Permanence is an event. This is the conclusion of my prior work on this blog, wherein I split the difference between internal and external relations. All the significant, local relations to an actual event are "internal" insomuch as they constitute the persistence of the event, all not all relations are significant for that. Yet the new possibilities and potentialities that emerge from the actual event remain at one remove from those prior "internal" relations. There is a sense in which they are "external" to those "internal" relations. The difference? The "dynamic system" of a nexus of powers that is the subsistence of the actual event may flux wildly, need only be self-similar or idempotent, and the emergent phenomena are undisturbed. In consequence, whatever constitutes the persistence of the actual event may change without significantly altering the emergent phenomena that come from it. Is this not what we mean by "external" relations?
If we can agree this far, why not call the "actual event" an "object" and call me an object-oriented philosopher? They seem to insist on the externality of object-object relations that process folks do not. From my perspective, an "object" risks being an analytical distinction, neither a real nor formal distinction. I expect to find it in Levi Bryant's writing any minute as I pour my eyes over it, but if an "object" is a "dynamic system," then its objectness would constitute is its relative systemic equilibrium, no? But then, we might as well have an "actual event," as the words become synonymous, no? Perhaps the difference is in temporality or the composability of event-natures.
Pour Pour Pour.