Guerrilla Metaphysics

I just finished Guerrilla Metaphysics (GM) by Graham Harman. The core of GM interrogates the way in which objects interact — in this, GM complements other OOO ( object-oriented ontology) books such as the the democracy of objects which I feel take the form of interaction as a given.

GM isn’t a complete discussion of OOO, per se, but more of a prolegomena for the OOO books that followed. It sets up ground rules, and develops the vocabulary without using OOO to analyze a situation. I’m fine with this, getting the vocabulary right is a big deal, and is only so much you can do in one book.

 

Harman structures his work around two axes and four Poles

• Axis one: an object’s “formal unity”/”abundance of traits”
• Axis two: inter object “causal relations”/”sensual relations” (sensual relations are for sentient entities only).

It is useful to keep these in mind when considering following

Key Terms

I’m structuring the terms section by giving one or more key quotes from the book that touch upon it, followed by a short discussion of the use of that term in the OOO context (the Issues section is structured similarly).

There is a certain dependency among the terms, so they are not listed in alphabetical order. (all emphasis in the quotes is mine)

Element

Key quotes:

 “Elements are not real objects, because they lie directly before us rather than receding into infinite distance as real objects do”

 “If the sensual object is the monkey that seems identical to us through all variations in our perceptions of it, the element is always the monkey at twilight or dawn, viewed from a specific angle or in a determinate mood, and currently eating, climbing, fighting, or screeching mournfully across a Peruvian lake”

 “we can introduce the technical term elements to refer to whatever is actually encountered in perception. If object refers to the elusive centaur-unit, and sensation refers to some hypothetical piece of raw data later shaped into objects, then let element signify that which is neither formless and raw (as in Levinas’s quite different use of the term), nor that which is subterranean and elusive”

 Discussion:

 I take this to mean that the term element indicates one small, particular facet of our sense perception of an object. I think of it as being the facet subtended by an arc of “just noticeable difference” (jnd). (I’m not sure the formulation in GM is intended to be that precise).

Black Noise

Key quotes:

“In more technical terms, every sensual object is shrouded in black noise—carryon baggage attached to the object without being essential to it”

 “Noise is defined as the peripheral material that accompanies objects on their promenade through the cosmos, with the adjective black indicating that this noise is at all times object oriented, not formed of loose universal qualities”

 Discussion:

I take black noise as the immanent qualities of an object that are slightly below our level of attention. Any one of which, at any time, may become foregrounded, and alter our perception of our experience.

 Some of this pertains to the part/whole issue (and the “formal unity”/“abundance of traits” axis).  Harman uses the example of a centaur: contrasting times when are we attending to the whole centaur, against those times when are we attending to the various parts of the centaur. Black noise refers to the parts that we don’t attend to when considering the complete centaur, or the complete centaur which we neglect when considering its parts.

[NOTE: I think he draws the part/whole distinction too crisply: assuming we are either in centaur perceiving state, or in a part perceiving state. I don’t see the need for such a strong bifurcation, but that’s not germane to the black noise question].

Allure

Key quotes:

“But allure makes no claim to get us closer to this shadowy realm, since it plays out entirely in the realm of relations, not that of the things themselves” Note: This is confusing to me, since I’m not sure how this break can happen especially since relations are objects.

“Allure, with its severing of objects and qualities, is the paradigm shift of the senses.”

 “In turn, in Part Two of this book I defined the concept of allure as a mechanism by which objects are split apart from their traits even as these traits remain inseparable from their objects”

“We have seen that allure accomplishes three things. First, it pushes the sensual object to a distance, as if transforming it into something like a real object rather than just an intentional one. The cypress, diamond, or clown becomes a kind of eminence grise lying behind the notes that it extends to view, dominating them even while vanishing into the underworld. Second, these notes become sensual objects in their own right, rather than disappearing into the thing to which they belong as happens under the usual conditions of perception. Third and last, allure also rearranges our comportment so that we now occupy ourselves directly with notes that were previously enslaved to some other object of our attention. It is important to see how normal perception plays out in each of these three moments. It should also be stated that we are not actually speaking of a relation between perception and its objects, since that would be a question of the causal bond between me and the real mailboxes or army ants that I perceive. Rather, we are still speaking only of the relation of the elements within the sensual field to one another, a relation that allows all of the sensory layers of Husserl’s centaurs to coexist even while retaining autonomous reality”

 

Discussion: 

After looking at all these quotes, allure appears to be a particular note of an object that grabs us, e.g., the brazenness of an action — the action can’t be separated from it’s brazenness, but we can talk about it’s brazenness and think about it’s brazenness as if it could be separated (and we certainly couldn’t articulate the complete set of characteristics that make it brazen).

