Ktismatics

15 October 2009

Appliance Attachment

Filed under: Movies — ktismatics @ 10:54 am

For some reason — no, I believe I know the reason — I found myself thinking about The Brave Little Toaster this morning. It’s a movie our daughter used to watch as a kid, about a group of home appliances stuck in an abandoned posthuman house, deserted by the former owners. Left to their own devices (so to speak), the appliances continue to keep the house tidy in the futile hope that some day the owners will return. Eventually they set out in a Quest to find “The Master” — the son of the homeowners, to whom these household objects formed a particularly strong attachment. The moral to the story: objects are subjectively destitute when not plugged into The Correlation with humans.

Here’s a clip. That’s the late Phil Hartman doing the Nicholson impression.

Advertisements

41 Comments »

  1. Ha – were you thinking of the story I was telling you about (the guy and his oscillating fan)? I’ve been away on a business trip and didn’t notice the new post.

    Like

    Comment by Asher Kay — 16 October 2009 @ 11:42 am

  2. The idea behind your story did contribute to my post about the appliances, Asher. I’d put up my little fictional piece about a lamp if I hadn’t prohibited myself from posting for a week. Another contributing factor was Alexei’s post about Ayn Rand over at The Cesspit.

    Like

    Comment by john doyle — 16 October 2009 @ 11:47 am

    • Since when did “Alexei” become a fancy way of spelling Mikhail?

      Like

      Comment by Alexei — 16 October 2009 @ 11:52 am

  3. Oh shit, I’m in trouble again. It’s like reading Dostoevsky: I just can’t keep those Russian names straight.

    Like

    Comment by john doyle — 16 October 2009 @ 11:56 am

  4. Are either of them actually Russian?

    Like

    Comment by Asher Kay — 16 October 2009 @ 11:58 am

  5. Now I’m afraid to say anything about anyone, lest I violate the “don’t out the pseudonymous blogger” ethos. We do know from public record that Mikhail posts in Russian from time to time, so we can infer at least a significant degree of facility with the language. About Alexei’s national origin I know nothing.

    Like

    Comment by john doyle — 16 October 2009 @ 12:04 pm

  6. For what it’s worth, Asher, I can say that I’m not Russian.

    Like

    Comment by Alexei — 16 October 2009 @ 12:21 pm

  7. Well that’s not much help Alexei, you could be Ukrainian or Belorussian. Or a character from Corto Maltese….

    Like

    Comment by Carl — 16 October 2009 @ 10:43 pm

    • Stating the obvious, Carl, reduces the carnivalesque atmosphere we’ve been trying to develop here….

      Like

      Comment by Alexei — 17 October 2009 @ 7:18 am

      • I knew it! I knew you were a character from Corto Maltese! Are you the self-ironic Trotskyite or the canny Fijian witchdoctor? Or maybe even the fiery Sinn Fein gun moll?

        Like

        Comment by Carl — 17 October 2009 @ 5:53 pm

  8. Speaking of carnivalsque, have you fellows heard the news? Apparently a wormhole or n-dimensional string has opened up a portal in the spacetime continuum, such that now suburban Dallas and Cairo are actually closer together than than two adjacent residences in that selfsame Dallas suburb. The Parody Center had previously speculated that some sort of remote tentacular action was involved, but this potentially promising line of research has receded in recent installments.

    Like

    Comment by john doyle — 17 October 2009 @ 7:37 am

    • Unsurprisingly, perhaps, Heidegger offers a similar analysis of space at the very beginning of Being and Time (Dasein as de-distancing, if I remember correctly). There’s no networks in Heidegger though, and certainly no diagrams, so it’s not as cool. To be honest, though, I’m not sure why space or time — and what happened to to Space-Time? — would be a problem for a realist. Why can’t Levi be physically (and I suppose ontically) closer to his neighbor than to Harman and have more to say to Harman?

      Like

      Comment by Alexei — 17 October 2009 @ 9:01 am

  9. I agree with you, Alexei.

    Like

    Comment by john doyle — 17 October 2009 @ 9:36 am

    • I, too, would agree with you, Alexei, except that ontic matters become increasingly more seemingly sophisticated than endless hot air with age. In the meantime, it is very moving how Harman and Bryant have such an engagement, although I only keep up with it second-hand.

      I must note in passing that Dejan does not know how to post her comments on the right posts. The one about Harman did not belong in the Mea Culpa one.

      Like

      Comment by afrohun — 17 October 2009 @ 9:48 am

  10. Eloise having read the cat’s latest I’m thinking that the objectoriented fallacy is that the boys think there’s some neutral-pantheistic deity says people will BELIEVE THEM humans should be taken off the throne and the objects treated more fairly; in this belief they unwittingly put themselves in the position of God, while not being (or pretending not to be) aware of it. This is so Western-Lefty-liberal, like Madonna’s fight for Malawi, which she pretends isn’t about diva histrionics but is about equality for all and curbing African misery.

