Great essay. I'm especially intrigued by the lubrication section. If oil is needed for two contradictory machine parts to work together, then what is needed for a person to hold two contradictory thoughts together? In other words, what is the mental equivalent of lubrication/oil? I've been pondering this since reading your essay, and I think the answer might be: metaphor. Within the medium of metaphor, thought's contradictory gears don't grind against each other. Metaphor deconstructs meaning into pre-categorical elements much like oil is matter reduced to pre-categorical, undifferentiated stuff. Metaphor then fills in the gaps between thoughts, letting contradictions coexist. And if you want to get really weird with it, I think that, if you take these ideas to their logical conclusion, you end up with the thought that oil is the intuition of the Earth --its accumulated biological history compressed into intuitive form -- just as metaphor is the intuition of the mind.
This is a very interesting thought. At first glance, I think you make a good point. It seems that there is inherent tension between metaphor and formal logic, such that when you begin to move past the law of the excluded middle, you enter into a realm of metaphor. Graham Harman makes metaphor crucial to his ontology, and the more I think about it, the more I agree that metaphor is fundamentally ontological. When A is not only A, but also partly B, this is a claim about a state of affairs in the world. Metaphor seems to act on the same plane as formal logic, so when a metaphor suggests that A is not only A, but partly B also, this brings it into direct conflict with logic, which would dictate that A can only be A.
"And if you want to get really weird with it, I think that, if you take these ideas to their logical conclusion, you end up with the thought that oil is the intuition of the Earth --its accumulated biological history compressed into intuitive form -- just as metaphor is the intuition of the mind." This is a very cool idea. I will have to dwell with this more, but you are definitely right that oil is something primordial--as a multiplicity of different organisms over different ages compressed into undifferentiated substance--something prior to material reality as we experience it.
Anyway, these are just rough thoughts off the top of my head. There is certainly more thinking and writing to be done on the subject. Thank you for your ideas.
Well. I read through this once and it went over my head for the most part 😅 but I remember you talking about this in February so it’s exciting to see you put it out!
I think I’m going to have to think about it more in depth before having any meaningful to say.
I have intuitive felt sense that OOO’s ontology is distorted, I don’t buy the principle that an object is larger than it is physically nor that because it can influence how we think or our bodies that it constitutes a hyperoject— rather than discrete things (such as the material object of oil, thoughts, and microplastics).
I think that’s where I’m getting hung up, but I can’t very clearly articulate why I disagree with OOO. I wrote some notes on this when I was reading Morton at your recommendation, I’ll think about this a bit more and see if I can communicate any thing meaningful later.
And perhaps start (friendly) beef publicly if I do have anything to say.
Buddy you should have seen the first draft of this piece. I wrote it in February and let it simmer for a while before returning to it. When I tried to revise it there were many sections that were complete gibberish where I had no clue what I was even trying to say.
That's fair. I still have to think OOO through quite a bit myself. I have a critique of OOO by Peter Wolfendale which I have been meaning to read.
I would definitely be down for public friendly beef. Don't hesitate to @ me.
Takes all kinds 🚚🪝🏭 in the oil patch. Some of the most progressive do-gooders and left leaning liberals 🫏 ♻️ 🎓 that I know are the descendants of oil field ⚫💰 inherited wealth. Without the 🏗️⚙️🏦🧰 Black Gold, 👨🏻🌾🌾 we'd probably still be dirt farmers on the plains.🦬🌪️
🇺🇲 Any-who, I forwarded this to most of my friends and family that's got ties to the global oil industry and who've been through the 🎈booms n busts💥 from Penn Square til today. Our grandparents from the Roaring Twenties Bust are long gone now, but their stories live.
