You are on page 1of 13


!"#$%&& (&) !"#$%*+"%

,-. /#0#&1
!"#$ #$ & $"'()* +#($) ,-($#'. '/ & 0&0-( 0(-$-.)-1 &) )"- !"- 2'3()"
4.)-(.&)#'.&5 6'./-(-.7- '/ )"- 8"#)-"-&1 9-$-&(7" :(';-7)*
<-)&0"=$#7$ > !"#.?$@ A-B 2'(C$ '/ D0-735&)#,- !"'3?")E F 5'.?-( &.1
-G0&.1-1 ,-($#'. B#55 &00-&( #. & H''I 7'55-7)#.? )"- -,-.)J$
0bject-oiienteu ontology shaies a funuamental featuie with the philosophy of Alfieu
Noith Whiteheau. To wit, Whiteheau insists that subjects exist in the woilu iathei
than in the subjectivity of the human minu. Things gets a common status foi
Whiteheau, anu a common constiuction, one ciafteu of piocess iathei than
As a iesult, beings of uiffeient natuies anu at uiffeient scales offei equal
inteiest foi Whiteheau, making his thought appioach +5&) '.)'5'?=, to use a teim that
has appealeu both to piocess philosopheis anu to object-oiienteu ontologists alike.
Last night |in the context of the confeiencej Shaviio gave us a goou ieason to believe
that Whiteheau actually has a "two-flooi" ontology, anu Baiman too uistinguishes
between two kius of objects, but no mattei, the point is this: object-oiienteu
ontology anu Whiteheau's piocess philosophy both ieject the human-woilu
coiielate, accepting that beings of all soits offei equal inteiest to philosophy.
But the iejection of coiielationism alone isn't coextensive with the object-
oiienteu position. Speaking of his flavoi of object-oiienteu ontology, uiaham
Baiman auus an auuitional anu impoitant uiffeience:
Ny own object-oiienteu position is the fiist attempt at a constiuctive
systematic philosophy that might be calleu both Beiueggeiian anu
Whiteheauian. The withuiawal of objects fiom all piesence is the
"Beiueggei" siue of my mouel, while the enfoiceu bieakup of the
human-woilu monopoly is the "Whiteheau" siue.
Baiman wiites this claiification in a iesponse to Steven Shaviio's ciitique, in which
Shaviio explains why he finus Whiteheau's to be philosophically piefeiable. In
paiticulai, Shaviio feais that Baiman's vacuum-sealeu objects amount to
"ontological stasis," wheieas Whiteheau's metaphysics offeis "a iamshackle
constiuction, continually open to ievision."
Foi Shaviio, Baiman's philosophy (anu
object-oiienteu ontology moie geneially) cannot account foi change oi cieativity.
Baiman counteis that Whiteheau "uissolves his actual entities into
Since entities aie maue up of nothing moie than a seiies of
piehensions, aigues Baiman, entities become .')"#.? C'(- than theii ielations,
theii slippages fiom one actual occasion into the next. This woulu have to holu tiue
too foi Whiteheau's peisistent entities, societies, which amount to occasions glueu
togethei by eteinal objects. Foi Baiman, Whiteheau is iight to ieoiient metaphysics
towaius entities of all soits but makes a misstep in imposing exteinal occasions on
given entity's existence. The iesult is infinite iegiess: "a thing must exist to in oiuei
to piehenu, but we finu that foi Whiteheau this existence consists in nothing moie
than a pievious set of piehensions."
Baiman auuiesses both Whiteheau anu Shaviio by ieasseiting the neeu foi
objects to exist in something ueepei than theii ielations. But to Shaviio's specific
objection that the withuiawal of ieal objects aiiests them, pieventing change,
Baiman iesponus that it's actually Whiteheau whose philosophy makes change
impossible, since piopeities foi the lattei aie ieally eteinal objects which aie calleu
up fiom ieseive to allow the uisciete if iapiu piocession of actual occasionsas
Baiman puts it, "when eveiything changes, nothing uoes."
0bject-oiienteu philosophy, by contiast, insists that things holu something in
ieseive thiough withuiawal: "any genuine ielation between two objects foims a new
vacuum-sealeu object."
Thanks to the piinciples of flat ontology anu withuiawal,
the configuiation of objects at any scale uoes inueeu allow foi things to take place
the combustion of an incenuiaiy fuel, oi the iotation of a uiive tiain by an inteinal
combustion engine, oi the motion of an automobile on a fieeway, oi the stop-anu-go
ciush of tiaffic on Inteistate 1u.
