Monday, December 17, 2012

Pluralism Primer: Abundance


The object-oriented ontologists think of objects as, in a philosophical sense, unbounded. As do I. But we differ in how we conceptualize that difference.

The object-oriented ontologists think of the object as withdrawing. Objects are always withdrawing from one another, hence they are always withdrawing from us. Which means that we, as philosophers, are always chasing after them. No sooner do we lay a philosophical glove on them than they exude a dab of philosophical grease and slip away.


Hence theirs is a flat landscape punctured by the black holes of ever withdrawing objects. They probe the holes but nothing ever comes out. Godot never shows up.

Pluralists think of objects as manifold, a plenitude of presence, abundant. Grasping objects is easy, but full comprehension is all but impossible. As soon as you break off a piece for examination the object fills the void. No matter how many pieces you examine there’s always more to see and touch.


Ours is a landscape filled with gushers and geysers. Objects upon objects. Wheels within wheels. We’re always running, leaping, and bounding from object to object. And there’s no rest for the weary.

And THAT’s why I’ve had to sketch out a system, not only with Objects, but with Realms of Being, Arenas of Abundance, Life Ways, and the ethical and aesthetic search for Unity of Being.


Do you know what happens when 
you withdraw from withdrawal?





  1. Hi Bill. This is the most reasonable version of OOO so far--withdrawing from OOO's withdrawal, which as Terence argued and many others critical of the popular version, fails to grasp the true democracy of objects.

  2. Thanks, ver. Ultimately I decided that OOO was not so much flat as thin.