Andre Ling, who has led a very interesting life, has written a terrific post on what he sees as the significance of OOO. Here’s a taste:
Perhaps the answer to all this confusion lies in the simple word ‘know’. Object oriented ontology, as I understand it, has no major problem with the idea that ‘knowledge about X’ is socially constructed (though it may have all sorts of things to say about what society and knowledge are and how society can or can’t construct knowledge). Instead it asks the question, “given that knowledge about reality is socially constructed, what can we say about the nature of reality and the very way that any kind of social construction is possible at all?”
Object oriented ontology asks us to take our reality seriously but not to hold onto our constructions of it or our representations of it blindly. It asks us to take all human claims to knowledge with a healthy dose of skepticism. It proposes that we can only ever speculate about reality. This speculation, however, is not just some frivolous passtime for people unconcerned with the world around them. Rather, it is a serious way of probing possible mechanisms of reality, laying foundations for entire new ways – not only of conceiving the world, but also of being in it.
Read the rest here. In many respects, this is what OOO boils down to: a refusal to erase beings behind representations or to treat beings and representations as identical to one another.