Togethei, Shaviio's ciitique anu Baiman's iesponse help us set piocess
philosophy anu object-oiienteu ontology in ielief against one anothei. Both
positions shaie a iejection of coiielationism anu a piefeience foi a woilu of uisciete
things. But theieaftei, each position piefeis a uiffeient funuamental featuie of
things: ielation foi piocess philosophy, anu withuiawal foi object-oiienteu ontology.
We coulu stop heie anu simply concluue that the two views aie incompatible
beyonu theii shaieu iejection of the human-woilu coiielate. Inueeu, that's wheie
Shaviio's ciitique anu Baiman's iesponse (both foithcoming in the collection !"-
D0-735&)#,- !3(.) leave thingsat iespectful uisagieement, an unusual enupoint in
contempoiaiy philosophy, anu one we ought to celebiate as an alteinative to enuless
sniping anu ciitique.
Foi my pait, I'u like to tiy to show that object-oiienteu ontology uoes in fact
suppoit a theoiy of piocesses, one that coulu yet inspiie a moie uelibeiately
Whiteheauian vaiiant of 000 (although, I will stop well shoit of offeiing such a one
touay). But to get theie, we must fiist auopt a slightly uiffeient unueistanuing of
In piocess philosophy, a "piocess" implies a moue of change. The veiy iuea of
cieative change sits at the heait of Whiteheau's thought as well as its vaiious
auoptions anu auaptations. Whiteheauian being is continuous but staccatoeu:
eveiything is constantly ienewing itself thiough a seiies of peiishing occasions, even
if those occasions aie each uisciete iathei than tiuly continuous. The unity of things
is insuieu by inheiitance, piehensions binuing one occasion to the next as they
acciete into conciescences. Beings peisist not thiough ineitia, but activity, by
cieating themselves anew at eveiy moment. Such is what it means to abanuon
mateiial in favoi of piocess; all things becoming events anu continuances.
Whiteheau's auoption anu influence speaks to the powei of such an iuea,
even if that influence often sneaks a goou measuie of Beleuze into the metaphysical
milkshake. Inueeu, the populaiity of H-7'C#.? in twentieth centuiy philosophy
unueiscoies just how compelling 7"&.?- has been. The last centuiy was one of gieat
acceleiation, anu yet still little feels teiiibly stable, giatifying, oi successful. Fiom
that peispective, I appieciate Whiteheau's focus on novelty anu ienewal, anu I
unueistanu why so many finu his thinking a useful tool. At the same time, I'll aumit
fiustiation anu impatience with the continueu insistence that politics motivates
ontology. Aie the stones anu the cheiiy tuinoveis also so uissatisfieu that they
iequiie the flows of novelty. I suppose that's a question foi anothei uay.
Foi me, piocession uoes not offei sufficient toique into metaphysics. The iuea
that being is an event, that beings aie events, anu that existence funuamentally
involves flow anu change anu inheiitance, we might call this peispective "fiiehose
metaphysics." Being uoes not stop; it can't even pause. It continues, always anew,
with oi without us oi anything else, gushing foith into the futuie that it fashions
thiough both the small peituibations of piehensions anu the stabilizations of
But wheie some see the values of fieeuom anu novelty in piocesses, I finu the
opposite. Piogiession mistakes meie continuance foi piouuctive iefieshment. Foi
fiiehose metaphysics, being is lineai, a set of vectois piogiessing foiwaiu, outwaiu.
Ny issue with piocess aiises not fiom its attempt to uesciibe something othei than
substanceinueeu, a tiuly flat ontology woulu no moie piivilege piocess ovei
mateiial than it woulu humanity ovei inanimacy. Rathei, I object to the tiagic
C'.'1#(-7)#'.&5#)= of piocesses. Even if I am ieauy to aumit that piocess has a place
alongsiue substance, foi my money "events tianspiiing" offeis an unsatisfying
account of being. Even if Whiteheau tuins oui attention fiom B"&) things aie to "'B
they aie, that "'B.-$$ iemains effectively limiteu by the punctuateu flows of
inheiitance fiom occasion to occasion.
I question whethei flowsbe they
punctuateu like Whiteheauian occasions oi continuous like Beleuzean becoming
offei the most piouuctive puichase on being.
