last 3 chapters of Prince of Networks.

As for other readings, I am looking through Nihil Unbound and it seems that many chapters assume prior knowledge of people like Deleuze, Heidegger, Nietzasche, Adorno, etc...

Perhaps we should pick only 1 or 2 chapters of that? Focus more on Harmann? What do you think? Let's post ideas!

Zen,
I think After Finitude should be on the reading list, whether or not you find it interesting. It's key reading for anyone wanting to study Speculative Realism. I do want to hear why you find it uninteresting, though. It's the means by which the arguments are constructed that will be important to our discussion.

I'm reading Nihil Unbound right now. Brassier provides enough background info on his sources to follow along. Skimming ahead, it seems like Part 3, Chapters 6 & 7, would be enough for our purposes. Any thoughts?

Proposed reading list:

After Finitude

Prince of Networks, Part II

Philosophies of Nature After Schelling, (Introduction. Possibly last chapter.)

Nihil Unbound, (?)

What about some selections from the blogs listed above?

Manythings,
Which group do you have trepidation about? Speculative Realism? Or our Public School class? I'm hoping both explore our lives and being. With that sentiment in mind, I think you'll enjoy reading Harman.

Hey yall,

I am in Austin right now, finishing up the semester, but I will be back on 5th and am excited to check this out. I am pretty well versed in everything that these dudes appear to talk trash about (Ancient, Scholastic, Idealist and Whatever Deleuze calls himself), so I can help with being the devil's advocate. I am excited to learn some new stuff!!

I must, however, warn you that the years of graduate school have made me less and less willing to drink the koolaid of any "new" philosophy. Prepare for some skepticism. Lighthearted, of course!

Oh and I propose that we adopt a completely arbitrary reading schedule: chronologically by date written. Otherwise we can spend our entire lives commenting and not reading.

Ok here's the reading list I propose:

Meeting 1: Prince of Networks (last 3 chapters) by Harmann
After Finitude by Meillasoux

Meeting 2: Nihil Unbound, Ch 3, 6, 7 by Brassier
Philosophies of Nature After Schelling by
Grant (still to be scanned & sections TBD)

This makes sense to me because Meillasoux & Harmann are both concerned with the "object" and they seem easier -- better texts to begin with.

Brassier & Grant both fit broadly under the "vitalism" category and seem more difficult -- good for the second meeting.

Unless there are objections -- should we go with this?

* Zen

Ok so about 6 of us taking the class met today @ the Public School & we figured out we need to lower the reading load to about 100 pages.

That said, we suggest that for the 1st class the reading should be:

Meillasoux, After Finitude, Chapters 1 & 2.
Harmann, Prince of Networks Chapter 7

THESE TEXTS ARE AVAILABLE UNDER "SPECULATIVE REALISM -- LA" ON AAAARG, the issue associated with this class.

This should be manageable & this way everyone can have a good footing in the texts.

For those who can read more, finish the Meillasoux & read Chapters 5 & 6 of Harmann too.

Sound good? We'll have a second, and possibly a third meeting too, to cover Brassier & Hamilton Grant & anything else we want to get to or go back over...

Would Saturday, the 12th at noon be OK with everyone for our second session?

-c

That's graduation day for UCLA arts but i might be able to come and take off early.

Ugh I wish I could go! June 5th is bad for a lot of us in san diego, as multiple openings are that night. I've been reading meilassoux, toscano, delanda and deleuze on these questions and I'd love to join the conversation, which is to say that I'm really interested in a 2nd class, but the 12th doesn't work for me either. How about the 26th?

Was curious what a new age reading of my posts would amount to...email manythings2004@yahoo.com

with the loss of aaaarg we have no way to aquire the texts for this class. did anyone grab the articles for this class before aaaarg went down?

Meillasoux, After Finitude
http://www.mediafire.com/?vzzntxzmtjz
Harmann, Prince of Networks
http://ifile.it/dl

Brassier:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/7376521/Brassier%20-%20Nihil%20Unbound%20-%20Enl...

Just a reminder-the first installment of Speculative Realism is tomorrow. As aaaarg shut down the readings can now be found here:

Meillasoux, After Finitude
http://www.mediafire.com/?vzzntxzmtjz

Harmann, Prince of Networks
http://ifile.it/dl

Excited to speculate alongside you all!

The tribe that only counts to 5(ish) is the Munduruku, as mentioned in Alex Bellos' book "Alex's Adventures in Numberland." There was a page with an excerpt on the guardian site but it is down now (copywrong strikes again)

Sorry for colonizing the later half of the class!

Good class -- and good debate. For those who couldn't make it, we are meeting next Saturday @ noon at the Public School.

Would someone else like to facilitate this one?

The readings are: finish Meillasoux (Chs. 3-end) & read Ch 6 of Harmann, Prince of Networks.

I think we hit on some core issues/problems with the readings and I will try to summarize them here:

1. How do two objects relate? Harmann says they need a sensual mediator? Does this mean, for instance Rain - Rock mediated by gravity, or the sensual surface of the rain and rock mediate between the real rock & rain. Here is a possible response to read: http://doctorzamalek2.wordpress.com/2009/11/17/my-own-response-to-levis-...

2. The next question was, what does it matter? How does getting us thinking about real but inaccessible objects change anything? Pragmatically, does OOP change how humans might encounter the world? Does the existence of real objects really change the day-to-day fact that we live in a more or less correlationist existence?

3. What would it mean to talk about human consciousness encountering the world as being ontologically equal to inanimate objects encountering each other? What would it really tell us about inanimate things? About non-human living beings? Are there thought experiments we could propose to take advantage of Harmann's non-anthropocentric panpsychism?

Great summary. There is a note in chapter 6 about the interacting thing, that they do so "on the inside of other objects" along with promises to go in-depth on it which are never really followed through on.

I'd like to propose a variant of #2 that i've been thinking which really boils down my issues.

Granting that the project of talking about objects without reference to humans is a good one, the question remains: do we need a metaphysics to do so? Or can we just start talking?

To those interested in Speculative Realism & The Public School:

Just show up to the Public School at noon (or a little before) this Saturday! Bring $5 for the suggested donation.

And most importantly bring your ideas!

Best,
Zen
p.s. be sure to check out all the other great classes. You can also propose a class YOU want to take, teach, or participate in, and if there's enough interest it can happen!

If anyone is interested in picking this group up after summer, we should talk. I would still love to read Brassier & the blogs.

Zen

I am for sure. Hope class was a good one saturday, sad to have missed it.

As are Michael and I. If this starts up again in the fal, we'll definitely be interested.