Related posts:

1. Beck, Mormonism and Evangelicalism
2. Beck and Social Justice
3. Clark Pinnock Dies

He wrote:

On the other hand there are people who claim to have read my books twice, but who still think I hold that time is a background in which objects move around. I don’t even know what to say to that, having slept on it. Prince of Networks is pretty clearly written, I think.

The section on time is just over a six page section starting on page 214. You can read this section at Google Books. Graham’s take of space and time arises out of his interpretation of Heidegger’s fourfold. There are two sets of oppositions in strife. One is real vs. sensual objects while the other dimension is real objects and their qualities. Space and time are “by products of a tension between objects and qualities.” (219)

Now all that said, I have to admit I’ve read this section numerous times and I must just be missing the obvious. My impression is that Graham took ubrage to that. Allow me a defense to my comments though. In last week’s post I wrote,

That is I don’t think there is a heavy engagement with the issue of time. It’s just taken as a clear and uncomplex background in which objects reside. [...]

First regarding what for lack of a better term I’ll call “simple background time.” It’s actually not at all an unreasonable position to take. While the simple notion goes back at least to the Stoics, I personally find time much more troubling. Maybe that’s just because I’m partial to Einstein over the traditional background interpretations of quantum mechanics. Leibniz and Mach just got to me and I’ve long thought spacetime emerges out of object relations rather than being some absolute non-object background. I just think time is related to objects more integrally.

Note though that I am not calling it a substance. Indeed I was careful by bringing up the Stoics rather than Newton. Newton has a substantial space time in which events transpire. The Stoics instead had something halfway between substantial space ala Newton and relative space ala Leibniz. Tensions were also a big deal for the Stoic, albeit not quite in the same way Graham’s OOO has. Interestingly Milič Čapek in his The Concepts of Space and Time: Their Structure and Their Development sees Whitehead as the closest modern analogy to the Stoic view.

Graham described his own system by saying, “space is not the site of relation but of relation and non-relation.” (218) He then said, “Space is both nearness and distance. Things make contact along specific surfaces but are not exhausted by this contact, and recede partially into private depths.” (ibid, emphasis mine)

Of course now I’m wishing I’d never brought it up at all, but it seems pretty clear the Graham doesn’t think his system the same as Leibniz. The link in the post Graham objected to was to Lee Smolin arguing for a more more Leibnizean solution.

Levi appears to have read me the same way as Graham did when he says,

Clark rejects Graham’s account of time because, he says, he is sympathetic to Einstein. However, it is difficult for me to see how Graham’s account of time isn’t perfectly consistent with Einstein’s account of time. Einstein says exactly the same thing: that time and space are produces of objects and how they bend space-time as a result of their mass and velocity. [...] However, the point remains that OOO does not treat space and time as containers in which objects exist. Exactly the reverse.

But let me reiterate that to say there is a background is not to say space or time is a container.

Further I must point out that Einstein failed in achievign Leibniz’ and Mach’s vision of a relativized space time. Many philosophers have actually argued the debate itself is outmoded. (Which might have been a more interesting rejoinder for Levi and Graham to have taken) Certainly I never said Graham’s theory of space and time can’t be reconciled with the physics of General Relativity just as I suspect someone could show it compatible with the traditional sense of time within Quantum Mechanics.

It seems surprising both Levi and Graham took such umbrage to my passing comments. They were, I thought, at best vague and pointing to a promised future discussion.

The main statement I made was,

I’ve long thought spacetime emerges out of object relations rather than being some absolute non-object background. I just think time is related to objects more integrally.

I certainly regret now using the word “absolute.” Which probably was the cause of much problem. Although I meant it more in opposition to the Leibnizean view.

All that said though, I’ll fully confess to not really understanding his view of time and space. After rereading it several more times in light of Levi’s and Graham’s contents I think he is trying to say that we should view time in a near phenomenological sense from the “perspective” of the object looking at its own properties. But that doesn’t quite make sense either. But I think that’s what he’s after. In which case I was wrong. I’ve no problem admitting that. (Indeed it was figuring out OOP that was the point of posting on OOP rather than making an attack on OOP)

Since Levi thinks Graham’s view can be reconciled to relativity I’d love him to spell this out in a bit more detail. Because honestly right now I can’t make heads nor tails of it. Maybe someone else can chime in and help me out?

Related posts:

1. OOP
2. Best OOO Papers and Books?
3. OOP Discussion

Related posts:

1. Moral Intuitions and the Metaphysical Epoch
2. People Assign Blame to the Mentally Ill
3. Degrees of Responsibility

Related posts:

1. Beck and Social Justice
2. Stoics
3. The Paranoid Style and Science

Allow me a few brief notes on these issues.

First regarding what for lack of a better term I’ll call “simple background time.” It’s actually not at all an unreasonable position to take. While the simple notion goes back at least to the Stoics, I personally find time much more troubling. Maybe that’s just because I’m partial to Einstein over the traditional background interpretations of quantum mechanics. Leibniz and Mach just got to me and I’ve long thought spacetime emerges out of object relations rather than being some absolute non-object background. I just think time is related to objects more integrally.

Interestingly I think an object-focused approach can bring this out. Indeed one can see this in say Lee Smolin’s Loop Quantum Gravity. (See his very Peircean inspired “The Case for Background Independence” for instancce) Admittedly he’s not focusing on objects in quite the broad sense Harman is, but his Peirceanism would accept Harman’s level of objects.

Which brings me to my biggest point. I just don’t see anything new in OOO. This isn’t an issue over “who got there first.” Nor is it to ignore the very real metaphysical differences between the various parties. It’s just that by and large this concern with objects especially as so broadly defined is part and parcel of pragmatism in the late 19th and early 20th century.

Relations in particular I think are handled a little better than OOO in pragmatism, if only because it pays closer attention to the kinds of relations there are. (Those in a 3rd person observer versus those which are “real” in a sense)

What I want to do is do a series of posts going through some of these issues in Harman and bring in Peirce (and perhaps a bit of Derrida and Heidegger where I see them as helpful as an expansion to Peirce). So that’s the plan for the next few weeks. Hopefully I’ll get some feedback as to where I’m wrong.

I should note that while I read Levi’s blog regularly I’m not going to comment on his version of OOO simply because the stuff is scattered around too much. Although I may reference a couple of his posts on correlationalism.

Related posts:

1. Time and Harman
2. Philosophical Focus
3. Object Oriented Philosophy

Related posts:

1. Is Metaphysics a Sham?
2. Best OOO Papers and Books?
3. Objects as a Point of View

Related posts:

1. Peirce & OOP
2. Schelling, Heidegger, Freedom
3. Human Microbiome Project

Related posts:

1. Virus for Chronic Fatigue Syndrom
2. Chronic Pain after Surgery: the Psychosocial Factors
3. Climate Fatigue