...this powerful essay ✍🏼 has some pretty big ideas 📚 🌐 for us oil field trash.◼️✔️
Great essay. I'm especially intrigued by the lubrication section. If oil is needed for two contradictory machine parts to work together, then what is needed for a person to hold two contradictory thoughts together? In other words, what is the mental equivalent of lubrication/oil? I've been pondering this since reading your essay, and I think the answer might be: metaphor. Within the medium of metaphor, thought's contradictory gears don't grind against each other. Metaphor deconstructs meaning into pre-categorical elements much like oil is matter reduced to pre-categorical, undifferentiated stuff. Metaphor then fills in the gaps between thoughts, letting contradictions coexist. And if you want to get really weird with it, I think that, if you take these ideas to their logical conclusion, you end up with the thought that oil is the intuition of the Earth --its accumulated biological history compressed into intuitive form -- just as metaphor is the intuition of the mind.
Thank you!
This is a very interesting thought. At first glance, I think you make a good point. It seems that there is inherent tension between metaphor and formal logic, such that when you begin to move past the law of the excluded middle, you enter into a realm of metaphor. Graham Harman makes metaphor crucial to his ontology, and the more I think about it, the more I agree that metaphor is fundamentally ontological. When A is not only A, but also partly B, this is a claim about a state of affairs in the world. Metaphor seems to act on the same plane as formal logic, so when a metaphor suggests that A is not only A, but partly B also, this brings it into direct conflict with logic, which would dictate that A can only be A.
"And if you want to get really weird with it, I think that, if you take these ideas to their logical conclusion, you end up with the thought that oil is the intuition of the Earth --its accumulated biological history compressed into intuitive form -- just as metaphor is the intuition of the mind." This is a very cool idea. I will have to dwell with this more, but you are definitely right that oil is something primordial--as a multiplicity of different organisms over different ages compressed into undifferentiated substance--something prior to material reality as we experience it.
Anyway, these are just rough thoughts off the top of my head. There is certainly more thinking and writing to be done on the subject. Thank you for your ideas.
Wow. Turn this into a book. I can’t imagine any publisher turning this down.
Very kind, thank you!
I would not be opposed to doing so...
Well. I read through this once and it went over my head for the most part 😅 but I remember you talking about this in February so it’s exciting to see you put it out!
I think I’m going to have to think about it more in depth before having any meaningful to say.
I have intuitive felt sense that OOO’s ontology is distorted, I don’t buy the principle that an object is larger than it is physically nor that because it can influence how we think or our bodies that it constitutes a hyperoject— rather than discrete things (such as the material object of oil, thoughts, and microplastics).
I think that’s where I’m getting hung up, but I can’t very clearly articulate why I disagree with OOO. I wrote some notes on this when I was reading Morton at your recommendation, I’ll think about this a bit more and see if I can communicate any thing meaningful later.
And perhaps start (friendly) beef publicly if I do have anything to say.
Buddy you should have seen the first draft of this piece. I wrote it in February and let it simmer for a while before returning to it. When I tried to revise it there were many sections that were complete gibberish where I had no clue what I was even trying to say.
That's fair. I still have to think OOO through quite a bit myself. I have a critique of OOO by Peter Wolfendale which I have been meaning to read.
I would definitely be down for public friendly beef. Don't hesitate to @ me.
NO HAHA please don’t take this as a roast of ur writing. It went over my head bc I’m slow 😂😅 I also have to let it simmer to understand it LOL
🫡 if I have worthy thoughts I will start the beef
Philosophy is not dead.
Takes all kinds 🚚🪝🏭 in the oil patch. Some of the most progressive do-gooders and left leaning liberals 🫏 ♻️ 🎓 that I know are the descendants of oil field ⚫💰 inherited wealth. Without the 🏗️⚙️🏦🧰 Black Gold, 👨🏻🌾🌾 we'd probably still be dirt farmers on the plains.🦬🌪️
🇺🇲 Any-who, I forwarded this to most of my friends and family that's got ties to the global oil industry and who've been through the 🎈booms n busts💥 from Penn Square til today. Our grandparents from the Roaring Twenties Bust are long gone now, but their stories live.
...this powerful essay ✍🏼 has some pretty big ideas 📚 🌐 for us oil field trash.◼️✔️
Thank you! Yes, there is oil running through our veins buddy. Glad to hear you're spreading the word to fellow oil men.
◼️Oil is my muse....
.....make'n this old okie proud!
Nice work kanuk. ✍🏼🤔
"Men of Athens......"🏺🪔