Posts Tagged ‘jane bennett’

Some somewhat banal updates about things I’m working on: 1 – For the Of Monsters, and Miracles conference at my home university of Western I am completing a piece called “A Weird Posthumanism” which is on Lovecraft and Luciana Parisi as making a kind of proto posthumanism together with their biological articulations of early planetary […]

Somehow it didn’t quite register with me how close Jane Bennett’s future project discussed in her interview with Peter Gratton is to what I am trying to do, at least in terms of metaphysics, especially in relation to Reza’s and Land’s work. Bennett says the following: “I want to get better at discerning the topography […]

In chapter five of Vibrant Matter Bennett turns her attention to vitalism in order to flesh out her project of a vital materialism. As with the previous chapter, Bennett notes the importance of annhilating  distinctions. What kinds of distinctions are being dissolved and in what fashion is a problem obscured in the term materialism. As […]

Outline After using a bit of Kafka Bennett begins to discuss how life fits in between the organic and the inorganic registers of existence. Bennett states that life is a “biological category” but one with traditionally humanist characteristics such as “the capacity for emotion, sociality, and reflection” (52). While animals are surely capable of these […]

As Peter, Anthony, and Adrian have already posted there will be a cross-blog reading group of Jane Bennett’s Vibrant Matter. The reading schedule will be as follows: May 23-29 Host blog: Philosophy in a Time of Error (Peter Gratton) Under discussion: Preface & Chapter 1, “The Force of Things” (and overview/interview). May 30-June 5 Host […]

/3/ – Vitalism, instead of being taken as a singular life-force which animates or enlivens all things, is instead taken to be a collection of forces compromising a larger prohairesis which disintegrates what we take to be the solidity of being both in creation, destruction, and transformation. As a result the organic/inorganic distinction is not an ontological distinction. So near so […]