Tuesday, January 10, 2012

Response to Graham Harman

Harman responds to a prior post here.

Before I begin to respond, I do want to be very clear.  My question about what under- and over-mining is, was an honest one.  I do not ask questions or be critical to score points, which would not benefit me anyway.  I also did not address it to anyone in particular, despite what Harman says.

When Harman kindly answers my question--thank you sir--I am not implying that he is "attempting to conceal my [his] sources."  It was an open question, and it has become less obvious what the answer might be given the seemingly increasing divergence of the OOO field.  I do not think that "classical" should be considered a derogatory term, by the way, especially since I am a specialist in classical, neoclassical, and neo-pragmatism.  I have been somewhat critical of Harman per what seems to be an absolutist concept of withdrawal and thus my preference for Levi's, but I leave detailed criticisms to OOO scholars.  They have supplied commentary, and I am thankful that some of my concerns and educated opinions were not entirely inaccurate.

Finally, I really wish that Harman and Levi would realize that I do not share many of Leon's opinions or the bad blood between them.  I suspect those prior feuds have lead to months of misinterpreting my intentions and to posts such as Harmans, which presumes that I was talking about him.  It saddens me really.  Consider this a reaching out, gentlemen.

1 comment:

  1. Speaking of diversity of field, Ian Bogost was so kind as to venture a short introduction for me. I have heard of the "promiscuity" of his objects, but it only took him a sentence to cement how they are so. Now, his blog posts make muuuuch more sense. I hear his book is out....