For, what object is “the body”, or “the motorcycle” minus all of their respective parts?įirst things first: I am absolutely stoked at the prospect of readings Harman’s Prince of Networks for reading group. What most fascinates me about form, then, is that it seems to exist as part of the object-whole, but is not essentially a proper part in the sense that it, itself, cannot be taken as an independent object. (Another example would be that given the sentence, “Bob wrote a paper.” I could easily replace the word Bob with the pronoun he, with little to no change in the sentence’s meaning – “He wrote a paper.” Yet, the more complex the sentence/object, the harder it is to make such replacements.) Parts can be replaced, but only if the new parts maintain the same function in the composition. It is only because the parts are composed in such and such a way that the working motorcycle comes to be. However, there is something quite drastically different between the two. Now, you’re right for if the whole was merely the sum of its parts, then the pile would be the same object as the working motorcycle. My favorite example is the two garages, one with a pile of parts and the other with a similar pile but fully constructed into a working motorcycle. I’m not disagreeing with you, per se, but am intrigued by this notion that before multiple objects become a whole, there seems to be a preset or pre-constructed form by which the objects (eventually, but not always) come to take. “Rather, the body is an endo-relational unity anterior to whatever matter might compose it, wherein the elements related interdepend on one another through time.”Ĭould you possibly describe the differences between a sum, a composition, and a unity? As I see it, there seems to be more to a composition than a simple sum, but in what way(s) does a unity differ from either or both?Īlso, I am struck by the fact that there seems to be something “anterior” to the object-whole. Now, to my (seemingly unending series of) questions. And second, I would enjoy it even more if it were Graham’s new book! So, to answer your question, I’m definitely on board. In response to my last post, NrG writes:įirst, I would love to read something other than Lacan for our groups. It looks like I’m writing a lot of posts responding to others today, but I can’t express how helpful these comments are in assisting me in the development of my own thoughts.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |