This paper is to be published (hopefully soon), but for those who are interested, here’s my Claremont paper– timeofobject-10.tex –on Derrida and object-oriented ontology. Here I draw on Derrida to make a case for withdrawal and objects as dynamic systems or processes. I’m not sure why I have formatting problems whenever I try to upload a document, but so it goes.
February 2, 2011
Larval Subjects . 
February 2, 2011 at 10:45 pm
Is there any chance you would be willing to post the original .tex file? I would like to get started using Latex but it is very difficult to find examples for humanities style essays.
February 3, 2011 at 2:08 am
“…the withdrawn dimension of objects, the pure past, or virtualp roper being must be thought as potency or the potentiality to be actualized otherwise or differently under different conditions. Entities or substances can thus never be identified with their actualized properties as these are but the crust or rind behind which the substantiality of substance withdraws, holding its molten potentials within reserve.”
Tim! Those sentences were dedicated to you! What an honor, what an incredible honor. You must be over the moon.
If I were Cultural Tzarina For a Day, I’d commission Robert Battles to choreograph this paper for a Samuel Lee Roberts solo, replete with theatrical props–blooming flowers, extension cords, and interlocking chains, to be performed in front of a huge flat hung with animated signs.
Then the world would see “thought as potency.”
February 6, 2011 at 6:25 pm
Hey Levi I just wanted to thank you for posting this. It ties together a lot of stuff in a really compelling way.
February 11, 2011 at 1:51 pm
pardon my ignorance here but it seems that there may be two issues here one being the physics of objects (or maybe the objects of physics) and their various transformations the other being our limited grasp of such matters, why think of objects as withdrawing as opposed to thinking in terms of our experience of them and the ways in which they exceed us (and our expectations)?
February 11, 2011 at 2:59 pm
Interessante.
February 12, 2011 at 6:06 am
I link to this at the end of here:
http://ecologywithoutnature.blogspot.com/2011/02/nothing-exists-like-that.html
March 15, 2011 at 10:42 pm
[…] as fodder for their own operations. For me, the second split within entities revolves around their constitutive openness. It is not simply that no entity is ever exhausted when treated as fodder for the operations of […]