Someone should feel free to either point out what I am missing or confirm that I am correct.
Just like when I used to correspond with him, we would have moments of concordance and divergence, and now I am wondering if he is his own worst enemy or if he is being contrary on purpose.
For instance, if he pushes the externality of objective relations, but then admits of endo- and exo-relations, he appears to either contradict himself or perhaps equivocate. When I pushed him on this months ago, he insisted on the substantial nature of objects, but then appears to take it away when calling objects "time worms" in a different post. There might be a way to square this, and I did try hard to find a way, and now I wonder if someone would like to point it out. I say this not because I think that I am mistaken--I think I am correct--but I cannot claim not to have seen such contradictions resolved by unforeseen moves before.
In my own work, there is the distinction between the continuity of nature vs. logical relation vs. causal relation, etc. In short, everything must be continuous so as to be related in some sense, or they could never share a causal relation without making appeals to ex nihilo causation that is excluded in naturalism. But continuity is not causality, and the logic of continuity is not the same as that of causation. That difference has confused many who have misunderstood process thought by think that all relations must be causal or predicate-subject relations.
I would ask that contributions to the conversation be constructive and not airing of grievances. Likewise, my aim is to be constructive, and I hope to learn something from the conversation. Despite all my disagreements with Harman, I can say that I admire his work and have learned from it, which I think is higher praise than my believing in its veracity.