I need to sit with this essay for longer; it's profound and beautifully written. I think somewhere in it is clarity that I've been looking for around the concept of "work." Which it makes every sense that you would understand where I cannot; although I've had to work my whole life, I've never done physical labor the way you have (and reading your work, I feel I've missed out on something profound). Specifically I've gotten quite caught up on the relationship between the two definitions of work, the one of physical science and the one of labor; I think that this double-meaning is more fundamental than the one "power" occupies as both political power and electricity, because the former translates across languages. This is all a long way of asking you, do you think that fuel does work?
Thank you for the kind words! You have touched upon something important that I tried to escape in the piece--the ambiguity of the word work. Energy, power, ability, agency, freedom, and strength, are all inextricably intertwined. The ability to change one's environment contains all these elements, and I think this is something not limited to humans. I follow Graham Harman in understanding objects as having rich inner lives which are withdrawn from us. I think fuel does work, in a literal, not only a metaphorical sense. Oil is an especially powerful substance with a latent energy lacked by many other substances. The hydrocarbons we use for fuels have weaker internal bonds--they are literally just waiting to break apart and combust. I very much enjoyed your article on the Jinn, though I don't even think one needs to posit the supernatural to say that fuel does work. Harman's school of Object Oriented Ontology allows us to accord everyday objects with agency of their own--which I think is confirmed by every new advance in science.
I need to sit with this essay for longer; it's profound and beautifully written. I think somewhere in it is clarity that I've been looking for around the concept of "work." Which it makes every sense that you would understand where I cannot; although I've had to work my whole life, I've never done physical labor the way you have (and reading your work, I feel I've missed out on something profound). Specifically I've gotten quite caught up on the relationship between the two definitions of work, the one of physical science and the one of labor; I think that this double-meaning is more fundamental than the one "power" occupies as both political power and electricity, because the former translates across languages. This is all a long way of asking you, do you think that fuel does work?
Thank you for the kind words! You have touched upon something important that I tried to escape in the piece--the ambiguity of the word work. Energy, power, ability, agency, freedom, and strength, are all inextricably intertwined. The ability to change one's environment contains all these elements, and I think this is something not limited to humans. I follow Graham Harman in understanding objects as having rich inner lives which are withdrawn from us. I think fuel does work, in a literal, not only a metaphorical sense. Oil is an especially powerful substance with a latent energy lacked by many other substances. The hydrocarbons we use for fuels have weaker internal bonds--they are literally just waiting to break apart and combust. I very much enjoyed your article on the Jinn, though I don't even think one needs to posit the supernatural to say that fuel does work. Harman's school of Object Oriented Ontology allows us to accord everyday objects with agency of their own--which I think is confirmed by every new advance in science.
Beautifully judged. As a lifelong Albertan, this hit frigidly home.
A beer and sports television, or blog posts on the meaning of life and who we are such as the one I just had a look at.
Yes, let's be content with them.