If there is anyone who wishes that I continue my blog, even without agreeing with me, please click like, as I am sick of being boycotted and may stop.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to DEBOYCOTT ME!

  1. Peter Gratton says:

    Note: I cut my reference to Peter’s talk from the article, to give it just one focus, and paste it here so the dialogue remains comprehensible: When I see Peter Gratton give a watered down version of my critiques of Harman without having exchanged with me I begin to think that I am talking to the wrong public. Should I have talked about Levinas and Plato so as to give GH the opportunity to show erudition rather than to respond to the fundamental critiques? That way I could have thanked him like a tame pet. Great roar from a paper tiger.

    Peter Gratton replies:

    Terrence, the SR book has been years in the making and my critique from the point of view of time was mentioned in publications going back to 2010. I wrote this particular chapter in 2012–and only presented it now since it was the requested topic for my venue.


    • terenceblake says:

      Where is your dialogue with me? You don’t even reference me. You critique “Graham”, and you want people to believe that you are objective?


      • Peter Gratton says:

        No, I don’t reference you. I also don’t reference Paul Ennis or others who have written on this. I’m not sure why I would: I didn’t borrow from your work. Also, I do call him Graham since I know him, but I don’t think my critiques would come off to him as somehow hidden or guarded. That’s how these talks go.


  2. Noah Horwitz says:

    Hi Terence,

    Don’t be discouraged. I enjoy reading your invectives against the ‘Speculative Realist’ powers that be. Your rebukes are nicely informed by the history of recent European philosophy and peppered often with worthwhile insights about the anxiety of influence. They’re a sorely lacking ‘thumbing of the nose’ at those who are used to being handled with kit gloves due to their holding the puppet strings or due to the thick, positive transference that the allegedly “critical” theoretical avant-garde has towards its approved masters. Don’t forget: the baby bird revolutionaries need to have their philosophical food chewed for them first before it is spit down their necks. But if you want a more substantial form of recognition, then there’s no better path than publishing books and articles through the official channels and offering up more conceptually than stinging polemics and criticisms. The only other way to achieve the required blind love of the devotee would be to have your blog properly endorsed by the approved authority figures. Otherwise, you may be left with readers like myself. In any event, keep the faith. And don’t fire until you see the whites of their eyes.



    • terenceblake says:

      Thanks for the encouragement. OOO has gone book instead of blog, but I have given good arguments and been deprived of dialogue. I am sick of cowardice, cronyism, and academic snobism.


  3. terenceblake says:

    “Years” in private. He made mincemeat of you.


  4. terenceblake says:

    To Peter Gratton. Your critique is so confidential that I have been unaware of it. There is nothing in it that I have not already said in a very concentrated form. Are you really happy with Harman’s reply? Frankly I would want to commit hara-kiri after such explicit contempt. Where were you while i was blogging? How courageous you must have been. I have given far wider and deeper critiques than you, and all you get is Levinas/Heidegger erudition in return? Have you no shame? That’s a reply to a very weakly worded critique?


  5. I don’t usually find it worthwhile to follow the polemics with OOO but I’m glad this blog exists so I hope you’re not serious about stopping.


  6. terenceblake says:

    Thanks for your response. I think I am incapable of stopping, but I am seriously considering blogging only in French.


  7. Peter Gratton says:

    Ok Terrence, I’m not even sure what you’re saying at this point: I think you’re saying that my critiques were timid, that I should have gone further, and that I shouldn’t have accepted Harman’s response. I have published two open source articles mentioning the main lines of my critiqued and lectured on it at several Australian unis in 2012. In any event, I lay out what I think are the problems, but more to accent the direction in my work on time. As for Harman’s response, he situated where he thinks I’m coming from, why he thinks I was wrong—and that’s fine. I am not going to get him to agree about things that are central to his system, so I’m not sure why you think firey rhetoric in return would do anything other than…trolling.


  8. terenceblake says:

    I have published a blog for three and a half years where anyone could contribute, or just click on “like”. Where are your critiques? I have given many critiques of Harman’s philosophy without being afraid of his reaction. I am not aware of your critiques, and I found your talk timid, and your reaction to Harman’s response docile. Whatever you may have published it does not come close to the critical engagement that I have manifested. I have given very contentful arguments. I do not think that I can be dismissed by Harman’s typical response to criticism that it is “snarky” or “trolling” or “shrill”.


    • Peter Gratton says:

      Well, that’s academia: we tend to treat each other as not idiots and with some measure of respect, i.e., “docile.” My paper made clear what I think (how more foundational can my counter-claims go than talking about time and about having no method to say what the in-itself is–so much for “timid”). As for the rest a google search will be the answer for you, or my CV on my faculty profile with links. Finally I have occasionally read your site and enjoyed it since I discovered it, but the idea that somehow you have the copyright on critiques is strange–relax. The upshot seems to be that if I don’t move from looking at his work systematically to an ad hominem then I’m “docile.” That may be an internet ethos, but not one I can join in the least.
      Keep blogging, you’re good at it, and don’t worry about what Harman or others say (that last sentence reads like your real annoyance is that Harman doesn’t respond. Well, fine, he doesn’t. Why should you care?)


  9. Jamie says:

    Hi Terence (if I may),

    I’ve been reading and appreciating your blog on and off for a few years – with only occasional and partial comprehension. I have not read the dialogue between Peter and Graham and am unable to say anything informed about the accusation of plagiarism. Sure, it’s upsetting to be ignored. But I also think it would be worthwhile to broach the question of why one would even want recognition from someone (i.e. Graham) for whom one has so much contempt.

    In any case, I, for one, would prefer that you focus your considerable intellectual resources on finishing the book you’ve been working on. I look forward to reading it. That would be much more constructive than the nth broadside on OOO.

    Please know that I say all this with great respect for your erudition and philosophical acumen.


  10. Terence, you should definitely not give up. I also think, as Jamie says above, it would be useful to start focusing at least a little bit more on your “positive” philosophy and a little less on what SR/OOO gets wrong. At least for myself, I am so convinced about SR/OOO’s errors, especially by certain of its figures, its trolling/misreading responses, and its repeated failure actually to engage with the arguments you and others have offered, that I have stopped caring what its most prominent figures do or don’t do and say or don’t say. You, on the other hand, have a rich pluralist description of epistemology and even metaphysics that draws on many different parts of several recent and longer historical traditions, and when you talk about these things they are the parts of your posts I tend to read most attentively these days. I’d read what you say about these things without much direct comment on SR/OOO, even if SR/OOO is what has spurred you to start articulating your thoughts about them. Your “positive” philosophy says things nobody else does and I think you would actually, eventually, get a wider and more interested readership if you tried to focus a little more on that and less on critique–which is not to say you should stop, just a gradual shift in focus. I did like your interactions with Scott Bakker, for example, because he tries to respond directly for the most part and it was getting at a different part of your own views, but also because it got away a bit from the SR/OOOniverse.


    • terenceblake says:

      Hello David, thanks for your comment. I am trying to change my mode of contribution and thrashing around a little wildly in all directions. I have created a new blog: XENO SWARM where I talk more positively and concentrate on science fiction, so I can only agree with your comments. The SR/OOO polemic has been a sort of container allowing my own metamorphosis or xenogenesis to operate. So maybe the “gradual shift in focus” can dissolve the carapace and let the positive pluralist beast out.

      Liked by 1 person

  11. Leon says:

    Hi Terry,
    Gosh no, you shouldn’t stop blogging. Remember, not only you but folks like Jason Hills (of the blog Immanent Transcendence) and the gang, have been dodged *for years* – and I am not sure why anyone would be oblivious to those very easy-to-find critiques through Google. In fact, Google any of the names, critiques, arguments involved, and you are the *first person* who comes up! Even in! So what you are saying has an impact, believe me. But, actually, that isn’t besides the point. I think the go-to defense these days is now something like,

    Troll: “Hey, YOU, you *troll*, you are critiquing my work with pretty good arguments online. You’re a troll!”
    Online blog: “Ummm, why don’t you address my arguments?”