    I am further endlessly irritated by the cat’s insistence on the false idea that there’s only the transcendental God, or Plato’s world of forms; there are also religions, like Orthodox Christianity, that are involved in God’s immanence and transcendence at the same time.

    Like

    Comment by the voice of parodic reason — 17 October 2009 @ 9:18 pm

    • One could also argue that you’re unwittingly putting yourself in the position of George W. Bush by giving everyone cute nicknames.

      Like

      Comment by Asher Kay — 18 October 2009 @ 8:56 am

      • Yes, you could, but I think it would be a purely private kind of ‘smart joke’, wouldn’t it? You can say you don’t care for Dejan’s transgendered ‘cute names’, but it’s possible that the very idea of associating Dejan with any kind of Bush Imperative is tantamount to one’s own insularity. I use some of the nicknames elsewhere, but not on the more ‘Establishment’ types of blogs, like this one (that’s not a put-down, by the way, John.) After all, Bush’s nicknames were never ‘drag names’. At least Giuliani dressed in drag, it made him seem all the growlier and grumpy when he put his suit back on.

        Like

        Comment by afrohun — 18 October 2009 @ 10:06 am

      • One could make the same sort of argument about God — he doesn’t claim the same sort of power over his objects, he doesn’t have the same sort of justification, etc., etc. No analogy is perfect unless you’re comparing something to itself; which is sort of like spoonerizing an alliteration.

        Associating Dejan with a Bush Imperative is definitely taking the comparison too far. Bush’s little nicknames serve a particular purpose — might Dejan’s serve a similar one? They certainly have a similar flavor.

        As for not caring for them — to each his or her own.

        Like

        Comment by Asher Kay — 18 October 2009 @ 10:24 am

      • I’m afraid I’ve lost the drift regarding the nicknames. What sorts of nicknames did GWB deploy, and for what purpose? And in what way is nicknaming sort of like God? Regarding my own nickname of Eloise, I used to find it slightly irritating but I guess I’ve become inured to it by now.

        Like

        Comment by john doyle — 18 October 2009 @ 10:46 am

      • Also, I wanted to make clear that I don’t think that a George W. Bush analogy exhausts Dejan’s creative endeavor. The only thing that might even come close to doing that is Paula Abdul’s 1988 song, “Forever Your Girl”.

        Like

        Comment by Asher Kay — 18 October 2009 @ 10:53 am

      • I’m afraid I’ve lost the drift regarding the nicknames. What sorts of nicknames did GWB deploy, and for what purpose?

        A non-exhaustive list of Bush’s nicknames for people can be found Here. I leave his purpose as an exercise for the reader.

        And in what way is nicknaming sort of like God?

        It’s not. VOPR made an analogy between God and several object-oriented philosophers, and I stated that a similar analogy might be proposed between Dejan and George W. Bush, with respect to their use of nicknames. It’s possible that both analogies are similarly bad rather than being similarly apt.

        Like

        Comment by Asher Kay — 18 October 2009 @ 11:04 am

  11. I know plenty of people, including me and it sounds like you as well, vopr, who have no trouble upholding norms that aren’t eternal verities. And why would difference that precedes identity result in chaos? Now again, I believe this primal difference position needs more elaboration than I’ve seen so far, and I don’t see why it’s pivotal to the OOO/anti-OOO divide, but I admit that I’ve not seen everything there is to see.

    Like

    Comment by john doyle — 17 October 2009 @ 10:30 pm

  12. who have no trouble upholding norms that aren’t eternal verities.

    what I mean is in the Bible you have this paradox, or double bind, which you might know more about, that while one is certainly called upon to uphold the transcendental Law, one is also told that there’s no way of knowing whether you’ll be saved, and therefore you have to proceed by trial and error. Therefore
    the Law is also immanent, tied to your practice, the deed. Now just because some fanatic Christians in Texas who once tried to bugger dr. Sinthome interpret
    this unsubtly doesn’t mean that we don’t need Transcendence anymore.

    Like

    Comment by the voice of parodic reason — 18 October 2009 @ 7:06 am

  13. Did you by the way check out my post on Berdyaev, I had promised earlier to find that link for you, he is a very interesting Orthodox theologist from Russia who’s been addressing the major issues of creation…

    Like

    Comment by the voice of parodic reason — 18 October 2009 @ 7:08 am

  14. I mean it’s like the OO bunch is trying to launch some kind of pre-monotheistic animism and worse they talk about it as if these ideas weren’t already discussed in Kablabla and countless other teachings of the faith!

