In case anyone mentioned it, Thomas Meli and I, after a rather rocky start, have really had a rather stellar discussion (starting here) about ecology and what ecology is about. Tom really practices what he preaches both in terms of ecology and literature, opening himself up to dialogical interaction with alterity or what Morton calls “strange strangers” and entering into becoming in those relations and interactions. Good ecological thinking– and I believe all my thought, for a long time, has been moving towards a particular conception of the ecological –should be premised on the status of entities as strange strangers, the manner in which they are pervaded by potentialities, and the manner in which they become otherwise as a result of entering into new and different fields of relations. Good ecological thought is the willingness to undergo adventures of becoming as a result of encounters with alterity and the refusal to reduce beings to thought. From Tom I take the lesson of better clarifying just what I have in mind by “black ecology”, to emphasize that I’m not rejecting the homeostatic but emphasizing that there’s nothing inherently natural about homeostasis, and to emphasize that I do indeed recognize the importance of the homeostatic and both our stake in this and the stake of other lifeforms. Being the dark, pessimistic, and person attracted to the creepy and strange that I am, I sometimes overemphasize the pessimistic and dark. For me that’s not really the point, though. What I wish to see is a framework that refuses the deify and trust and providence, that recognizes the brutality (and beauty) of the world, and that rises to the occasion of setting aims for itself. I look forward to more discussions with Tom.
June 14, 2011
Ecological Encounters and Strange Strangers
Posted by larvalsubjects under Uncategorized[3] Comments
Advertisements
June 14, 2011 at 1:49 am
Levi & Readers,
I’m deeply moved and affected both by the honesty of this post, and the integrity of what I see as your openness towards undergoing an adventure in becoming with me. I really appreciate it and continue to be inspired by the rigor, depth, and even good humor of your work. I am deeply interested in the possibility of philosophical dialog and the shared holding of adventures in thought which may go in different directions yet mutually support each other. I learned quite a bit about what this might look like, and how to write in a way that supports it. I also gained much clarity on some theoretical points as well. Thank you so much for sticking it out with me.
If you or other folks are interested, I have started a blog that doesn’t so much focus on theory itself, but rather speaks of these kinds of adventures in becoming from the perspective of nonviolence, dialog, and compassion. Part of my work is uniting these modalities of being with ideas of posthumanism, ecology, and the Speculative turn. I am deeply interested in what these can contribute to a kind of non-anthropocentric humanism and what role this can play in thinking a non-anthropocentric ecology where humans also matter.
Here’s its inception. Its more story based than theoretical, though the theory is in there if you read between the lines. I Imagine it may strike some as a kind of new-age-ism, though if this is the case, I encourage you to read it against the background of the strange stranger and see my “inner work” as an attempt to experience “encounters” (with objects if you like).
The Interdependent Soul
http://interdependentsoul.com/
Comments very welcome.
Sincerely,
-Tom
June 14, 2011 at 5:49 am
this sounds really good!
June 14, 2011 at 3:40 pm
An interesting exchange, Levi. I’ve come to see the world – largely as a result of your, Tim’s, Adrian’s, and Michael’s influence – as a constellation of different (kinds of) entities each trying to make their way, and entering into many different (kinds of) relations (i.e. homeostatic and non-homeostatic, competitive and cooperative, etc.) with other entities. Note, I’m not reducing ecosystems, social systems and other patterns to the movements of atomistic individuals – rather I’m emphasizing the relations that myriad entities enter into and the processes of building those relationships over time and space. Note also, though I’m emphasizing relations and processes, I don’t think this line of thought privileges Process-Relational Philosophy over Object Oriented Philosophy (at least not in your formulation). There is still room for withdrawal – something I’m on the fence about, I guess, though, after reading this interchange I definitely have a better understanding of what you mean.