Relations

Physical relations

Key quote:

“But this is inaccurate. In fact, the physical bond is identical with the causal bond, and is not analogous to the sensual bond at all”

Sensual relations

Key quote:

“In other words, real objects have to become sensual objects inside of a higher object in order to make contact in the first place”

Causal relations

Key quotes:

“Simply put, causation requires a prior shared medium, since otherwise it would be impossible”

 “All objects relate only on the inside of another object; all perception occurs on the inside of an object”

“In general, it can be said that the drama of the world comes from the tension between the causal bond on the one hand and the sensual bond on the other (the role of the physical bond will emerge later). The former involves the relation of an object with its parts, or an object and other objects, while the latter concerns a duel between an object and its notes or elements. The fate of object-oriented philosophy lies mostly in the latter domain, since it is here that all possibility of relations, contacts, or events is coiled up like a dangerous copper spring”

Discussion:

Sensual Relations can only be perceived by a consciousness objects, while Physical Relations and Causal Relations apply to the all objects. It is important to remember that relations are also objects, which helps ground the

“object-oriented philosophy finds its sole topic in the molten dynamics of the interior of things”

quote below.

Issues/Comments

No Direct Interaction

Key quotes:

“Object-oriented philosophy has a single basic tenet: the withdrawal of objects from all perceptual and causal relations” Creating a tension “how do relations occur”

“since there will be no way for the substances to interact directly with one another”

“If there are objects, then they must exist in some sort of vacuum-like state, since no relation fully deploys them”

“What lies at the center of this book is not a set of answers to problems, but a single new concept: that of an object that both withdraws from all relation and yet somehow does enter into relation”

Discussion: 

This book describes how objects interact. Its basic premise is that objects cannot interact directly. I think this a misstatement: it’s more accurate to say that the objects can’t completely interact with each other since there is always some aspect of them that is absent from the interaction.

This “no direct interaction” paradigm is a side effect of Harman’s use of absolute criteria for evaluation (see the “black noise, part/whole distinction” discussion above). Restricting the term direct interaction to apply to only to situations that are complete, a priori eliminates the possibility for direct interaction entirely. This forces the analysis to jump through the hoops of notes, elements, and allure to achieve the desired state of object-to-object awareness in which objects can have impact upon each other, while not ever examining the mechanisms supporting the interaction.

 On the other hand, notes, elements and allure are useful ideas that prevent a reductionist approach, so on balance no direct interaction might be a useful heuristic.

Note: Direct/indirect action is disjoint from a mediated/non-mediated distinction. In my own reading, I expect OOO to be very concerned with the mediated influences which occur between objects, e.g, the manner in which the atmosphere serves its role as a medium for speech.

 

 Objects Are Real Things In The World

Key quotes:

“As he puts it, “the house itself is not the house seen from nowhere, but the house seen from everywhere.”

Discussion: 

OOO permits no “abstract” view of an object. The only views and experiences that are permitted are those that are instantiated in the experience of some other object.

Objects Do Not Subsume Their Parts

Key quotes:

“That is to say, a windmill does not fully sound the depths of its own pieces any more than a human observer does”

 “The rose and I both point down into the same infernal inwardness of the rose-and-I-relation, but both perceive it differently, which means that the interior itself is made up not of accidents (which are irrelevant) or real objects (which are unattainable) or of elements (which are different for both of us) but of something else that truly defines the interior.”

“From all of this, we conclude that guerrilla metaphysics or object-oriented philosophy finds its sole topic in the molten dynamics of the interior of things” — I highlight this since it capture the core aesthetic of the analysis.

 Discussion:

This is (partly) a “knock on” effect of an object’s “not being completely available” to a relation. Part-of is simply another relationship to which none of the parts are completely available. This construct also supports the ability to attend to parts of the objects that interact with forming a conceptual whole with black-noise.

 It is also (partly) a “knock on” effect of objects really existing in the world. Since objects are able to perceive and interact with a part, of an object e.g., the horseshoe does not interact with the whole horse, a denial of the separateness of parts would go against the spirit of the whole OOO project.

Summary

This is a foundational OOO book, many of its tenets are both assumed and underexplained in the other OOO books which followed it. This is especially true in the area of object availability and inter-object relationships. As is probably obvious, I have some qualms about the approach, but I do feel it has opened up some new and interesting ways of looking at things– and interesting is more important than perfect.

 

I’ve structured this book note as a short glossary with commentary since I find the terms developed by Harman in Guerrilla Metaphysics to be important, but not immediately ready-to-hand. I hope others find it useful.