Alex Reid has yet another INTERESTING POST up over at Digital Digs. Alex writes:

As readers of this blog know, I’ve been engaging with object-oriented ontology a great deal lately, and one of the things that strikes me is how unlikely, from a philosophical viewpoint, really any relation is. Relation is, admittedly, perplexing for OOO. In a surprising way, OOO’s staunch withdrawn object makes the question of relation far more interesting and fascinating than it every was before. It seems almost impossible. When I think about it, I am reminded of Stephen Hawking telling us how unlikely and suprising the universe is. Why didn’t the matter and dark matter cancel each other out? How unlikely is it that atoms formed into stars and generated the materials to build planets? How many big bangs did it take before objects started to relate? And then how unlikely are the circumstances of life? How many planets, in how many star systems, in how many galaxies, does it take before objects link together to create DNA code? It is easy to keep going, because, after all, every relation is singular among objects… whatever objects are.

I’m in the midst of a rather nasty cold at the moment, so I won’t comment too deeply on Alex’s post, but I do think he’s spot on here. What OOO draws attention to, I believe, is the improbability of any particular relation. The problem with arguing that things are their relations or that they are constituted by their relations is that this tends to efface this improbability. In highlighting this improbability, OOO surprisingly draws attention to the forging of relations or all the work required to build or construct them. There’s a lot in Alex’s post so make sure you read the whole thing.