The essay ROCKS, my dude! Also the Moshfegh quote in relation to it is gold! The whole subgenre of “why-does-everything-have-to-be-direct-and-what-do-we-even-mean-by-direct?” is evergreen for me, and this post is now part of its canon. Many thanks for this insightful writing!🥹 (btw a fave writer of mine in the aforementioned subgenre an…
The essay ROCKS, my dude! Also the Moshfegh quote in relation to it is gold! The whole subgenre of “why-does-everything-have-to-be-direct-and-what-do-we-even-mean-by-direct?” is evergreen for me, and this post is now part of its canon. Many thanks for this insightful writing!🥹 (btw a fave writer of mine in the aforementioned subgenre and whom I NEVER pass up an opportunity to recommend is Timothy Morton. They’ve got this line I can never get out of my head about how there’s “always a gap between something’s appearance and its essence,” and therefore directness is impossible)😮
I’m very intrigued by the Morton quote you shared! is it from Hyperobjects? I have to confess I have an instinctual FEAR whenever Morton comes up because I still have no clue what object-oriented ontology means in philosophy, even though I keep on opening the Wikipedia article to try and figure out…
I think it’s from “Realist Magic” (2013)— but it’s also an idea I think they’ve mentioned in more than one book before too?😅 So we’re BOTH right!
But yes, I TOTALLY get you on how daunting all the Morton stuff is, though! From what I understand of it, at least, I think Object-Oriented-Ontology/speculative-realism — if ya had to simplify it out of its annoyingly dense grad-school lingo— is kinda just a way to blend old pre-humanist metaphysics about “inter-connectedness” with modern science? Kinda like what Robin Wall Kimmerer did with “Braiding Sweetgrass,” except with psychology and astrophysics?
Lol that may have actually made it MORE confusing, huh?🤣 What a mess. Whoopsie language is a cage, etc., etc.
The essay ROCKS, my dude! Also the Moshfegh quote in relation to it is gold! The whole subgenre of “why-does-everything-have-to-be-direct-and-what-do-we-even-mean-by-direct?” is evergreen for me, and this post is now part of its canon. Many thanks for this insightful writing!🥹 (btw a fave writer of mine in the aforementioned subgenre and whom I NEVER pass up an opportunity to recommend is Timothy Morton. They’ve got this line I can never get out of my head about how there’s “always a gap between something’s appearance and its essence,” and therefore directness is impossible)😮
I’m very intrigued by the Morton quote you shared! is it from Hyperobjects? I have to confess I have an instinctual FEAR whenever Morton comes up because I still have no clue what object-oriented ontology means in philosophy, even though I keep on opening the Wikipedia article to try and figure out…
I think it’s from “Realist Magic” (2013)— but it’s also an idea I think they’ve mentioned in more than one book before too?😅 So we’re BOTH right!
But yes, I TOTALLY get you on how daunting all the Morton stuff is, though! From what I understand of it, at least, I think Object-Oriented-Ontology/speculative-realism — if ya had to simplify it out of its annoyingly dense grad-school lingo— is kinda just a way to blend old pre-humanist metaphysics about “inter-connectedness” with modern science? Kinda like what Robin Wall Kimmerer did with “Braiding Sweetgrass,” except with psychology and astrophysics?
Lol that may have actually made it MORE confusing, huh?🤣 What a mess. Whoopsie language is a cage, etc., etc.