Hi Rob, Since for OOO causality just is aesthetics, I'm afraid you're not right on that score.
I'll send you this essay on it I just wrote for New Literary History if you'd like. There are some other pieces by me on that, online in Singularum and Continent. Yours, Tim http://www.ecologywithoutnature.blogspot.com On Jun 28, 2012, at 12:30 PM, Rob Myers <r...@robmyers.org> wrote: > On 06/28/2012 05:56 AM, Timothy Morton wrote: >> >> Lots of artists and musicians are now tuning into OOO. > > Yes Ian's book contains some interesting examples. > > The problem is that the defenses of OOO against charges of failing to > illustrate Marxism indicate that OOO aesthetics is probably a category error > as well. > >> You wrote: >> >> "The object in itself being accessible as simply the sum of its unique >> (fnarr) aesthetic properties valenced in terms of their efficacy at >> reflecting the ego of the gentlemanly spectator is a vision of OOO that >> would cause its proponents to clop furiously." >> >> That's almost the opposite I'm afraid. > > It *wouldn't* cause them to? ;-) > >> Back to the lab! > > http://www.famousmonstersoffilmland.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/sjff_01_img0077.jpg > > - Rob. > _______________________________________________ > empyre forum > empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au > http://www.subtle.net/empyre _______________________________________________ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
