There is an intersection. There must be. The incredible continual existence of being in a spatio temporality shared by humans is such an enduring phantasy we find their interaction outside of immanence undeniable. In this incoherent world, if the things supplied themselves then they do dwell continuously in this region and talk to each other. This is something like the ooo world. For humans this darkness is the ambiguous umbratic. Do these relations obtain or are they just products of a phantasy of being outside of perception to within it? We cannot say what conceptuality may be exerting upon being but there exists the notion that it persists in this incoherent umbratic (two notions immediately even here, one that immanence exerts a difference and two that residual conceptuality remains after immanence. The virtual is affective and autonomous. The big remaining question is ‘do the things have pneuminosity or is there a relation that is umbratic that is different?’ Pneuma begins to look like a heuristic for the effect of doubled consciousness. The incoherent manifestations of difference between awareness strata show (possibly) the point at which radical virtual affectivity (pneuminosity) takes place.
Trying to make awareness present all the way through is such a nice philosophical salve but ultimately fruitless. At some point the incoherent border reappears in which conceptuality shows its self and then we struggle to say that this is the same as the rock smashing into the floor. The difference occurs in something like a Hegelian process. Does this complex cage the manifestation structure? Yes. Do we want to say that all things are simplistically pneuminous? This would land us dangerously close to ooo and grant them necessary independence. We can’t go there because it commits you to speculative metaphysics. What we can say is it appears to us that some things perceive in a living manner with various levels of abstraction and some seem to have no discernible ability to do this (stones etc). If we retain the pneuminous thesis it would seem that whatever goes on in this umbratic realm has no ability to bind pneuma. We accrete. This is the privilege of our kind of being and this accretive power puts us in an bizarre dialectical relation to the umbratic because ‘pneuma affects umbra’.
If I look up into the night and I can only see the stars that I can see do I doubt that those other stars are present. Not at all. This is not a discourse against this. This simple example almost gives defeat to the whole project, it almost makes it worthless. It has a particular force because there is just distance inhibiting perception and not some form of blockage. If I cannot see what happens inside a cupboard I may speculate that the ontological status of this interior is in someway different. That is the expression that there is a strong notion of an externality that I form some conceptual structure around. In the case in which objects recede because they are too far away it is different. Here there is no impediment but space itself which is the very thing the agnostic disjunction wishes to raise as questionable. Maybe it isn’t’ so bad, though it certainly has that appearance. No one said spatialise didn’t exist within immanence. But if the aware being determines spatiality, how does it, with no impediment reach a point at which immanence ceases and virtuality begins. Things look worse still. Here is the unsatisfactory answer. Even this harsh wake up call is ignored. This presents a strong manifestation of spatio-temporal continuity but does this strength of appearance counteract the occult possibility? No it does not and it is precisely coherence that comes to its rescue. This strong seeming epistemological setting of the kind Meillasoux might like, is not flawed except by the construction of quite extreme argument. One being the paradoxical notion that there is a kind of bubble with a certain reach around us. This seems difficult to imagine without space being in the externality, but one could consider that the umbratic is commensurate with space without necessarily having it as it s defining feature. We do not need to dwell on this description, it is enough to illustrate the point that we begin. The opposing manifestation will find its expression because even this strong case is not not bulle proof. The case may look desperate but the preservation of the possibility of the awareness affect runs deeply. Abandoning it is not an option.
There seems to be another incoherent distinction which warrants phenomenological attention. This division bears upon a previous demarcation between beings with awareness and beings without. This description turns on the fact that things show themselves in these categories despite the possibility we might learn it was just a continuum (degree not kind). Accretively the distinction makes itself real, the manifestation accretes conceptual power (related to the tragedy of reducing awareness).
The notion is used to counter a potential OOO argument contra accretive theory. OOO could claim that since the accretions persist outside humanness i.e. in a strong sense a hammer is still hammer. This is so because the umbra has pneuma accreted to it not just for humans. This pneuma might not even be registered by other beings but it is still there. Now if the spatio-temporality holds for other beings then the hammer as object is still there for a e.g. that rests upon it. There is a relation between the two happening at that notorious surface level. There is a kind of conversation going between the objects. Now in one sense this means, as they exchange is informational the picture begins to look more OOOish. The hammer information is withdrawn and the hammer-object displays that face of itself to the pebble. The accretion itself would be withdrawing showing like the object.
But pneuminosity does not seem to say this. For in order for there to be a conversation between pebble and hammer their discretion must be presupposed. The pebble does not though discretely perceive the hammer-object. The discretion has withdrawn. Certain kinds of beings bind pneuma in such was that it accretes (forms concepts). The manifestation does not have pebbles doing this (unless I had a pebble and made it through magickal practice into an egregore).
Briefly, because umbratic is of a phenomenologically different order to pneuminous being it does not form accretions. Objects are formed in pneuma, their interaction after the fact are still held in a pseudo-correlationist net (the pneuma-has stuck to the umbra).
