Monthly Archives: June 2014

I have written and published on my blog, on Scribd, and on academia.edu, over a hundred pages (e.g. this 49 page article) summarising my reactions to the AIME project. I have received nothing at all in reply. One of its … Continue reading →

Bruno Latour is well-known for having applied semiotic and post-structuralist thought to the study of the natural sciences – typically a blind spot in the generalised critique of institutions of thought that characterised the 60s and 70s in French philosophical … Continue reading →

“If there is something in common between science and the humanities it is the habit of moving back and forth between actants and actors…”Actant” is part of semiotic jargon, and I agree that the word could put off those trained … Continue reading →

If we look at OOO in terms of language, the difference with Latour’s approach stands out strikingly. Latour wishes to create a common language capable of being spoken by both scientists and humanists. OOO does not want to create a … Continue reading →

Graham Harman frequently cites the example of the encounter between fire and cotton as an intuitively clear illustration of the concept of withdrawal, but this example is more complicated than he seems to realise. This is a case for which … Continue reading →

From the preceding video: 6m44 to 10m36 “The interest of this extremely classical semiotic definition is that it permits us to establish a distinction, which responds a little to the definiion of general culture. This does not make an opposition … Continue reading →

From the preceding video: 4m46 to 6m44 “On the contrary there is going to be enormous differences concerning the question of agency. I shall use the English word because “puissance d’agir” is a little bizarre. To define the term let’s … Continue reading →