Re: [NetBehaviour] OOQ – Object-Oriented-Questions.
I agree with some of your points, andreas. I do think that latching on to
terminology that is en vogue may be a factor but then again, isn't that
often what sparks new ways of looking at things? Taking ideas from one
field and exploring how they might apply to another? I'm not going to
criticize the use of an "oop" approach to philosophy. I think its a very
valid consideration within the context of the contemporary. Its intriguing
but in all honesty, I'm not convinced that it will amount to much. As I
said, isn't it just a repackaging of old arguments? Aren't we still faced
with the question of how we define a shoe if I decide to use it to open a
bottle of wine? In ooprogramming, objects are very clearly defined. They
will absolutely not allow methods that haven't been assigned to them. When
applied to philosophy, it sounds a bit like a return to constructivism, no?
And if they try to say that their use of "object oriented" is entirely
different, then we have to ask, "well, then why did you use that term if
you didn't want the two to be compared?" But who knows where it may lead if
we don't explore it?
On Dec 30, 2011 3:53 PM, "IR3ABF" wrote:
> What should object oriented philosophy be about in an age where the
> paradigmatic divide between object and subject is a long past station?
>
> To me it appears to be a rather 'subjective' way to connect a 'popular'
> issue i.e. programming practices with a vague notion of 'philosophy' and
> should not be taken too seriously
>
> Same goes for OOP as the 'only just' way to formalize current programming
> techniques as it is just a way among others to 'look' at a certain field of
> theoretical approaches to practical problems i.e. optimizing code, for we
> have had before 'lineair coding', heuristic coding(spaghetti) and other
> 'schools' of best practise
>
> During my training as software engineer early 90ties different
> -commercialized and evangelized -methods were accentuated (RUP, Agile a.o.)
> wheras during my mathematics and informatics studies - late 70ties,
> beginning 80ties - more accent was given to 'result driven' approaches such
> as assembler/compiler techniques
>
> Comparing these two, give rise to suspect that whatever is 'a la mode'
> gets the most attention and followers, complete with a course/certification
> industry to serve the corporate trendy attitude
>
> I never figured out althought on what premisses these paradigma shift were
> grounded apart for the gain in 'time to market' and not in anyway based on
> scientifically based decisions
>
> BTW have a look at my 'new' FB bashing program (written in js and php):
>
> http://apps.facebook.com/whathef-/
>
> (FB login required)
>
> and have a look at the simple straightforward code, with a nice example of
> using recursion in js -
>
> function vote(obj){
> ...
> setTimeout("vote(obj)", 200), raises/lowers the percentages automatically
> ...
> }
>
> whereas with the following simple php code snippet the program is able to
> track the ip nr's and eventually corresponding domains from every
> visitor/user:
>
> fwrite($file,$REMOTE_ADDR)
>
> Currently I am working to gather all the public available information
> about users/visitors to be logged using the 'Open Graph API' from FB, which
> by the way is heavily structured around a object oriented coding 'view'
>
> In the making: a same kind of simple program to mess with the Dow
> Jones/Euronext indices, just for the fun of subverting extremely
> influential figures
>
> Andreas Maria Jacobs
> w:
Re: [NetBehaviour] OOQ – Object-Oriented-Questions.
What should object oriented philosophy be about in an age where the
paradigmatic divide between object and subject is a long past station?
To me it appears to be a rather 'subjective' way to connect a 'popular' issue
i.e. programming practices with a vague notion of 'philosophy' and should not
be taken too seriously
Same goes for OOP as the 'only just' way to formalize current programming
techniques as it is just a way among others to 'look' at a certain field of
theoretical approaches to practical problems i.e. optimizing code, for we have
had before 'lineair coding', heuristic coding(spaghetti) and other 'schools' of
best practise
During my training as software engineer early 90ties different -commercialized
and evangelized -methods were accentuated (RUP, Agile a.o.) wheras during my
mathematics and informatics studies - late 70ties, beginning 80ties - more
accent was given to 'result driven' approaches such as assembler/compiler
techniques
Comparing these two, give rise to suspect that whatever is 'a la mode' gets the
most attention and followers, complete with a course/certification industry to
serve the corporate trendy attitude
I never figured out althought on what premisses these paradigma shift were
grounded apart for the gain in 'time to market' and not in anyway based on
scientifically based decisions
BTW have a look at my 'new' FB bashing program (written in js and php):
http://apps.facebook.com/whathef-/
(FB login required)
and have a look at the simple straightforward code, with a nice example of
using recursion in js -
function vote(obj){
...
setTimeout("vote(obj)", 200), raises/lowers the percentages automatically
...