The OOO world is the pneuminous world but it thinks its a world in itself. The OOO world is the world of objects as humans perceive them released into the world of physics as humans have it, then postulates alien relations between putatively continually separate objects none of which potentially have any sensation of each other as separate.
Pneuminosity accepts the imprint of information as formative of the object and maintains it does not leave that region of umbra. But this imprint was forged from the human accretion and this cannot be escaped. The imprint of human continual spatio-temporal continuity seems to obtain, but this seems is not strong enough.
Why not? Back to the starting point. Because the paranormal grammar supplies the possibility that the picture is more fluid. The fluid world suggests the possibility that something ineffable happens. Information has the possibility to change solidity. Being outside of immanent pneuminosity still is attached by pneuminous threads, but the extreme solidity of this picture is forced into doubt by the agnostic dysjunction.
OOO seems to agree with me that accretions are incoherent (objects are inconsistent). At least I take these notions to express a similar thing yet I can pinpoint in Morton’s ‘Realist Magic’ book exactly where I disagree with OOO. On p61 he says “We can’t simply say that tables are lumps of blah that we call tables or
use as tables.” Probably I think we can. Certainly I agree they must be made of something, but it seems to me the table doesn’t withdraw in the sense Morton thinks it does, it withdraws because it is usage. If it is usage then no particular table can exhaust tableness because you cannot know what else a table might look like (or not in the case of a bizarre invisible gravity manipulating table). Tableness has been mistakenly conflated with the physicality whereas it was concept as use.
Pneuminosity does not stop at this Wittgensteinian end point but wants to acknowledge that some things look like tables as we think of tables in our conflation. The primordial usage which is the meaning of the word accretes pneuma, physically perceived pneuma attached to that usage, creating the table accretion. The table accretion is gives us this sense of an object, a table thing (the ooo departure point). This to me is the meaning of the readiness-to-hand/present-at-hand distinction. Meaning as usage and the accretive image correlate also correlative of coherent incoherence (word understood as usage), incoherent coherence (object that looks like an object as we know it, hiding its usage meaning).
Is this hammer real? Yes it is a real accretion. Is the accretion made of other things? Yes and no. The hammer as pneuminous hammer accretion is exactly that. The grammatical form of ‘is the hammer made of different parts?’ makes sense so yes the hammer is made of parts. It is not necessary for me to know about the parts to perceive the hammer. I might have a one piece metal hammer, then we might not notice any composite nature. The hammer hammers, this its meaning, not what it is made of. The accretion occurs in the conjunction of the use and shape and the materials that might make it . These are all pneuminously connected. The idea that a hammer is grammatically what we call physical and not conceptual is part of it, as such it must be materially constructed, it is not not a real hammer if it is made of plastic, only if the plastic is not strong enough, then we might say it is a rubbish hammer.
The thing, a hammer that has been used might persist even as a hammer outside of our perception. If Wittgenstein were purely correct this would not be the case, after the use has past there is no trace. What was plate but is now an ashtray is just an ashtray. Pneuminously the plate trace remains accreted to the umbratic.
Its so close to OOO, the umbratic is like the molten core that harman talks about, except again, I’m not even sure existence external to our kind of perception registers the hammer as having any separate border of discretion, we do that. OOO anthropomorphises objects. A truly alien reality perspective need not even have this extended aesthetic causality.
Yes pneuminosity does retain the middle object problem, except I’m not sure it is a problem. Pneuminosity is a phenomenology, a description of a certain necessity if paranormality obtains. Under this circumstance either everything is pure information all the way down, which is fine except that within the pure information is the information that there is the phantasy/manifestation that something external to the information hence you have to take it into account because it cannot be dialectically over come, it just reemerges in molten cores etc.
Pneuminosity says something like even in our infantile beginnings we float in pneuma, we are then taught how to accrete it and we do so naturally as pneuminous beings. Umbra is not a thing in itself because pneuma would be part of such a thing. Umbra is an unknown state that grants the possibility of radical difference to the pneuminous e.g. a pure undifferentiated state which when translated into pneuma manifests as this potential for discretion. Of course that is just a possibility as umbra cannot be described in itself. For us there is only pneuma and the idea of its outside which is the paradoxical construct of the externality to its which necessarily exists in some way as accretion.
I think OOO is confused. Why do I think that? I’m not sure I can articulate it all, it’s a nagging sense I get as I read Harman et al. The problem here is there is so much I do agree with and I see the project as a late phenomenological attempt to rescue things (objects). It’s informational interactions seems good, there’s definitely something I agree with there. But what are the problems: I think the lurking Heidegger interpretation is somehow wrong. This withdrawal notion has been (at least to me) misunderstood. But maybe that’s because of my Wittgensteinian (at least of a sort) position. I’ve always lumped the difference between present-at-hand and ready-to-hand as being basically the same as the Augustinian (naming) language picture and meaning as use. I’m not the first to find this harmony and I won’t be the last and maybe its in making this identity that my OOO disagreement comes.
