[Reader-list] Fwd: Thoughts on Flat Ontology

[Jeebesh]

dear Ashok and Shaina,

Thanks for the extended posting on links to readings on flat ontology.  
Its really exciting.

> Now to the question of "depth" in such ontology, which was a doubt
> jeebesh you had in the conference. I think the confusion arises if you
> see depth as a spatial thing, because you then end up with a kind of
> materialism of depth, an object made up of its parts. Depth is a
> metaphor here, just as "object" itself is, because stories and
> families are also objects, not only tables and chairs. An object is
> exactly that which is greater than its parts. You cant reduce a story
> to its words, something will be lost.  This doesn't mean that you cant
> enjoy or cherish each word, you can, since it is an object in turn,
> and something is lost if you now look at the letters alone.

After Ashok's presentation i was doubtful about the usage of the term  
"depth". Object and depth are related problematic within long  
tradition of philosophical thinking, that flat ontology wants to  
displace. Was wondering why would flat ontology need depth if it wants  
to supersede the subject / object duality.

A running  cheetah. The swimming shark. P.T.Usha flying through her  
lane.

How does depth helps us in thinking through these situations?

Neither onion or earth reveals itself more with depth. each layer has  
it's own enigma.

To me depth sounded too close to a metaphysics  of essences.

Many of my writer, artists and scholar friends (from Cybermohalla to  
higher academia to art world) faces a problem with building an  
adequate language (vocabulary) for movement. A sense of unfurling as a  
way of seeing the world around. Here world involves an ensemble of  
things, fluids, states of being, energies, emotions, collisions,  
structures, materials, animals, ground, sky etc.

Was trying to understand if "depth" dislodges movement and bring in a  
stability to an otherwise extremely convulsive and agile world that we  
inhabit.

warmly
jeebesh