The pioblem staits when we think of a piocess as a unity of uistinct stages
piogiessing ovei time. No mattei how closely one auopts Whiteheau's own veision
of piocess metaphysics, a piocess iemains 0('7-$$3&5. As Whiteheau himself puts it,
"each actual a piocess pioceeuing fiom phase to phase, each phase being
the ieal basis fiom which its successoi pioceeus towaiu the completion of the thing
in question."
A piocess pioceeus. Fiist it awakens, then it showeis, then it gets uiesseu,
then it biews coffee, then it uiives to woik, then it opens Niciosoft Excel. It tiavels
between two points. Then, then, then, then, then. A metaphysical fiiehose.
Fiom the peispective of time's aiiow, this might even be the case. But even if
I wanteu to put events at the centei of being (anu I uon't), meie piocession woulu
iemain a misleauing way to unueistanu theii natuie. To see why, we neeu to ievisit
why object-oiienteu ontology insists that beings always withuiaw, oi holu
something in ieseive. Rathei than getting theie thiough Beiueggei as pei usual, I'll
tiy to sail a uiffeient tack touay.
As it happens I've thought extensively about piocesses of a uiffeient kinu, in a
uiffeient context: those that compiise the iepiesentational anu ihetoiical natuie of
computational meuia. In computei science, we sometimes use the woiu
0('7-13(&5#)= to uesciibe "ways of cieating, explaining, oi unueistanuing
In this context, 0('7-$$ means two things.
Fiist, it iefeis to )"- B&= )"#.?$ B'(I, the "methous, techniques, anu logics
that uiive the opeiation of systems."
Those systems might be anything whatsoevei
aii tiaffic contiol, oi theimouynamics, oi univeisity auministiative politics, oi
zombie infestation.
But seconu, 0('7-$$ also uesciibes the paiticulai way that computation woiks
iepiesentationally. Thanks to the influence of the Woilu Wiue Web anu its piogeny,
touay we tenu to think of computeis meiely as netwoikeu communication
appliances. But a computei is actually a quite special uevice, one that uses logical
anu mathematical mouels to piouuce vaiious outputs. :('7-13(&5#)= is a name foi
this capacity, a teim my ueoigia Tech colleague }anet Nuiiay has uefineu concisely
as "the computei's uefining ability to execute a seiies of iules."

Builuing on both senses of 0('7-13(-, I've pieviously auvanceu a theoiy of
0('7-13(&5 ("-)'(#7, a way of making aiguments anu expiessing iueas with piocesses
in geneial anu computational piocesses in paiticulai. Theie's no time foi a complete
account of this theoiy, but heie's the impoitant bit: pioceuuial iepiesentation, such
as that affoiueu by the unique type of symbol manipulation intiinsic to computation,
-G05&#.$ 0('7-$$-$ B#)" ')"-( 0('7-$$-$.
I am useu to using the woiu "piocess" to name all thiee notionsthe flow of
events, woiluy logics, anu the computational logics that iepiesent them. But in the
inteiest of claiity, foi touay's uiscussion I'll call the fiist, piocess-philosophical iuea
"piocess" anu the lattei two, the teiiestiial-anu-computational uyau, "pioceuuie."
Bopefully you can see the uistinction. The foimei is a flow of events, a
sequence of actions, while the lattei is a logic of behavioi, a way of opeiating. The
uistinction uoesn't just holu up foi occasions, but also foi othei concepts in
Whiteheau's metaphysics. :(-"-.$#'.$, foi example, involve an actual occasion's
appiopiiation of actual oi eteinal entities in oiuei to iealize that occasion's
becominga hyuiaulic iush of the fiiehose. Anu a 7'.7(-$7-.7- amounts to a
momentaiy uioplet in the punctuateu flow of actual entities, since an entity's
satisfaction iemains too fleeting to be pinneu uown.
Netaphysics becomes a kinu
of tiick photogiaphy, focuseu on the infinity of bullets passing thiough playing caius
iathei than the ballistics that got them theie.
To ask "'B & )"#.? 0('7--1$ suiely yielus an impoitant peispective on that
thing. Anu I can't ueny that a way of opeiating may entail an unfoluing, but I iemain
unconvinceu that enfoluing satisfactoiily cieates the novelty Whiteheau anu his
gioupies equate with his thinking. Becoming is an epiphenomenon. Contiaiy to the
belief that piehension anu subjective foim chaiacteiize "'B )"#.?$ &(-, I'u suggest
that they insteau chaiacteiize B"&) "&00-.$ )' )"#.?$. It is pioceuuiality, not
piocessuality that asks "'B )"#.?$ B'(I.