}
whereas with the following simple php code snippet the program is able to track
the ip nr's and eventually corresponding domains from every visitor/user:
fwrite($file,$REMOTE_ADDR)
Currently I am working to gather all the public available information about
users/visitors to be logged using the 'Open Graph API' from FB, which by the
way is heavily structured around a object oriented coding 'view'
In the making: a same kind of simple program to mess with the Dow
Jones/Euronext indices, just for the fun of subverting extremely influential
figures
Andreas Maria Jacobs
w: http://www.nictoglobe.com
w: http://burgerwaanzin.nl
On Dec 30, 2011, at 19:23, Pall Thayer wrote:
> There is no question in my mind that object oriented philosophy is
> borne from and related to notions of object oriented programming. If
> we accept that, then it's interesting to see yet another way in which
> computer programming and code-concepts are permeating our contemporary
> culture. However, I'm not quite sure I see the point. It looks like
> they're essentially taking age-old philosophical concepts and
> considerations and putting them in a new wrapper. If nothing else then
> perhaps it will make it easier for programmers to understand some
> philosophical concepts.
>
> On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Yann Le Guennec wrote:
>> very confusing...
>>
>> about the relation (or not) between Object Oriented Philosophy & Object
>> Oriented Programming
>>
>> http://www.bogost.com/blog/objectoriented_p.shtml
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Le 30/12/2011 18:50, Rob Myers a écrit :
>>> On 30/12/11 17:10, Simon Biggs wrote:
The programming dimension seems to be at the heart of the argument.
>>>
>>> There are various different versions of OOP:
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_programming
>>>
>>> In particular, multimethod-based OOP doesn't require that objects own or
>>> contain the actions that can be performed upon them:
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimethod
>>>
>>> And there are more modern programming paradigms than OOP:
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_paradigms
>>>
>>> OOP is certainly still current in programming, but there are other
>>> programming paradigms that mesh better with the philosophy of
>>> mathematics at least.
>>>
>>> - Rob.
>>> ___
>>> 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
>
>
>
> --
> *
> Pall Thayer
> artist
> http://pallthayer.dyndns.org
> *
> ___
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>
Sent from my eXtended BodY
On 30 dec. 2011, at 19:23, Pall Thayer wrote:
> There is no question in my mind that object oriented philosophy is
> borne from and related to notions of object oriented programming. If
> we accept that, then it's interesting to see yet another way in which
> computer programming and code-concepts
Re: [NetBehaviour] OOQ – Object-Oriented-Questions.
There is no question in my mind that object oriented philosophy is borne from and related to notions of object oriented programming. If we accept that, then it's interesting to see yet another way in which computer programming and code-concepts are permeating our contemporary culture. However, I'm not quite sure I see the point. It looks like they're essentially taking age-old philosophical concepts and considerations and putting them in a new wrapper. If nothing else then perhaps it will make it easier for programmers to understand some philosophical concepts. On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Yann Le Guennec wrote: > very confusing... > > about the relation (or not) between Object Oriented Philosophy & Object > Oriented Programming > > http://www.bogost.com/blog/objectoriented_p.shtml > > > > > > Le 30/12/2011 18:50, Rob Myers a écrit : >> On 30/12/11 17:10, Simon Biggs wrote: >>> The programming dimension seems to be at the heart of the argument. >> >> There are various different versions of OOP: >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_programming >> >> In particular, multimethod-based OOP doesn't require that objects own or >> contain the actions that can be performed upon them: >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimethod >> >> And there are more modern programming paradigms than OOP: >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_paradigms >> >> OOP is certainly still current in programming, but there are other >> programming paradigms that mesh better with the philosophy of >> mathematics at least. >> >> - Rob. >> ___ >> 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 -- * Pall Thayer artist http://pallthayer.dyndns.org * ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] OOQ – Object-Oriented-Questions.
very confusing... about the relation (or not) between Object Oriented Philosophy & Object Oriented Programming http://www.bogost.com/blog/objectoriented_p.shtml Le 30/12/2011 18:50, Rob Myers a écrit : > On 30/12/11 17:10, Simon Biggs wrote: >> The programming dimension seems to be at the heart of the argument. > > There are various different versions of OOP: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_programming > > In particular, multimethod-based OOP doesn't require that objects own or > contain the actions that can be performed upon them: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimethod > > And there are more modern programming paradigms than OOP: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_paradigms > > OOP is certainly still current in programming, but there are other > programming paradigms that mesh better with the philosophy of > mathematics at least. > > - Rob. > ___ > 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
Re: [NetBehaviour] OOQ - Object-Oriented-Questions.
On 30/12/11 14:25, manik wrote: > ...''WHAT'S WITHOUT NAME, THAT DOESN'T EXIST...BUT EVERYTHING'S > NAMED''(V.Nabokov).../which mean it's our fault AND > RESPONSIBILITY/...MANIK...DECEMBER...2011... Ontology + Deontology... - Rob. ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] OOQ – Object-Oriented-Questions.
