The Reality of Discourse

It is good to get this without having to search in your books. Thanks Mr Bryant. 

I appreciate the flat ontology; yes.

My question, if you are reading this (you removed the comment option on your blog) is how are we able to notice this flat reality if we are indeed occurring within the same flat plane?  

Maybe that answer is deep in one of your books? Could you direct me (us) to it? 
And I’m sorry: your B- knot does not escape the Correlational limit; while it is an interesting model, it is only post-Correlational in the sense that there is an further removed agent that is now defining an agent part. The point of correlationalism is that the ever-positing of systems such that we may have a ‘post-‘ whatever, merely depends upon an agent user of discourse that always removes itself from the subjectivity involved in the system posed. Harman makes  better point. 
Again; I’m sorry you are unable it seems to get beyond the avoidance of your privileged intuiting position.

—here is the repost folks: 

In response to a post I wrote a number of years ago, someone asks: Dear Bryant, perhaps you have already heard/read Michael Pollan’s book ‘The botany of desire’. If not, please do read it… I have been trying to develop a new metaphysical perspective in which ‘entities’ do equally exist yet differ from each other […]

https://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2016/01/25/the-reality-of-discourse/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s