A Quote by Timothy Morton

OOO objects have all the abjection added back in. They don't behave like normalized patriarchal subjects at all. — © Timothy Morton
OOO objects have all the abjection added back in. They don't behave like normalized patriarchal subjects at all.
We have to constantly critique imperialist white supremacist patriarchal culture because it is normalized by mass media and rendered unproblematic.
Abjection is above all ambiguity. Because, while releasing a hold, it does not radically cut off the subject from what threatens it --- on the contrary, abjection acknowledges it to be in perpetual danger.
Things on a very small scale behave like nothing that you have any direct experience about. They do not behave like waves, they do not behave like particles, they do not behave like clouds, or billiard balls, or weights on springs, or like anything that you have ever seen.
My concern with this approach is that music becomes a substance devoid of people. It's a consumer model of what music is: subjects listening to objects. For me, music is subjects listening to subjects. It's about intersubjectivity.
I swear, Daimons or not, if you don’t behave, Z, I’m going to send you to Antarctica and leave you there to rot. (Acheron) Ooo. I’m terrified. Those killer penguins and hairy seals are really scary. (Zarek)
It may be added, to prevent misunderstanding, that when I speak of contemplated objects in this last phrase as objects of contemplation, the act of contemplation itself is of course an enjoyment.
If I say [electrons] behave like particles I give the wrong impression; also if I say they behave like waves. They behave in their own inimitable way, which technically could be called a quantum mechanical way. They behave in a way that is like nothing that you have seen before.
In the same way that we need statesmen to spare us the abjection of exercising power, we need scholars to spare us the abjection of learning.
Boy, you better check that tone. (Wulf) Yeah, yeah, ya scare me. I’m even wetting my pants while in your terrifying, gut-wrenching presence. See me shiver and quiver? Ooo, ahhh, ooo. (Chris)
I never know what to call the subjects in my pictures because I'm uncomfortable with the word actor. I think maybe subjects might be more accurate - or maybe even more accurate is objects.
I think it's really easy to approach a touchy subject head-on, but 'Sharp Objects' does it in a way that's subtle and it presents mental illness as something quite common and normalized. It's so common and shouldn't be a conversation we're afraid to talk about.
Want a closer look? (Tate) Like a screwdriver through my eye socket. Sure, let’s have a look-see. (Simone) Ooo, welcome back, Ms. Snark. I’ve missed you. (Tate)
The universe is a communion of subjects, not a collection of objects.
My pictures are devoid of objects; like objects, they are themselves objects. This means that they are devoid of content, significance or meaning, like objects or trees, animals, people or days, all of which are there without a reason, without a function and without a purpose. This is the quality that counts. Even so, there are good and bad pictures.
Society is patriarchal, so film industry by definition is certainly patriarchal. The male gaze dominated.
A class, in Java, is where we teach objects how to behave.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!