OOO objects have all the abjection added back in. They don't behave like normalized patriarchal subjects at all.
Since appearance can't be peeled decisively from the reality of a thing, attunement is a living, dynamic relation with another being.
I try to have little or no alcohol when I go to a big conference. Sorry to be a party pooper, but that stuff can regress you really fast, and this is not a good place to regress.
The present is haunted by the X-present. I call this manifold of present and X-present 'nowness': a shifting, haunted region like evaporating mist; a region can't be tied to a specific timescale.
Since a thing cannot be known directly or totally, one can only attune to it, with greater or lesser degrees of intimacy.
Kant described beauty as a feeling of ungraspability: this is why the beauty experience is beyond concept.
One advantage of arguing that causality is aesthetic is that it allows us to consider what we call consciousness alongside what we call things.
There is no essence, but there is a flux that is more real than any instance of the flux, such as a milk bottle or a tiger.
In my experience, academia is a World War 1 kind of a domain, and I do my best to avoid all that trench warfare.
I find it beyond stunning that there is a school of thought or two out there that swears we are into solids and that solids are bad and liquids are good.
Symbiosis can fail in various different ways: if there's too much stomach bacteria in my stomach, I might have some problems. If there's too little, I might have some problems. There's a sort of dynamic system there.
Trivially speaking, ecological awareness means realising that beings are interconnected in some way, but then we have to figure out what this interconnection actually means.