<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: What Is Digital Rhetoric? Part 2</title>
	<atom:link href="http://vitia.org/wordpress/2012/07/03/what-is-digital-rhetoric-part-2/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://vitia.org/wordpress/2012/07/03/what-is-digital-rhetoric-part-2/</link>
	<description>faults / sins / abuses</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 19 May 2013 02:15:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alex Reid</title>
		<link>http://vitia.org/wordpress/2012/07/03/what-is-digital-rhetoric-part-2/#comment-3167</link>
		<dc:creator>Alex Reid</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Oct 2012 12:41:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://vitia.org/wordpress/?p=1422#comment-3167</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Mike, I&#039;m very interested in this notion of the dis/continuous. One of the primary dividing lines between object-oriented ontology and process philosophies (Deleuze for example) is that OOO asserts a fundamental, ontological discontinuity: all objects withdraw from one another and relation is not necessary. As such, OOO would dispute your assertion that nature is fundamentally continuous. We may experience continuity but that&#039;s not how things really are. The gaps between digital ones and zeros in this way are perhaps not unlike the gaps between subatomic particles. The gap between the analog and the digital that we feel so acutely is also a gap between the digital and the digital or the analog and the analog.

Regarding flat ontologies, I agree that it is likely that a post-Marxist would experience some modification of theory and method by addressing these perspectives (and there are a wide range of flat ontologies from OOO to Latour and DeLanda). I would note though that a flat ontology would not argue that hierarchies do not develop or exist. Instead, they only assert that no hierarchy or asymmetry is ontologically necessary. Latour&#039;s problem with Marxism and other &quot;sociologies of the social&quot; as he terms them is that they presume that particular asymmetrical relations are at work in a given situation before they begin their work. That is, if ideology/power is totalizing and overdetermining in its operation, then it is always the same explanation for every situation or event. However I don&#039;t think that post-marxist analysis needs to work in this way. One can still do systemic analysis but there&#039;s more work to do as Latour denies the leap from a singular situation to a global explanation.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mike, I&#8217;m very interested in this notion of the dis/continuous. One of the primary dividing lines between object-oriented ontology and process philosophies (Deleuze for example) is that OOO asserts a fundamental, ontological discontinuity: all objects withdraw from one another and relation is not necessary. As such, OOO would dispute your assertion that nature is fundamentally continuous. We may experience continuity but that&#8217;s not how things really are. The gaps between digital ones and zeros in this way are perhaps not unlike the gaps between subatomic particles. The gap between the analog and the digital that we feel so acutely is also a gap between the digital and the digital or the analog and the analog.</p>
<p>Regarding flat ontologies, I agree that it is likely that a post-Marxist would experience some modification of theory and method by addressing these perspectives (and there are a wide range of flat ontologies from OOO to Latour and DeLanda). I would note though that a flat ontology would not argue that hierarchies do not develop or exist. Instead, they only assert that no hierarchy or asymmetry is ontologically necessary. Latour&#8217;s problem with Marxism and other &#8220;sociologies of the social&#8221; as he terms them is that they presume that particular asymmetrical relations are at work in a given situation before they begin their work. That is, if ideology/power is totalizing and overdetermining in its operation, then it is always the same explanation for every situation or event. However I don&#8217;t think that post-marxist analysis needs to work in this way. One can still do systemic analysis but there&#8217;s more work to do as Latour denies the leap from a singular situation to a global explanation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
