I hope that one can play the article game successfully and still manage to accomplish what kvond describes, though some of that won’t lead to articles. . .

In this context though I do question the presupposition with respect to Alexei’s paper. He has a fantastically interesting argument to the conclusion that Harman ends up anthropomorphizing things in a way inconsistent with the critique of correlationism that Harman accepts. It’s worth getting out there, and the argument is either in principle detachable from the older problems with transcendental deductions that he was studying when his blog shut down, or if it’s not, it certainly adds something new. [NOte: I wouldn't "out" the contents of the paper were it not that Alexei voiced earlier versions of these same ideas in blog discussion. If I remember right, he was the first to raise the anthropomorphism concerns. So all I'm saying is that a draft of a paper I read was really a first rate first draft, which is not something that is unprofessional for me to share.]

Kvond: I think it is a horrible thing when it is done consciously with an attempt to merely manipulate the reader, to trump up interest, to give the illusion of depth.

As for the general practice of contributing very little to discussion other than creating another long line of footnotes in a self-referential system of text-producing and readership making, this is what makes philosophy what it is, an insider’s game of meaningless distinction making.

The answer to this is not to come up with One Great Idea, One Great Exaggeration, as Harman claims, either. It is to genuinely explore the past of our community discussions for the relevance that REALLY matters now, and to articulate that relevance convincingly. I do not consider this a matter of “repackaging” nor of repeating a past point, nor straining for “originality”. It is making persons of the past who answered questions quite well, answer OUR new questions, a far cry from simply bringing a classic philosopher into the mix for some paper-writing effect. Its a question of engagment.

Has the context changed since these were first posted?

Is he saying that since even the great Latour himself does not understand X, then Levi is in good company of general head-scratching? I mean it makes sense, but not very much, because it presumes that his theory is so complex that not even the brightest minds can get it. I’m utter confused here – is he just joking around?”

Kvond: Me too, I got lost on it too, and didn’t get the substitution or the point. But he seems to be trying to save the face of his loyal compadre who really has been very kind, until this slip, to utter a word of criticism towards his “theory”. Levi got excited by the diagram and opened his otherwise tight-lips. (Shaviro recently withdrew the word “incoherent” as well.)

So yes, I think he is trying to elevate Levi, and get us to see that if the words were put in the GREAT Latour we wouldn’t think twice about it. Levi is a lot like Latour (they BOTH don’t understand Harman).

That Harman doesn’t think that this exposes his own theory as incoherent or unbelievable is pretty obvious. But also revealing. Nobody understands it.

The big difference between Latour and Levi is that Harman is trying to coatail himself upon Latour. There is no reason at all why Latour should do much more than scratch his head over the metaphysics of someone who wants to write a book about him (and piggy back his own ideas, trying to gain some sort of associative significance). On the other hand it is Levi who is trying to coat tail upon Harman, and the fact that Harman’s theory is unbelievable or “not understandable” has a very different cast.

In any case, the post, trying to brush up Levi’s standing really works to make my overall point. Harman’s theory is incoherent and no one really understands it or is convinced by it in the least. It is a brand that gets its footing in its association with heavy weights Husserl, then Heidegger and now an attempted Latour, as well as a “movement” asscociation with the other more esteemed thinkers of the SR group. Levi’s just trying to catch the very tip of the last coat tail, making a priority out of NOT criticizing Harman’s incoherent theory.

Is he saying that since even the great Latour himself does not understand X, then Levi is in good company of general head-scratching? I mean it makes sense, but not very much, because it presumes that his theory is so complex that not even the brightest minds can get it. I’m utter confused here – is he just joking around?