Thoughts about Object Oriented Psychology

OOO psychology, OOO in general and the letting in of this as a subject, not so formerly deified by an inner sanctum, is a great help psychologically.

From the outset, Graham’s commented that there is an OO psychology waiting to happen. (That I don’t doubt). However, as his projects progress, I’m thinking more and more about it anyway.

And I am thinking as much about vicarious causation and aesthetics. It’s very pleasing. Very very pleasing.

Object Psychology, requires first a willingness to accept that the Correlationist argument is valid 100% as proven a ngoddam awful way of going about subjective events. The mess that the brain can and does get into makes sense if one assumes that, along with Carnal Phenomenology, we’re working with a half stack.

Looking at Jung, and other tropes: the Dora, the serpent, the motifs that have underlaid psychology’s most revealing “internalised” objects. Yet we have failed to interpret them.

They may be appearing internaly because…

2. Applying aesthetics and vicarious causation (aesthetics is causation) the allure and the objects withdrawal brings things together in a higher, phased space field of intensities. (Graham’s recent post on tensions for e.g). so that the move to psychology is two fold. One, it’s just plain implied by including “all sorts of objects” with as much= to all other causative theories of what a “problem”-sticking is.

3. I’ve lots of thoughts on this. Clearly, had Sartre had the benefit, he might have applied OOO to his cigarette, which he could never full give up (we know this from all the biographies). At Sartre’s “other end” we have the claim that a ten year minimum period is required for a person to existentially analyse themselves, and that the best form we have of an image of consciousness’ nature is skiing.

To that we can now add snowboarding–vis a vis the FULL 360 picture, but we are still left with the essential element ICE. And Sartre’s notion of sliding.

Morton on aesthetics/ and the sliding surface of tremours made of sampling objects sampling each other (was the snow sampling Sartre’s consciousness? or was the withdrawn ski sampling his neurosis? We may never know. But for those of us who are still alive…

if you can get over the drudgery of “reacting intellectually as a dualist and or as a clunk/causalityist” it is possble to see what Harman means, and what Morton and Bryant and a whole load of others have picked up (tho for mind like mind I prefer sampling Morton right now as he seems able to handle and explain implications and other quite serious ramifications which I wouldn’t have thought of).

4, The hyperobject par excellence, of course, might be oneself, that inner outward looking at some vastness of happenings that we never quite tire of. (Although if we are the hyperobject, what are we looking at-toward? The past?).

I supposed, last week, that it was possible we were actually (we, like, humans yeah?) were evolving from some sort of hyperstasis of withdrawness, and that the life we are experiencing is actually our own notes, but in Reverse. It is as if Causative life, and our experience of it, could be more of a map than we would like to admit for our passage through it.

It wasn’t a comforting picture. Going backwards, out of withdrawal at the dawn of the 21st century still feels like going backwards (in this hypothesis). And I don’t think we’re going backwards, I think/feel, we’re going forwards–although this really is a disreputable tenet to hold, in this day and age we appear to be stuck with it.

So, then “it makes me wonder” to quote a song y’all know well. And in a peculiar way, as Tim’s thesis shows, and really Harman has demonstrated as much, there is a real “Oooops phenomena” being recorded here: ie: Ooops (all of us, in modernity, ooops, all of us teleologists, ooops….all of us psychologizers

Can we have our complexity, with its time-determinate coordinates, and its df and dfx narratives AND eat the OOO sandwich? As Tim has asked, isn’t complexity still far too teleological to be quite right.

And I think that’s right. Complexity, its eddies and vortexes, its dynamic equilibrium systems, its Order out of chaos theory works (tho are we finding out it worked for entirely different reasons than we thought it would?)


I’d trust Isabelle Stengler and only Isabelle on this question, but as Tim has thought it, I’ll defer… and say ok. It looks like Tim is right.

I seem to recall some compassion in the work of Prigogine for us human who are thrust into Chaos simply to extract order at the bequest of a living system. It’s a sort of tiring route, and I have tried it many times.

OOO psychology, OOO in general and the letting in of this as a subject, not so formerly deified by an inner sanctum, is a great help psychologically.

That’s the first thing.


About thelampostphilosopher

I'm a writer who has come out on the side of R. Pirsig. I think that QUALITY is best left undefined but I am glad Pirsig defined it, and I think that the first division of Metaphysics is better when cleaved into DYNAMIC and STATIC, instead of subject-object metaphysics. I think he's also right about the Victorians AND the EUROPEAN-INDIAN CONFLICT OF VALUES, which involves everyone these days.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s