hello, yep, not sure OOP¨has something to do with OOP....
<cite Graham Harman> “Object-Oriented Philosophy” This term is my own coinage, dating to 1999. (If anyone used the phrase earlier than that, I was unaware of it but would be happy to credit it if it is brought to my attention.) (...) In short, object-oriented philosophy involves a fairly general set of minimal standards that leaves a good bit of room for personal variation. You can agree with Whitehead rather than me and still be an object-oriented philosopher. My own version has not just one, but two basic principles: 1. Individual entities of various different scales (not just tiny quarks and electrons) are the ultimate stuff of the cosmos. 2. These entities are never exhausted by any of their relations or even by their sum of all possible relations. Objects withdraw from relation. </cite> http://doctorzamalek2.wordpress.com/2010/07/23/brief-srooo-tutorial/ Le 30/12/2011 13:31, Simon Biggs a écrit : > People are not black-boxes. We are not simple (or even complex) > instances of a class of some kind. OOP's is a very powerful means for > creating meaning and action in machines and artificial systems but as > a metaphor for human beingness it seems too neat to account for the > complexity and multi-valent connectivity that exists between us. We > are messy creatures without clear boundaries to individuate us. Our > definition is probably less about things (or objects) than dynamic > relations as flux. > > best > > Simon > > > On 30 Dec 2011, at 12:12, Richard Wright wrote: > >> "Things, not Objects" - Bruno Latour >> >> >> >>> >>> From: marc garrett<marc.garr...@furtherfield.org> Date: 29 >>> December 2011 12:08:56 GMT To: NetBehaviour for networked >>> distributed creativity<netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org> Subject: >>> [NetBehaviour] OOQ – Object-Oriented-Questions. Reply-To: >>> NetBehaviour for networked distributed >>> creativity<netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org> >>> >>> >>> OOQ – Object-Oriented-Questions. >>> >>> Jussi Parikka >>> >>> I can’t claim that I know too much about object oriented >>> philosophy. It’s often more about my friends or colleagues >>> talking about it, enthusiastically for or against. Indeed, I have >>> been one of those who has at best followed some of the arguments >>> but not really dipped too deeply into the debates – which from >>> early on, formed around specific persons, specific arguments, and >>> a specific way of interacting. >>> >>> Hence, let me just be naïve for a second, and think aloud a >>> couple of questions: >>> >>> - I wonder if there is a problem with the notion of object in >>> the sense that it still implies paradoxically quite a >>> correlationist, or lets say, human-centred view to the world; is >>> not the talk of “object” something that summons an image of >>> perceptible, clearly lined, even stable entity – something that >>> to human eyes could be thought of as the normal mode of >>> perception. We see objects in the world. Humans, benches, buses, >>> cats, trashcans, gloves, computers, images, and so forth. But >>> what would a cat, bench, bus, trashcan, or a computer “see”, or >>> sense? >>> >>> more... >>> http://jussiparikka.net/2011/12/21/ooq-object-oriented-questions/ >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org >>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour >> >> _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour >> mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org >> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > > > Simon Biggs si...@littlepig.org.uk http://www.littlepig.org.uk/ > @SimonBiggsUK skype: simonbiggsuk > > s.bi...@ed.ac.uk Edinburgh College of Art, University of Edinburgh > http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ http://www.elmcip.net/ > http://www.movingtargets.co.uk/ > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing > list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