    Like

    Comment by the voice of parodic reason — 18 October 2009 @ 7:09 am

  15. There are no works by Berdyaev in the interlibrary system so I’ve not read much beyond your posts, vopr. Regarding the pre-monotheistic animism, it does seem compatible with the idea of objects generating space and time. Somebody else draws the connection between these ideas and Young Earth Creationism. I mean, I thought it was pretty well accepted that the Big Bang generated space and time. Now if a cosmology is proposed whereby the objects created the Big Bang itself, then we’re really into something odd. Somebody else I know has associated these ideas with Young Earth Creationism, which is what Meillassoux was warning against: those who see great discontinuities between the real and our human ability to apprehend the real. His warning was directed at certain idealist traditions, but the same warning surely applies to the more speculative variants of realism. The Young Earthers are realists of this sort: our experiences of how the universe works might have had no correspondence to the way the universe really was before humans showed up on the scene.

    The idea of networks shortening distances between people is of course nothing new either. The small world hypothesis, six degrees of separation — these ideas have been explored by sociological and psychological investigations of networks for some time now. But to regard these findings of communicational proximity as justification for “spatio-temporal pluralism” seems like mixing apples and oranges to me. I don’t even think that asserting the primacy of objects causes this confusion, since an alternative ontology based on forces rather than objects would also trace a world of network interconnections, as is the case with Latour. Why not, as Alexei suggests, let space-time be one sort of connectivity between objects, while communication is another sort of connectivity altogether?

    Like

    Comment by john doyle — 18 October 2009 @ 10:06 am

  16. asher–it was of interest of my that you made such a comparison, because so seemingly far-fetched. It’s actually rather amusing to compare Dejan to George Bush, and I’m sure it’s high time such thing happened. After all, I’ve been called ‘the Republican bitch’ longer than I really wanted to (lol).

    Like

    Comment by afrohun — 18 October 2009 @ 10:47 am

  17. Also, I wanted to make clear that I don’t think that a George W. Bush analogy exhausts Dejan’s creative endeavor. The only thing that might even come close to doing that is Paula Abdul’s 1988 song, “Forever Your Girl”.

    Well, you see, again, this seems very insular, as if you thought there was some reason someone would know why you said it. They don’t. It sounds a bit as though you are being smug, althogh I don’t know for sure, don’t know you well enough. But it’s way too abstruse if you expect to communicate with people you don’t know either. Dejan is ‘forever WHOSE girl’? Not mine. We worked that out some time back. I’m too old not to be into natural selection, and the person said ‘okay, use your fantasy of me, but stop bugging me about it’. Then I made the links FUCK, and also informed him that I preferred the fantasy to the reality, until further notice (further notice was given as an unexpected development came up), and this way the previous 2-pronged, garden variety type schizophrenia was dissolved, and I had my AssBoy in every form I had originally requested. I rest confident that this is perfectly clear to you, who are clearly a reader of CPC.

    Like

    Comment by afrohun — 18 October 2009 @ 10:59 am

    • Well, you see, again, this seems very insular, as if you thought there was some reason someone would know why you said it.

      I think it’s self-evident.

      But it’s way too abstruse if you expect to communicate with people you don’t know either.

      I agree completely. Therefore I retract the analogy until such time as I have explored it in depth and presented it in a way that cannot be construed as either insular, smug, or abstruse. This may take several years.

      I rest confident that this is perfectly clear to you, who are clearly a reader of CPC

      I only follow the non-sexual threads.

      Like

      Comment by Asher Kay — 18 October 2009 @ 11:15 am

      • A bit cutesey, but it’s clever, I’m sure delights some audiences. I mean esp. ‘only follow the non-sexual threads’. Hio Ho Ho.

        Well, you did come up with that one useful thing, which you very likely have only used as a mental amusement–and that’s not something to scoff at. You can look that up yourself, making entreaty among your archives here and elsewhere, but it was indeed good, and I profit by it at this very moment. Such is the way of the successful mountebank.

        Like

        Comment by afrohun — 18 October 2009 @ 11:26 am

      • I hope you won’t write me off as a mountebank just because we disagree about the Paula Abdul thing.

        Like

        Comment by Asher Kay — 18 October 2009 @ 1:39 pm

  18. I was going to ask: WHAT ON EARTH are ”Spoonerized Ass-Excitations” ABOUT and WHAT is the meaning of the green alien toothpaste in the logo??? Asher Kay sounds like a gay marriage between ”Ashton” and ”Kutcher”.

    Darling, whatever one might think of Bush, he was clearly the square-jawed Texan Top in his line of business, and it’s well known that Tops need neither brains nor taste to keep their bottoms in the harem.

    Like

    Comment by the voice of parodic reason — 18 October 2009 @ 12:31 pm

    • Oh, quite true, Madame Brothel. It’s just he’s not exactly sparkling, you know, you have yo’ moments. And asher ought to know that I wasn’t ‘your type’ either, you wuz jes’ lyin’ to see if you could git some money! Hey hey hey,I don’t blame, a girl’s got to be a golddigger sometimes. I thought he seemed to be trying to reduce your talents a little too much. But then there are beaucoup de homophobes around. I don’t know about your fantasies of marrying Lesb’ans, though. That does not somehow seem all that wise.

