Finding a smidgen of correspondence from my thing the other day and I’m happy now. Now that I’ve connected Process and Object via “goal” and “context/object” (I think it can all emerge from Context/Object but I’ll go back to that), I can go back through my notes and find out what I did in the past that wrecked “process”…
So: Kenneth Udut posts about a passage that “larval” quotes from Andre Ling who quotes from Brian Massumi….
(I got here by looking up: “an object is an abstraction” philosophy
because apparently “an object is an abstraction” is common in Object-oriented programming which is not what I was seeking but found in abundance)
The Dynamic Life of Objects
Posted by larval
For the last couple of days I’ve been mulling over a passage that Andre Ling quotes from Brian Massumi’s Semblance and Event. There Massumi writes,
Nature itself, the world of process, ‘is a complex of passing events’ […] The world is not an aggregate of objects. To see it that way is to have participated in an abstraction reductive of the complexity of nature as passage. To “not believe in things” is to believe that objects are derivatives of process and that their emergence is the passing result of specific modes of abstractive activity. This means that objects’ reality does not exhaust the range of the real. The reality of the world exceeds that of objects, for the simple reason that where objects are, there has also been their becoming. […] The being of an object is an abstraction from its becoming. The world is not a grab-bag of things. It’s an always-in-germ. To perceive the world in an object frame is to neglect the wider range of its germinal reality. (Semblance and Event)