Monthly Archives: November 2013

Harman’s “master argument” against relational ontologies is that they cannot explain change, that if everything were related nothing would change. This is patently false, as relations include temporal relations. Deleuze for example talks about both kinetic (relative speeds and accelerations) … Continue reading →

Today, OOO is at a loss. Its hackneyed set of critical terms (philosophy of access, shams and simulacra, lavalampy overmining, atomistic undermining) clearly have no point of application at all to the new lines of research opened up by Bruno … Continue reading →

In the introduction to  AN INQUIRY INTO MODES OF EXISTENCE Latour recounts being shocked by the sceptical question of an industrialist to a climate scientist, and being surprised at the lack of appeal to the certainty of expert knowledge in … Continue reading →

Latour attempts to give us a phenomenology of the original experience of emotion that underlies the mode of existence of invisible psychogenic beings, or “divinities”. He declares that with the emotion and the impression that it comes from outside there … Continue reading →

Dans”Dracula et l’ontologie” Randolph Carter pose la question du mode d’être en apparence paradoxal des êtres fantastiques tels que Dracula. Il part d’une formule proposée par Denis Mellier pour caractériser la fiction fantastique: “le fantastique ne peut jamais être ce … Continue reading →

Some people have had problems accessing this post by Randolph Carter on his interesting blog Ligne de fuite. So I have decided to reblog it here: “Denis  Mellier, spécialiste de la littérature fantastique, énonce dans sa thèse L’écriture de l’excès, … Continue reading →

Latour’s movement is initially phenomenological. He attempts to get away from the abstraction of the subject-object division and to come back to both historical and individual experience. Only then can he rise to more “cosmological” concerns. In the case of … Continue reading →