On 30/12/11 17:10, Simon Biggs wrote: > The programming dimension seems to be at the heart of the argument. There are various different versions of OOP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_programming In particular, multimethod-based OOP doesn't require that objects own or contain the actions that can be performed upon them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimethod And there are more modern programming paradigms than OOP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_paradigms OOP is certainly still current in programming, but there are other programming paradigms that mesh better with the philosophy of mathematics at least. - Rob. ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] OOQ – Object-Oriented-Questions.
The programming dimension seems to be at the heart of the argument. Hansen is extending the OOP programming paradigm to notions of agency and relationality, even ontology. best Simon On 30 Dec 2011, at 13:16, James Morris wrote: > On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 12:31:10 + > Simon Biggs wrote: > >> 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 > > Are you sure we should be thinking in terms of object orientated > programming when reading the article? > > I was too distracted by the confusion as to whether we should > or not to read it fully (predicition: my ability to read it will > miraculously return as soon as I click send). > > James. > > > > > >> >> >> On 30 Dec 2011, at 12:12, Richard Wright wrote: >> >>> "Things, not Objects" - Bruno Latour >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> From: marc garrett >>>> Date: 29 December 2011 12:08:56 GMT >>>> To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity >>>> Subject: [NetBehaviour] OOQ – >>>> Object-Oriented-Questions. Reply-To: NetBehaviour for networked >>>> distributed creativity >>>> >>>> >>>> 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/ >> >> >> >> > > > > -- > http://jwm-art.net/ > image/audio/text/code/ > > ___ > 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
Re: [NetBehaviour] OOQ – Object-Oriented-Questions.
hello, yep, not sure OOP¨has something to do with OOP “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. 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 Date: 29 >>> December 2011 12:08:56 GMT To: NetBehaviour for networked >>> distributed creativity Subject: >>> [NetBehaviour] OOQ – Object-Oriented-Questions. Reply-To: >>> NetBehaviour for networked distributed >>> creativity >>> >>> >>> 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
Re: [NetBehaviour] OOQ - Object-Oriented-Questions.
...''WHAT'S WITHOUT NAME, THAT DOESN'T EXIST...BUT EVERYTHING'S NAMED''(V.Nabokov).../which mean it's our fault AND RESPONSIBILITY/...MANIK...DECEMBER...2011... - Original Message - From: "Rob Myers" To: Sent: Friday, December 30, 2011 3:15 PM Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] OOQ - Object-Oriented-Questions. On 30/12/11 12:12, Richard Wright wrote: > "Things, not Objects" - Bruno Latour "As we all know, there are many more things that don't exist than things that do." - Ken Campbell. ___ 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
Re: [NetBehaviour] OOQ – Object-Oriented-Questions.
On 30/12/11 12:12, Richard Wright wrote: > "Things, not Objects" - Bruno Latour "As we all know, there are many more things that don't exist than things that do." - Ken Campbell. ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] OOQ – Object-Oriented-Questions.
On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 12:31:10 + Simon Biggs wrote: > 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 Are you sure we should be thinking in terms of object orientated programming when reading the article? I was too distracted by the confusion as to whether we should or not to read it fully (predicition: my ability to read it will miraculously return as soon as I click send). James. > > > On 30 Dec 2011, at 12:12, Richard Wright wrote: > > > "Things, not Objects" - Bruno Latour > > > > > > > >> > >> From: marc garrett > >> Date: 29 December 2011 12:08:56 GMT > >> To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity > >> Subject: [NetBehaviour] OOQ – > >> Object-Oriented-Questions. Reply-To: NetBehaviour for networked > >> distributed creativity > >> > >> > >> 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/ > > > > -- http://jwm-art.net/ image/audio/text/code/ ___ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Re: [NetBehaviour] OOQ – Object-Oriented-Questions.
My unpublished next installment in my long work is called OOD (Object-Oriented Design) and uses some of the work of the Objectivist poets, and some neo baroque embedded devices and ... here, we see the spectre of the posthuman, which has little to do with programming techniques, languages, etc. Just an opinion, Catherine Daly > 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
Re: [NetBehaviour] OOQ – Object-Oriented-Questions.
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 >> Date: 29 December 2011 12:08:56 GMT >> To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity >> >> Subject: [NetBehaviour] OOQ – Object-Oriented-Questions. >> Reply-To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity >> >> >> >> 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
Re: [NetBehaviour] OOQ – Object-Oriented-Questions.
"Things, not Objects" - Bruno Latour From: marc garrett Date: 29 December 2011 12:08:56 GMT To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity Subject: [NetBehaviour] OOQ – Object-Oriented-Questions. Reply-To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity 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
[NetBehaviour] OOQ – Object-Oriented-Questions.
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