      Like

      Comment by afrohun — 18 October 2009 @ 1:14 pm

  19. Regarding the pre-monotheistic animism, it does seem compatible with the idea of objects generating space and time.

    My thought was thus that the idea of objects generating space and time isn’t incompatible with the idea of the Christian God, as it is for example mentioned in the Kabbalah.

    Like

    Comment by the voice of parodic reason — 18 October 2009 @ 12:34 pm

  20. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_life_(Kabbalah)

    Kabbalists also do not envision time and space as pre-existing, and place them at the next three stages on the Tree of Life. First is Kether, or the Crown in English, which is thought of as the product of the contraction of Ain Soph Aur into a singularity of infinite energy or limitless light. In the Kabbalah, it is the primordial energy out of which all things are created. The next stage is Chokmah, or Wisdom, which is considered to be a stage at which the infinitely hot and contracted singularity expanded forth into space and time. It is often thought of as pure dynamic energy of an infinite intensity forever propelled forth at a speed faster than light. It is considered to be the primordial masculine energy, which is also referred to in Chinese Taoist philosophy as Yang. Next comes Binah, or Understanding, which is thought of as the primordial feminine energy, the Supernal Mother of the Universe which receives the energy of Chokmah, cooling and nourishing it into the multitudinous forms present throughout the whole cosmos. [4] It is also seen as the beginning of Time itself. It is analogous to the Chinese concept of Yin, which together with Yang are considered to be the basis of all of Creation. There are many parallels between Taoist philosophy and the Kabbalistic conceptions of the Tree of Life. [5]

    Like

    Comment by the voice of parodic reason — 18 October 2009 @ 12:57 pm

  21. Ashley, in my address to Eloise I was referring to dr. Sinthome’s latest anti-Christian rant in which he proposed that the sort of normativity proposed by organized religion shifts the gaze away from the real world, in a manner of speaking, so that the OO is supposed to bring us back to its materiality, complexity, its chaotic nature, and then the cat also threw in his favorite Marxist salad about how all this is also going to help us come back to the common working man and be an indispensable tool in the fight against plutocracy. I find these kinds of ”radical shifts” depressingly lame, especially for someone with the Narcissistic Cat’s inquisitive mind. I then quoted an example from Kablablah to explain that all these new advertising items (like objects generating space and time) have existed for a very long time within religious & spiritual systems, which is kind of illogical innit if all these systems can produce is normativity??? Can you SPOONERIZE that?

    Like

    Comment by the voice of parodic reason — 18 October 2009 @ 2:06 pm

    • Ashley,

      I was hoping for a nickname, but I was counting on a little more creativity.

      in my address to Eloise I was referring to dr. Sinthome’s latest anti-Christian rant

      I was aware of that. I wasn’t arguing against what you were saying vis a vis salad — I was just putting forward an analogy of my own. I don’t agree with Bryant’s views on normativity. I’m working on a post that responds to the post you mentioned, which you can feel free to check out if the green toothpaste doesn’t get to you too much.

      Can you SPOONERIZE that?

      Yes. It would involve switching the first letters of all the words around.

      Like

      Comment by Asher Kay — 18 October 2009 @ 2:22 pm

  22. . I don’t know about your fantasies of marrying Lesb’ans, though. That does not somehow seem all that wise.

    You missed the exchange on Twatter, which you can trace back via the link on CPC. Anodyne looks great, like Laura Ellena Haring (Camilla) from Mulholland,

    http://twitter.com/account/profile_image/anodynelite?hreflang=en

    and she lives in New York – what more do I need? She said she wanted me to play the butch part, but there’s always a strap-on dildo to settle that problem.

    Like

    Comment by the voice of parodic reason — 18 October 2009 @ 2:16 pm

  23. Looking forward to your article. I usually have to consult with my correspondent before I brand the nicknames, so you’ll have to wait. But in one of the brainstorming sessions today I wondered if the spoonerizing has something with that old Richard Gere shtick where he used to put rats in his asscrack, but then performed Matrix-style in folded space?

    Like

    Comment by the voice of parodic reason — 18 October 2009 @ 2:47 pm

    • I wondered if the spoonerizing has something with that old Richard Gere shtick where he used to put rats in his asscrack, but then performed Matrix-style in folded space?

      No — not consciously anyway. Also, I thought it was shaved gerbils.

      Like

      Comment by Asher Kay — 18 October 2009 @ 3:01 pm

      • For the record, not everybody will know that’s a mere urban legend of the falsest kind. I have no idea how it started.

        Like

        Comment by afrohun — 18 October 2009 @ 4:34 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: