The .html version of The Democracy of Objects is now available. The paper and .pdf version will be soon to follow. Many thanks to the outstanding volunteer team at OHP for all their hard and outstanding work!
Special props go to Tammy Lu, the artist that designed the cover to the right and who somehow managed to capture both the very essence and spirit of my thought.
Advertisements
September 13, 2011 at 4:16 am
Mazel tov! Looking forward to seeing the pdf (and the paper)!
September 13, 2011 at 4:24 am
Awesome! I look forward to carving out some space to read it.
September 13, 2011 at 4:32 am
[…] to THIS POST on his blog to find the link to the html version. The PDF and print-on-demand will be ready […]
September 13, 2011 at 4:54 am
Many congratulations Levi. Just decided, again, that philosophy is not worth it without esotericism.
http://www.amazon.com/Reality-Being-Fourth-Way-Gurdjieff/dp/1590308158/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b#_
September 13, 2011 at 4:55 am
actually I didn’t expect to see an ad – just a url…?!
September 13, 2011 at 6:16 am
Congratulations Levi! Looking forward to reading this!
September 13, 2011 at 12:53 pm
[…] the framework of my onticology, withdrawal means “operational closure” (cf. Chapter 4, The Democracy of Objects). An operationally closed system (synonymous with “object”) is a system in which the […]
September 13, 2011 at 1:28 pm
Triple hooray [sound of champagne corks popping]. Cheers, Eileen
September 13, 2011 at 2:35 pm
Congrats, Levi! Excellent news
. . .
September 13, 2011 at 2:43 pm
Congratulatios!
September 13, 2011 at 2:43 pm
Congratulations!
September 13, 2011 at 5:26 pm
Thanks enormously! You continue to be my model of a polished and productive public scholar. You always have my admiration and respect.
September 13, 2011 at 6:35 pm
When it’s in print, it’s mine. Glad to finally see it, Levi.
September 13, 2011 at 6:41 pm
hurrah!
September 13, 2011 at 7:24 pm
Thanks for making this available. The html version reads great on my ipad with Instapaper. I hope to comment soon.
September 13, 2011 at 7:27 pm
[…] blog Larval Subjects has made his new book THE DEMOCRACY OF OBJECTS available online. See here. I hope to comment soon. Share this:FacebookTwitterStumbleUpon"Aimer" ceci […]
September 14, 2011 at 12:27 am
CONGRATS!
September 14, 2011 at 1:20 am
Congrats Levi! I’m sure it will give me many sleepless nights… :-)
September 14, 2011 at 1:31 am
Congratulations, Levi! Looking forward to the read! And hey, now I can add a section on auto/allopoeisis to your Wiki! ;)
September 14, 2011 at 4:29 am
[…] latest addition to object-oriented ontology: Levi Bryant of Larval Subjects fame publishes the HTML version of his new book, The Democracy of Objects. PDF and paper version to […]
September 14, 2011 at 1:23 pm
Long-time lurker popping in to say congratulations.
(The AUFS guys are charmed by your mention of them)
September 14, 2011 at 1:46 pm
Congratulations, Levi (and OHP)! Good timing (for me), as literally I’m about to send off a paper to a journal that could use one more OOO reference. Which brings me to my question: how to reference the book properly (a là Harvard style)? I suppose it is a published electronic resource for now, as opposed to a “book”? Or is it a book that is still forthcoming? In that case is there a city, which is associated with the publisher? Clearly, this new format is somewhat challenging the established concept of what a book (and a publisher) used to be…
Peter
September 15, 2011 at 9:09 am
Peter, the reference can be (Ann Arbor: Open Humanities Press, 2011.) The University of Michigan is where this is all based. I think both Levi and I would prefer that citations wait until the (properly paginated) PDF is up, which simply awaits a few final tweaks from our excellent typesetter. There are established conventions for citing HTML documents too, though I think waiting for the PDF is better for citation purposes.
September 15, 2011 at 1:50 pm
Thanks, Graham. I wonder if in fact the solution to this problem is to consider the HTML version as a different edition of the book (which in a way it is). In that case one can just reference it as an electronic resource. To cite a specific location in the text then one just needs to refer to the location of the citation in the text by the section number. E.g. (Bryant 2011: Introduction) or (Bryant 2011: section 3.5). Levi himself refers to specific sections that way in the book. But you’re right. Once the PDF version is out, one has the option to cite specific page numbers instead, so referencing the HTML version would become unnecessary.
