Author Topic: Obect Oriented Ontology and Hyperobjects  (Read 322 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Smooth

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 166
Obect Oriented Ontology and Hyperobjects
« on: January 17, 2017, 10:08:26 AM »
http://bogost.com/writing/blog/what_is_objectoriented_ontolog/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_ontology

http://criticalinquiry.uchicago.edu/ursula_k._heise_reviews_timothy_morton

I stumbled upon this topic exploring the concept of "Hyperobjects." Hyperobjects are easier to conceptualize than a pure OOO object.  Global-warming, radioactive waste, our solar systems oscillation through the galactic spiral arm, society, ecology, etc. are hyperobjects, existing on different timelines, scales of matter, etc. I can see how concepts them selves can be objects or hyperobjects in cultural or natural contexts.

I am not a philosophy wonk, and much of what is written on OOO has been difficult to decode since I am not so steeped in philosophical jargon and rhetoric and what problems OOO is addressing.  The easiest concept to grasp from OOO is that it seeks to de-emphasize and de-legitimize assumed traditional anthropocentric axiom of "mind first, object next."

It is an interesting idea, but one which in a few ways I am having particular issues with.
It seems my main issue with OOO is their definition of 'object'.  OOO is decidedly anti-material, which is hard to fathom.  I can understand an 'object' to be a temporal coalescence of matter and/or circumstance unto itself, but the idea that an object is finite and cannot be fully ascertained by human cognition and never changes is difficult to swallow.  In my mind, an object cannot be separated from its surroundings, inalienable to other other objects, and are subject to influence or change or to influence and change of other objects. I can also understand how an 'object' may be immaterial, such as political ideals, choices a society makes conscious or not, for instance the controversial Freakonomics Hyperobject: Roe v Wade.

I don't understand how an 'object' can be finite and static and immutable, unless it is similar to a 'class' as in programming. Actually a 'class' is a poor example. Perhaps more like a function in programming.  My 'pantheist' slant interrupts the OOO object since I see the universe as singular with 'more important' local influences, aka., Newtonian-Relativity-Quanta.  The "hyperobject" is a very interesting concept which I feel is both true and if you think hard on it, obvious. But even a hyperobject in my mind behave more like a fractal multidimensional non-local wave with amorphous and interconnected uniqueness, than as an immutable 'class', property or function.

Am I in the weeds on this?
Watching this now.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2017, 11:07:10 AM by Smooth »

Offline Colonel Panic

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 122
Re: Obect Oriented Ontology and Hyperobjects
« Reply #1 on: January 17, 2017, 12:39:30 PM »
An ontology based on a popular computer programming paradigm, which ignores the qualitative difference between fictional and imagined entities?

What is the value of this?
« Last Edit: January 18, 2017, 02:16:42 AM by Colonel Panic »

Offline Smooth

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 166
Re: Obect Oriented Ontology and Hyperobjects
« Reply #2 on: January 17, 2017, 02:45:50 PM »
The references to programming were my attempt at metaphor. Not something intrinsic to the philosophical argument.

Offline Colonel Panic

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 122
Re: Obect Oriented Ontology and Hyperobjects
« Reply #3 on: January 18, 2017, 02:07:09 AM »
The object-oriented ontology makes sense in a variety certain computer programming situations where you're instructing a machine to perform logical operations related to real-world business. In those situations, the big advantage of object-oriented representation is that it offers a human-intelligible form of semiotics that is modular and extensible, and also translates easily into machine language. And while object-oriented computer languages are very useful for some kinds of programming applications, they completely suck balls for other types of applications. Some computing tasks lend themselves more readily to a procedural or symbolic language. It all depends on what you're trying to achieve.

I'm trying to figure out the purpose of this "object oriented ontology" in terms of philosophical examination and discourse. What benefits does it offer over other semiotic forms?
« Last Edit: January 18, 2017, 02:44:48 AM by Colonel Panic »

Offline Colonel Panic

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 122
Re: Obect Oriented Ontology and Hyperobjects
« Reply #4 on: January 18, 2017, 02:17:56 AM »
Watching that lecture in the video just confirmed my opinion. It seems like a fanciful solution in search of a purpose.

When it comes to ontology, I have to admit partiality to Sean Carroll's idea of "poetic naturalism." Seems a good balance between methodological naturalism, human interest, and pragmatism.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2017, 10:17:47 PM by Colonel Panic »

 

personate-rain