Is Graham Harman as New Materialist??

from Antiquities Beyond Humanism ed E Bianchi, S. Brill, B. Holmes
— Read on www.academia.edu/39168908/Hyperobjects_OOO_and_the_eruptive_classics_field_notes_of_an_accidental_tourist

—–  I’m posting this essay because it might be informative to some in general.

I have not read it. I read pretty much the first three sentences, and then I stopped…

Is Graham Harman part of the New Materialist genre?

 It’s interesting, how the motions of theory move through existence:  It’s an odd sort of experience of people thinking that they’re thinking, but not really thinking. It’s like they read authors and then they move in the opposite direction in their portrayal of them. Not just a different direction, but they really begin to address some thing that has, sometimes to my view, not very much about the author that they’re referring to is really talking about..

 It’s quite strange.

 I don’t think that Dr. Harmon will read my blog here, but I’m fairly certain that he denies that he’s a materiallist. And so here’s this author, publishing, a paper, if you notice that this is a proof, or some sort of draft for some publication that’s coming out, and the first couple sentences they pretty much have incorrect. I mean, unless Dr. Harmon just doesn’t give a shit anymore about what people label him, and I think he wouldn’t give a shit because he’s got his life and then it’s fine I suppose. 😄

 I am pretty certain that Graham Harmon has denied that he’s a materialist. 

The author also puts object oriented ontology, Graham Harmon’s project, under Karen Barad and the new materialist people, when actually he was coming up at the same time. It’s just is justified to say that the new materialist are a type of object, oriented ontology, which is patently ridiculous.  That’s why I didn’t read the rest of his article, because he’s pretty much telling me that he’s living in a fantasy land of his own academically semantic making.

It just amazes me. Why people are so ready to move into subjective meaning over that objective truth.

And: don’t you think it’s strange, me, as a counselor, as a mental health counselor, that I would be saying that people should move more in the direction of objective truth, rather than semantic, and the situating of terms as an ontological basis?!

 I would think that in itself forget your mind, moving as to what is truly happening in contrast to the meaning that you’re really coming up with.

Have you begun to think?

I feel it goes all back to postmodernism. People love the meaning they make, so much that, often, they are unable to hear what someone else is saying.

Whatever people wanna call themselves, really the first title of the writing should be postmodernist and then parentheses (whatever they’re trying to name themselves).

Honestly, I think the real issue is that philosophers are never clear about really what they’re talking about, nor what they’re talking from in their proposals, but, due to that they are blind to their assumptions, as well that they are even blind to being blind to them. And that’s the basis for post modern academic theory. 

If you’re curious about why I say this, you can check out my blog posts from probably three or 4+ years ago on this very blog.



Have a great day.