If ‘all things equally exist‘, why is it that ‘they do not exist equally‘?

We began by listing our perceptions and at it’s simplest, what we truly noticed. Individually, everyone was different in what they observed, articulating their mornings, dislikes and views in a list format happily at the class. It came apparent quite quickly, that it was in this selection of stimuli and information that meaning takes form. In harmony with the reading’s preachings of system operations and the phenomena of objects, how we view their roles dictates how we catalogue them in out minds. While this is a natural part of our human intelligence (after all, we can’t selectively notice every single detail), you have to question, just what exactly does this mean when we think and learn about ontography? Is this why it’s so hard to construe the poetics in objects?

Stepping out of an anthropocentric state of mind, the separation of things and their gaps evaporate almost completely – our bodies turn into vessels, the dead stars become an infinite part of the sky and our presence is pinned down by gravity and stabilised with the earth. It’s all pretty intense if you think about. When considering theoretical physics, cosmology, string theory and their connections in his book The Fabric of The Cosmos, Brian Greene developed a key mindset that can be applied to the process, problems and unpacking of ontography. Greene wrote, ‘the boldness of asking deep questions may require unforeseen flexibility if we are to accept the answers‘ and really, that’s just it – flexibility.

If there’s anything that Bogost wants, it’s to test our flexibility as thinkers by problem-solving, articulating and addressing the faults and perks of ontographical practice. Yes, things are connected and yes, things can be listed, but how do we address this non-linear universe and all it’s detail when we communicate in mostly linear forms? *Law and Order SFX* This is my problem.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *