Graham Harman denies the reality of the simplest objects that we can see or touch: as common sense objects they are, he tells us, « utter shams ». The same remark applies to scientific objects. What is real? Harman postulates a domain of « withdrawn » real objects that somehow account for the sham objects we see and know. The relation between real object and sham object is difficult to articulate. For example, Harman cannot really say that the real object is the source or origin of the sham object, as thse terms (« source », « origin ») imply temporal predicates that are disallowed by his system, which notoriously denies reality to time.
Harman has invented a vocabulary to describe various types of reductionism that he believes he has discerned in various philosophical moves. The move of explaining a macroscopic object such as a table in terms of its atomic and sub-atomic is called « undermining ». Explaining the table in terms of the flux of perceptions is called « overmining ». Harman has recently detected arguments that make both moves at once, so he has baptised them « duomining ». A notable feature of all three moves is that their reduction operates inside only one of the worlds that Harman discusses – the world of « utter shams ».
But Harman himself operates a different sort of reduction that reduces the reality of one world, the « sham » world of sensual objects, to that of the « real » world of withdrawn objects. As this reduction cuts across both worlds, I propose to call it « transmining ».