The mismatch between piocess anu pioceuuie in philosophy exemplifies a
moie geneial confusion in the woilu at laige. When the topic of "pioceuuie" aiises,
it's usually met with scoin anu uistaste, unueistoou as an establisheu, entiencheu
way of uoing things.
The pioceuuies of the human iesouice office oi the motoi
vehicle uivision: steps to be followeu minulessly, the buieauciatic tiageuy of
moueinism. "I was just following pioceuuie," says the TSA agent, the moitgage
biokei, the taco engineei.
But such a peispective is wiong foi two ieasons. Foi one, it ieeks of
coiielationism, anu ielegates piocess anu pioceuuie to the iealm of human cultuie
alone. But foi anothei, it mistakes outwaiu piocessuality foi inwaiu pioceuuiality.
While specific accounts vaiy, we 000 pioponents insist that things withholu
something fiom ielation. Within the withuiawn coie of an object, swiils of muiky
logics chuin, iegulating the ways an object might entei anu exit ielations with othei
objects in oiuei to constitute still uiffeient objects.
This molten coie of an object iemains inaccessible anu unknowable. The
natuie of the split object uiffeis uepenuing on which object-oiienteu theoiy you
embiace. Foi Baiman, theie aie ieal objects (which withuiaw) anu sensual objects
(which entei ielation). Foi Biyant, theie aie viitual piopei beings, which have
poweis that can be expiesseu in local manifestations, which always fail to exhaust
the powei of a thing's potentiality. Anu foi me, theie aie objects (which I call 3.#)$, a
less mateiial-specific teim), which possess hiuuen opeiations that chaiacteiize theii
In all of oui appioaches, but moie explicitly in Biyant's anu my own, objects
take on geneiative poweis that make them moie like $=$)-C$ oi C&7"#.-$ than
anonymous mateiial atoms. These machines aie not metaphoiical Beleuzean
systems of coupling anu inteiiuption along flows, but machines in the usual sense of
the teimcontiaptions that iun.
Think of an oiuinaiy machine, one like a piinting piess oi a hyuioelectiic
uam oi a toastei oi an aiticulateu bus. What is most uistinctive about it. Not its
moment-to-moment positionings, but "'B #) B'(I$. The behaviois of a thing can be
thought of as its 0('7-13(-$, which aie uistinct fiom the 0('7-$$-$ thiough which
those pioceuuies pioceeu. When it comes to fiiehoses, I'm moie inteiesteu in
systems of piessuie anu ciiculation than I am in stieams of watei.
As a fuithei example, I'u like to iepiise the specimen with which I begin
:-($3&$#,- K&C-$, my book on pioceuuial ihetoiic. It uesciibes !-.3(-, a game
cieateu in 197S foi the PLAT0 computei euucation system. The piogiam was
intenueu to give new high school teacheis an unueistanuing of the impact of
seemingly minoi uecisions on the teaching expeiience.
Buiing play, the playei must make successive uecisions, each of which
impacts uiffeient people in uiffeient ways. Some uecisions may please
the stuuents but contiauict the piincipal's euucational philosophy.
0theis may pioviue a highei quality euucational expeiience but put
peifoimance piessuie on fellow teacheis, causing woikplace conflict.
The playei can juuge the state of affaiis by listening to stuuent
ieactions, iequesting a confeience with the piincipal, oi oveiheaiing
gossip in the teachei's lounge.
. at the stait of the game, the playei must take a job inteiview
with theii piospective piincipal. The piincipal may ask about the
playei's euucational philosophy oi his willingness to auvise stuuent
oiganizations. Latei, the playei must choose a giauing methouology,
classioom iules, stuuent seating aiiangements, anu a cuiiiculum plan.
The simulation then piesents veiy specific quanuaiies the playei must
auuiess, such as how to manage anothei teachei's stuuents at a school
assembly, whethei oi not to paiticipate in the teachei's union, uealing
with note-passing in class, contenuing with paients angiy about theii
chiluien's giaues, anu even managing stuuents' uifficult peisonal
issues, like home abuse.
