This commentary addresses a series of questions that emerge from James Ash’s paper. In doing so it foregrounds issues of temporality, flatness, entities, worlds, and politics. It uses a consideration of these issues to reflect briefly on the relations between ontologies and on the question of comprehension as a particular form of relation.
AshJ (2010) Architectures of affect: anticipating and manipulating the event in processes of videogame design and testing. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space28(4): 653–671.
2.
AshJ (2013) Technologies of captivation: videogames and the attunement of affect. Body & Society19(1): 27–51.
3.
AshJ (2018) Phase Media: Space, Time and the Politics of Smart Objects. London: Bloomsbury.
4.
AshJ (2020) Flat ontology and geography. Dialogues in Human Geography10(3): 345–361. DOI: 10.1177/2043820620940052.
5.
BerlantL (2015) Structures of unfeeling: mysterious skin. International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society28(3): 191–213.
6.
BerlantLStewartK (2019) The Hundreds. Durham: Duke University Press.
7.
De la CadenaM (2015) Earth beings: Ecologies of practice across Andean worlds. Durham: Duke University Press.
8.
HarmanG (2017) Immaterialism: Objects and Social Theory. Cambridge: Polity.
9.
RankineC (2014) Citizen: An American Lyric. Minneapolis: Graywolf Press.
10.
Viveiros de CastroE (2004) Perspectival anthropology and the method of controlled equivocation. Tipitl2(1): 3–22.
