It was requested that I repost a condensed version of my argument about why certain forms of object-oriented ontology are inherently contradictory. Levi and any other scholar that uses this method will have the same problem. I will establish the context and then give the argument.
In a comment on Matt's blog, Levi writes,
"Yes Jason, I’m a nominalist and believe that mathematical and logical generality is only a syntactic phenomena. I don’t see that as a “problem”, but as a real feature of the world. I would also disagree with the thesis that signification can exist without these [neurological] systems.
As for Matt’s question about how “matter forms itself”, this is already an odd question that begs the question. Matter doesn’t “form itself”. It is always already formed. That form can take new forms as a result of interactions between new entities, but there’s just no such thing as unformed matter. Again Matt reveals way in which the analogy to the craftsman works in his thought. He’s the one under the burden to show that there is unformed matter, not me."
I discuss how Levi continually misrepresents his interlocutors and then challenge him to respond to the following.
"Let me repeat my core argument that I posted on my blog awhile ago that explains the problem of methodology that, prima facie, Levi must overcome.
Given a standpoint of scholastic realism, which argues against the post-Kantian positions of most continentals, for which there are excellent arguments, abduction as an inference is no longer simply reducible to anthropocentrism. [This is my view.] If one accepts the contrary, nominalism, then abductive inference is simply reducible to anthropocentrism given the necessity of abductive criteria.
“Form” is a logical tool arrived at via abduction, and it offers an explanation for real phenomena that many opponents either do not explain or explain away, such as explaining intentionality or qualitative consciousness. A “form” does not exist, and not “form” or “general descriptive category of reality” is particular. All matter is “formed,” for both Matt and myself, but you, Levi, cannot use the word “form,” “structure,” etc. without equivocation since you deny real generality. I’ve discussed ways out of this problem on my blog, but you seem to want it both ways. Feel free to cite pages of your works that would correct me."
In the first passage, I show that Levi's use of "transcendental" method commits him to either begging the question or contradicting himself, since he must give some reason for making any inference in his adoption of transcendental method, yet any reason he gives is prima facie from his own anthropocentric perspective. (See my earlier post today where someone else discusses this problem of OOO.) Since he is also an avowed nominalist, which is to believe that only particulars exist and no real general descriptions can be given, then he cannot use the transcendental method to escape from anthropocentrism, since any claim he makes at any time cannot generalize by his own admission. In conclusion, he must either reject the transcendental or any equivalent method, or his "flat ontology" since he must elevate himself as a special object telling us what the other objects must be, i.e., anthropocentrism.
I cannot write this with certainty, but I am sure that Harman does not use this method, and I cannot speak to Morton, Boghost, etc.