I cannot see how Wittgenstein can be escaped. Philosophy carries on fascinatingly after the Investigations and maybe not even pointlessly but what it must do is establish there being an escape route post-Wittgenstein. This I have not seen elsewhere (it is what I try to do here precisely because I see he has made a serious blockage). Cavell thought and maybe still thinks the ripples of Wittgenstein have still not landed properly and I can heartily agree with this.
Why is this? Well for me it turns on trying to articulate this notion of ‘meaning as use’ and what the implications of this are. I think it can only in a sense mean that contrary directly to the OOO speculation in fact there are no objects at all. I then have to immediately retract that statement because that isn’t true either. I have truly in this instance run up against the limits of language. Do we have to remain silent? No not at all, its just that we have to try harder.
Why are there (kind of) no objects? Well part of it runs like this:
If the meaning of a word is its usage then it never actually reaches out to anything. To think the words mean unique pieces of the putative outside is a mistaken understanding of how language is working. This is true at least, if some kind of continuing spatio-temporality is true. In the common place manifestation of spatio-temporal continuity (which I assuredly must acknowledge much of the time less I become an inert gibbering wreck), this point of awareness that I articulate with ‘I’ (I too is a use term) does various things, and can see various objects. Can’t it? The grammar, the rules that I use for this world that I find ‘myself’ in need a word like objects, at least for the kind of creature I am. I recognize various separate things, things that I can lift, things that I can’t, different regions in this ‘world’. I am taught a word in a context and I apply the rule for it as best as I understand it. If I had two identical contexts with some discoverable difference later down the line I would use the same word for them. I wouldn’t be wrong because the matter isn’t sorted by this later to be discovered ontological criterion (which would mean there was a thing that was determining the meaning). Indeed if that indiscernible difference is never discerned the that’s just what the word means. Words don’t designate, they are just use terms. This applies to meta-terms like objects. It sounds confusing because it makes you make nonsensical statements like ‘there are no objects’ when you can blatantly see there are. This is a grammatical confusion. ‘There are objects’ is a grammatical sentence that makes perfect sense but its just a use term in the meta-context of being-in-a-world. Object exerts such a powerful effect precisely because no one can say very well what the grammar of ‘object’ is. What is the grammar of the copula ‘are’? Obviously that’s a big question, but you could answer by saying simply that it is those instances in which we wish to link use terms in a certain nested way (this is this).
OOO wants to escape Kant and Heidegger but I don’t think you can, or at least not by that route. These grammatical objects might have no identity outside of the our being. It is a coherent manifestation to say that we make the discretion and contemplating their external to us existence as if they were persisted discretely is not necessary.
Meillasoux comes upon the same problem: You don’t know that our awareness isn’t having an effect upon what ever it is that’s out there (note I’m not saying you don’t know awareness isn’t having an effect on objects, as actually they’re quite keed on that. I’m playing with the manifestation of our kind of awareness having a particular kind of effect on things, a reifying kind of effect and yes this does need expanding on). To be fair, OOO is called speculative philosophy and isn’t claiming a rigorous foundation ( I hope not anyway). But now you wonder ‘what am I talking about? I was on about Wittgenstein and now I’m saying something very very unWittgensteinian?
Yes, it’s a problem isn’t it. This answer relates to the paranormal parts of the discussion herein. The synchronicity argument takes the inference to be that in the manifestation in which the synchronicity obtains information itself must have effected the putative ‘external world’. The ladies dream brought the scarab beetle out of the dream world.
There is a grammar of weird that is cogent precisely because we don’t know things like ‘what being is like outside of our perception’. If we knew that in a strong sense we could dismiss this grammar yet the manifestation of the paranormal, information interfering with solidity world persists. This persistence guarantees the grammatical application.
If you stay with the informational interference manifestation then you must in some sense be tied to a kind of idealism. There is is the notion of the externality but everything you that is about you is equally a concept.
Now the problem is: If there are no objects, the words don’t designate, then how does the informational interference obtain? And now we can return to a state in which I agree with OOO. Accepting the paranormal manifestation, words actually reach out to something. This something unlike in OOO is not an object talking to other objects in its disclosure withdrawal, but it is an accretion of informational substance that I have called pneuma. There is as stated, the idea of externality (which I have called umbra) but pneuma is all we can experience because we must conceptualise (we have no choice). Is it a duck or a rabbit? the flipping is a pneuminous flip, a different accretion is exposed.
The manifestation of the umbratic solidity is strong, is suggests its presence. Pneuma affects umbra under certain circumstances ill understood (magick). Use terms, readiness to hand terms create their accretive correlate. As pure use, there is no object, just a meta-term.
As pneuminous accretion there is a something that can be uniquely or generally designated. OOO in my opinion is studying accretions, and within a certain framework we can make these imaginings. However without certainty of the strength of affect the perceiving being is having granting these objects autonomy as objects is a manifestation that needs a hefty presupposition (I know I know speculative) to get it going. There is more to it than this but this is a stab at articulation.