September 15, 2011 at 11:14 pm
Oh no, I’m going to be the first person to ask a specific question about the contents of the book! But here goes! Over at fracturedpolitics.com, Kris Coffield posted a discussion question about change within an ‘OOO’ framework. Here’s my response, which I hope doesn’t bastardize your ideas too heavily: “I actually like where Levi Bryant goes with this, with regard to his discussions of entropy and autopoiesis (coming from his blog and the HTML version of his new book). He argues that every substance must deal with its own internal entropy, or ability to break apart. Defining entropy as a measure of order over time, he argues that highly ordered systems have a low degree of entropy, while highly disordered systems have a high degree of entropy. For entities to exist, they must sustain their order through processes of self-differentiation.
From here, Bryant distinguishes between allopoietic and autopoietic objects-as-systems, where the former are produced by something else (inanimate, manmade, etc.), while the latter are self-reproductive. Two key points come into play: First, the operations of an autopoietic system relate only to themselves, and second, receive information from their environment in a manner that is based on their constitutional organization. This second point is still a little difficult for me because when the term “environment” remains ill-defined, though I think a basic distinction can be made between “environment” as objects and conditions external to a substance and “objectworld” (Kris’s term from prior posts) as the inner, constitutional, organizational system internal to an object.
With regard to change, one of Levi’s many points, is that to being is difference, is differing. That active process never ceases because of entropy. I’m not sure if the identity of an object can be said to be the local manifestation of self-differentiation or is simply the processes themselves, but the point is that the question is reversed; difference precedes existence ontologically. Change, in the sense of difference, is unceasing. And I’m pretty sure this is what Kris is getting at, though he’s being sneaky about it.
Social systems, like a state, are autopoietic objects (see previous posts on this site and over at Larval Subjects) that deliberately maintain their organization – boy do they ever! For change to occur within a social system (like, for example, when disenfranchised populations gain visibility), objects comprising the system (I almost want to say “caught within” the system) assume a different identity or position than the one dictated by the system, increasing the system’s degree of entropy. This could cause the system to collapse or be overthrown, but I think we need to acknowledge that system can adjust to accommodate the new “rogue” objects(s), having the effect of bringing the degree of entropy back down to a manageable level, or a level that allows the system to survive. Slavery is a good example here – slaves were freed, but the government withheld rights from black citizens, maintaining some degree of homeostasis.”
And here’s my question: I understand the self-sustenance autopoietic systems, but how do these systems ensnare objects that pose a challenge? In other words, how would your systems analysis account for things like Jim Crow laws enacted to politically marginalize a newly emancipated people, or should this be obvious to me already?
September 21, 2011 at 6:04 pm
[…] https://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2011/09/13/the-democracy-of-objects-unleashed/ […]
September 23, 2011 at 3:24 am
Wow that cover looks even more amazing than last time I saw it.
September 27, 2011 at 2:19 am
Just realized you’ve made some enemies in the Catholic Community. See Leon’s AFTER NATURE post today at http://afterxnature.blogspot.com/2011/09/more-advice-about-job-market-numbers.html
Courtesy of Leon (http://afterxnature.blogspot.com/p/ecstatic-naturalism-tutorial.html), I’ve been extensively studying the wealth of articles on ECSTATIC NATURALISM available at Robert Corrington’s site.
I mention this because Corrington is EXTREMELY hostile to Whitehead, in many respects resembling Harman’s critiques. Check out Corrington’s article here for a WITHERING critique of Whitehead: http://users.drew.edu/rcorring/downloads/APPRAISAL%20&%20CRITIQUE%20COPYRIGHT.pdf
September 27, 2011 at 2:33 am
Mark,
I don’t think any of us are anti-Whitehead– we quite love him –we’re just not Whiteheadians.
September 27, 2011 at 11:28 am
Yes, absolutely. It’s not about Whitehead. It’s about God and Divinity. It’s about sacred archetypes. It’s about a Rancierean Democracy of Dark Objects upsetting some of the hopes for hierarchical goodness and light. Light’s seen a bit of a knockdown, recently, with those ungodly neutrinos breaking the speed limit, and dark energy tearing things up everywhere! Burning Man..
October 3, 2011 at 11:00 am
[…] author […]
October 19, 2011 at 8:32 am
Levi, this is a splendid and truly helpful contribution to object oriented theory. Thanks for making all these important connections to the kind of language we are more used to in the cultural and aesthetic field. Most appreciated.
October 19, 2011 at 3:37 pm
Thanks Ursula!
November 6, 2012 at 4:12 pm
[…] wave crests, as well as the soda bottles and tea lights in the foreground] The cover of Democracyof Objects features a series of fantistical objects of similar scale and spacing strung on a piece of […]