Quotes of All Topics . Occasions . Authors
I love folding laundry.
I like being irritating.
Ecological thought rejects consumerism at its peril.
It's easier to be Eric Idle than to be Paul McCartney.
We're all human beings, in the end, despite our differences.
It's easier to be the art school band than to be the Beatles.
I always knew Andy Hageman would publish incredible eco stuff.
'Nowness' is a dynamic relation between the past and the future.
You wouldn't believe how many philosophers are afraid of movement.
Inevitably, ecological awareness has this kind of '70s flavour to it.
Our ecological emergency demands proactive choices, not reactive sideswipes.
Beauty doesn't have to be in accord with prefabricated concepts of 'pretty.'
I've managed to persuade Yoko Ono to put some of her work in my Penguin book!
I believe art is a way to attune to what reality is, which is a weird reality.
The assumption that Derrida always knows what he is talking about is not Derridean.
Unfortunately, there are some ecological phenomenological chemicals within consumerism.
The noises Russia makes on the world stage are deeply misogynist, homophobic and racist.
'Humankind' is an attempt to think the human species without Nature and without humanity.
'Free speech' isn't speech at all if it's being used without listening, attention, or care.
Am I simply a vehicle for numerous bacteria that inhabit my microbiome? Or are they hosting me?
'Do not touch ontologically' doesn't mean 'are separated by empirically measurable hard edges.'
I love David Bohm. I started to get into speculative realism because I started reading his work.
If you've read 'Dark Ecology,' you'll know there's a whole thing about cats in it, more than once.
Everything is a railway junction where past and future are sliding over one another, not touching.
An environment is precisely something one is unable to point to yet is strangely there nonetheless.
Somewhat selfishly, perhaps, I like to think that the best people sometimes take a few goes to get a job.
I used to keep a folder with all my rejection letters in it - a few years into having a job, I burned it.
The Left is correctly wary of talk about nonhumans in the key of Nature and its spiritual partner, humanity.
Humans can no longer ignore nonhumans: they end up haunting the words we use and interrupting everyday talk.
Anyone who has trouble imagining causality as magical and uncanny need only consider the existence of children.
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 discover in my experiential space evidence for the wrongness of solipsism, and this evidence is called beauty.
OOO objects have all the abjection added back in. They don't behave like normalized patriarchal subjects at all.
Invoking Nature always measures the distance we have yet to travel to achieve real progress on environmental issues.
Since when did scientific evidence become a reason to shy away from ecological action just because it wasn't popular?
Since a thing cannot be known directly or totally, one can only attune to it, with greater or lesser degrees of intimacy.
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.
Reductionism and elimination make one feel clever, but what happens when the meditator drops her fixation on feeling clever?
I so totally refuse to 'make an effort to understand' the people who have become vectors for a fascist spectacular politics.
Aesthetic experiences are powerful, to be sure, and probably inescapable, but Nature will not remain effective for very long.
American voting districts are, across a lot of the country, deeply messed up by having been gerrymandered by right-wing politicians.
Since appearance can't be peeled decisively from the reality of a thing, attunement is a living, dynamic relation with another being.
It truly seems to me that there is some kind of shift happening towards ecological awareness - not just in terms of PR for the science.
When you make or study art, you are not exploring some kind of candy on the surface of a machine. You are making or studying causality.
You don't eat a painting of an apple; you don't find it morally good. Instead, it tells you something strange about apples in themselves.
A job letter, an interview - even a writing sample - have far less to do with intellect and far more to do with aesthetics than you think.
The belief that 'animals' are superior or inferior to humans because they live in an eternal now is untrue, because no being lives in a now.
I'm not unhappy with the idea of appealing to people's self-interest if that's what makes them understand something about the non-human world.
Fear of nothingness is fear of a certain physicality, a physicality whose phenomena I cannot predictably demarcate from its reality in advance.
One advantage of arguing that causality is aesthetic is that it allows us to consider what we call consciousness alongside what we call things.