The onto-cartography of differance

Someone asked if Bryant hasn't changes his views from the above. I replied:

As far as I'm aware, Bryant's "Time of the object" is his latest work on the topic. If you've seen something by him refuting it in whole or in part please direct me to it. As for that article, see for example the following:

"Repeating a line of thought that can already be found in Bergson’s Matter and Memory as well as Deleuze’s subsequent appropriation of Bergson’s thought, Derrida thus argues that the passage of the now necessarily requires a split within presence, such that presence is never purely present but is always already 'contaminated' from within by absence" (4).

The above has a footnote (10) which says in part:

"For a detailed analysis of Deleuze and Bergson’s 'past that has never been present,' cf. Levi R. Bryant, Difference and Givenness: Deleuze’s Transcendental Empiricism and the Ontology of Immanence, Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 2008, chap. 5."

As for the notion of vitality, yes, he detests that aspect of Bergson in this post.


Bryant's post of 5/5/13 seems to be the most recent on time. It only addresses time as particular to each monad, not some of the more general issues above though consistent with them. It seems the referenced article and TDOO are his current position of the matter (pun intended), though his new book might add something new, particularly chapter 6.

I found this article, "The gravity of things: an introduction to onto-cartography." It seems to be an intro to the new book and is all about space/time.

In the above article Bryant still maintains the ideas of TDOO, as reiterated in pp.18 - 22. His new book though is a change of focus:

"Where The Democracy of Objects sought to theorize the structure of machines and their dynamics, onto-cartography strives to theorize relations between machines and how they create spatio-temporal vectors and paths of becoming and movement" (23).

Space-time is still pretty much the same. Hence earlier in the thread that's why I argued that something like differance is not just indiginous to our everyday suobjective world but likely the overwhelming gravity of our hyperobject material 'universe.' It is a given.