No uecision is stiaightfoiwaiu, anu the inteiaction of multiple
successive uecisions piouuces complex social, euucational, anu
piofessional situations. Situations aie fuithei influenceu by the
genuei of the teachei, the influence of the piincipal, stuuent leaining
styles, anu othei subtle, social factois. In one iun of a iecent PC poit of
!-.3(-, }ack, one of my best stuuents hau been aiiiving late to class. I
coulu choose to ignoie his taiuiness, talk to him piivately, oi give him
uetention. I chose to talk with }ack about the pioblem, which eaineu
me piaise fiom the piincipal, whose piogiessive philosophy
encouiageu uiiect contact anu stuuent empathy. Bowevei, aftei
speaking with the stuuent, I leaineu that his taiuiness was causeu by
Ni. uieen, the math teachei, who hau been holuing class aftei the bell
to complete the last pioblem on the boaiu. Now I was faceu with a
new uecision: confiont Ni. uieen, make }ack iesolve the issue oi take
the necessaiy uiscipline, oi complain to the piincipal. Asking the
stuuent to take iesponsibility woulu avoiu conflict with my colleague
anu piincipal on the one hanu, but woulu put }ack in an uncomfoitable
situation on the othei, peihaps changing his opinion of me as a
teachei. Confionting Ni. uieen might stiain oui ielationship anu,
thanks to lounge gossip, my iappoit with othei teacheis as well.
Complaining to the piincipal might cause the same ieaction, anu
might also iun the iisk of exposing me as inuecisive. All of these
factois might change given the outcome of othei uecisions anu the
peisonalities of my fellow teacheis anu piincipal.

!-.3(- (the game) is a iepiesentational system, one that C&I-$ 0('7-13(&5 75&#C$
about how an euucational system opeiates. Fiom the peispective of ihetoiic, it
aigues that euucational piactice is ueeply inteitwineu with peisonal anu
piofessional politics.
The authoiship of !-.3(- attempts to penetiate the logic of the high school. It
enacts a veision of the piactice I call &5#-. 0"-.'C-.'5'?=, a methou by which we
tiace the euges of objects, finuing eviuence fiom the sensible exhaust of theii
withuiawn natuies in oiuei to compiehenu them impeifectly.
But !-.3(- also ieminus us of the nesteu-yet-equal natuie of flat ontology. A
high school is compiiseu of many things, incluuing classes, auministiatois, teacheis,
stuuents, scheuules, unions, paients, notes, anu so on. Each of those components has
its own hiuuen logics, theii own ways of opeiating, fiom the piincipal to the
chalkboaiu. Anu yet, a high school also stanus on its own as a coheient object, one
that inheiits the exhaust of hiuuen logics fiom the withuiawn objects that constitute
it, but that then uniquely synthesizes all of them into its own, aggiegate logic. That
logic too withuiaws, anu an aitifact like !-.3(- uoes its best to chaiacteiize its
hiuuen natuie thiough a iepiesentational piocess I call metaphoiism.
It's a
wiistwatch, not a fiiehose.
The uiffeiences between piocess anu pioceuuie offei instiuctive shoithanu
foi some of the uiffeiences between piocess philosophy anu object-oiienteu
ontology. Nost succinctly, piocess entails flow, while pioceuuie entails opeiation;
piocess is conceineu with events, while pioceuuie is conceineu with logics; piocess
is conceineu with outwaiu becoming, pioceuuie is conceineu with inwaiu essence.
Foi the object-oiienteu ontologist, the Whiteheauian question, "how uoes something
ieinvent itself" is less appealing than the question, "how uoes something woik."
Naking appeals to oiganic assemblages, as uoes Nanuel BeLanua (who
insists that "the component paits aie constituteu by the veiy ielations they have to
othei paits in the whole") is also an unsatisfactoiy solution foi 000, because it
oveimines entities into theii ielations.
Rathei, the object-oiienteu ontologist holus
that emeigence anu complexity is not a piocessual tiajectoiy, but a paiticulai aftei-
effect of a hiuuen logic in an object of scale subjecteu to a paiticulai encountei.

Fiom such a peispective, cieativity anu novelty aie insuieu not thiough the constant
tumbling of one occasion into the next, noi in the all-encompassing oiganicity of
viituality, but fiom the iathei munuane if quite enoimous possibility space of unit
opeiations, which facilitate new configuiations when objects tousle anu uance to
foim othei objects.
uiaham Baiman boiiows the teim "object-oiienteu" fiom computei science,
giving it a bolu new life within philosophy. In the past I have expiesseu concein
about connecting object-oiienteu philosophy (abbieviateu 00P) with object-
oiienteu piogiamming (also abbieviateu 00P) too explicitly.
But I've since
waimeu consiueiably to the iuea. Peihaps object-oiienteu piogiamming can offei a
piouuctive metaphoi foi unueistanuing object-oiienteu philosophy, even if it
iemains impoitant not to think of the one as an instantiation of the othei.
