I am responding to Levi Bryant's Latest on "Wilderness Ontology."
My Americanist (Peirce-Deweyan) take, rather than the self-reflexive analysis of the referent of analytic or continental, is to ask about how the thing is continuous with and constitutive of mind. Mind is the late stage of a natural process that eventually becomes human, but was the rock, the earth, and the air before that.
Hence, the observed "sees" the human observer first, and we mistakenly reverse that order. But the observed can do that not because it is a "self-enclosed monad," but precisely for the opposite reason. It is itself by virtue of what it is not. If one can think this thought without reducing relationality to symmetry and efficient causality--I am not claiming that Levi does this--then they may begin to understand emergence or creativity as basic to nature. Such creativity is not a monadic concept.
Is the rock anti-realist with respect to me? No, its relations to me are as real as any other. In fact, its relations with me are just as real as mine with it, and together we create my consciousness of it. Moreover, the rock values me as I value it; it has its tendencies as much as I have mine, although my valuing has a notably different temporality.
Am I post-human? Not really on my radar, but there's no less wilderness here. Perhaps more, since I cannot shut it out.