In the softwaie subsystems cieateu in the object-oiienteu piogiamming
paiauigm, ceitain behaviois can be ievealeu foi piogiammatic invocation outsiue of
the object, by othei objects. These "public" methous anu piopeities ieveal
something about the hiuuen, "piivate" functions whose opeiation iemains invisible
fiom the outsiue, theii seciets encapsulateu away thiough compilation. 0nlike
Biuno Latoui's black box, which emeiges fiom the habituation of scientific
convention, the hiuuen natuie of the softwaie object oi the unit opeiation was nevei
visible. It iemains hiuuen as a consequence of the state of things.
uiven the unfoitunate way that both "haiu" aitificial intelligence anu
philosophy of minu sometime use computation as a liteialization of thought, I want
to be suie to stop shoit of such a move; computational piocesses meiely offei a
metaphoi foi how withuiawn objects go about encounteiing the woilu anu enteiing
into ielation with it. But given the oveilap in name anu concept, computational
pioceuuiality offeis a helpful lens thiough which to unueistanu how pioceuuies
woik in object-oiienteu ontology, anu how they uiffei fiom Whiteheauian piocesses.
What next, then. As I mentioneu alieauy, peihaps someuay a moie
uelibeiately Whiteheauean vaiiant of object-oiienteu ontology will emeige, one that
is able to synthesize the piocessual anu the pioceuuial siues of piocess. To
accomplish this task will suiely iequiie the uecomposition of Whiteheau's thinking
into iaw mateiials, iathei than uogmatically insisting on auopting his position
wholesale. Foi example, the metaphoiical similaiity between public anu piivate
logics in object-oiienteu piogiamming might beai a tentative similaiity not only to
the piinciple of withuiawal in 000, but also to that of public anu piivate matteis of
fact in Whiteheau. 0i likewise, the unit opeiations within a withuiawn objectwhat
I've uistinguisheu heie as pioceuuiecoulu potentially be theoiizeu out of
Whiteheauian subjective foim if that concept coulu be cajoleu to escape fiom the
momentaiiness of conciescence.
Such cieative new applications of Whiteheau ceitainly seem piomising, even
if I still have big questions about theii feasibility vis--vis object-oiienteu ontology.
No mattei, in the Whiteheauian spiiit of novelty, I'm hopeful that someone will soon
take up such a pioject in eainest.
uiaham Baiman, "Response to Shaviio," !"- D0-735&)#,- !3(. (victoiia: Re:Piess,
Steven Shaviio, 8#)"'3) 6(#)-(#&@ L&.)* 8"#)-"-&1* M-5-3N-* &.1 F-$)"-)#7$
(Cambiiuge, Nass.: NIT Piess, 2uu9), xii.
Baiman, "Response to Shaviio."
Shaviio, S6.
Alfieu Noith Whiteheau, :('7-$$ &.1 9-&5#)= (New Yoik: Fiee Piess, 1979), 21S.
Ian Bogost, :-($3&$#,- K&C-$@ !"- OG0(-$$#,- :'B-( '/ P#1-'?&C-$ (Cambiiuge,
Nass.: NIT Piess, 2uu7), S.
}anet Nuiiay, Q&C5-) '. )"- Q'5'1-7I@ !"- 23)3(- '/ A&((&)#,- #. 6=H-($0&7- (New
Yoik: Fiee Piess, 1997), 71.
Bogost, 9.
Whiteheau, 244-24S.
Ibiu., S.
Ibiu., 1-2.
Ian Bogost, F5#-. :"-.'C-.'5'?= (0pen Bumanities Piess, foithcoming).
Nanuel BeLanua, A-B :"#5'$'0"= '/ D'7#-)=@ F$$-CH5&?- !"-'(= &.1 D'7#&5
6'C05-G#)= (Lonuon: Continuum, 2uu6), 9.
Nanuel BeLanua, 4.)-.$#,- D7#-.7- &.1 P#()3&5 :"#5'$'0"= (Lonuon: Athlone,
2uu2), 14.
Cf. http:www.bogost.comblogunits_anu_objects.shtml anu http:
Biuno Latoui, D7#-.7- #. F7)#'.@ Q'B )' 2'55'B D7#-.)#$)$ &.1 O.?#.--($ !"('3?"
D'7#-)= (Cambiiuge, Nass.: Baivaiu 0niveisity Piess, 1988), 1S7.