    And of course, you’ll never get a response. Cowards won’t address you directly. I’ve learned that long ago.

    I won’t pretend to offer arguments here, only to call the show as I see it. If that’s offensive to anyone, then folks don’t have to read beyond this point.


    The fact is, there are only a handful (and by that I mean literally two or three) officially approved interlocutors in this game who – for political reasons – aren’t listed as “part of” the club so it looks like there *is* a club. Yet when it comes to critique from outside of the club (or better, “the tribe”) sadly not you, nor I, nor Jason, nor anyone *except* those approved will get response. But, that’s just a rhetorical strategy of running if you keep engaging them. You’ve done everything you’ve been asked to do: “Oh, oh… Well you haven’t read my books.” Or, “Oh, oh…Well you have to publish it first.” One excuse after another. You’ve jumped through every single hoop they’ve put in front of you.

    Now that these *goons* and *kingpins* (yes, that’s what they are) can no longer stand up to the heat of the kitchen, i.e. the critical voice of blogs (ironically how they made their claim to fame to begin with; they just can’t stand competing voices of critique in a democracy), and now that the publications are there (Theoria, anyone?; Mute magazine anyone? Cosmos & History, anyone?) – the last resort seems to be to hide in one’s own vanity publishing shops of *books*…it now has to be *books*…and why? Oh, well that’s easy: the thought is, because if you aren’t in the academic fold then your critiques couldn’t possibly follow anyone there. But look at the publishing houses they are using. I am just left shaking my head. You could easily publish in any of those houses, which is why “you-know-who” has to stand guard over at least one of them. I’m surprised he hasn’t grabbed more. Actually, that would be too obvious.

    Of course, then they had to go the route of attacking the weakest argument link in the chain (Galloway) *again* (didn’t that happen *last year* or even further back…my God) saying that they did so only because it was a major publication. Right. I think Pete Wolfendale had a 70 some page critique that has for a year or two now gone unanswered, your Theoria piece, unanswered, your 100 Theses piece, unanswered, and so on and so on and so on. Hell, you won’t appear in any “forthcoming” book answering criticisms, trust me. It’ll be an intentional slight by omission (and I’ve done that to THEM when it’s counted, in return. They’ve hit me, like they do you, by omission plenty of times, but when a bully hits me I immediately slap the bully in the mouth right back, just as hard if not harder). It’s all just an excuse, Terry, for someone to hide.

    Ah, to boot, by the INSANE TROLL LOGIC involved, yes, on their behalf, they can just resort to saying, “You are a troll!” Please. As if they “You are attacking me personally!” line wasn’t enough. They say one thing, do another. Look at the now famous “re-writing of the abstract” move to include you-know-who; the massive threads over at AUFS (several of them); the Jussi Parikka debacle (remember that?), the ridiculousness that’s shown *time and time and time* again that these people can’t be trusted and are are self-serving, sociopathic *monsters*. The slight against Caputo was the straw that broke the back for me: totally unnecessary and uncalled-for dickishness to extremes that I’ve never before seen. So that was it for me. Seriously. No need for that, but it was said. So the fact that they are monsters is pretty well established. And it’s just too easy for any of those fools to hide behind a keyboard because I’ve already established that *none* of them – NOT ONE – would behave that way to someone’s face (another rhetorical strategy: *chuckle* “We aren’t like this in person!”). Of course not. *Smile.*

    You can only push around so many graduate students, you can only badmouth so many people behind their back, you can only intentionally ignore so many folks who are trying to engage you, all purposefully for so long, before your true colors show. So, newsflash blogosphere: the word is out about these creeps. And that’s what they are: internet creeps.

    What this boils down to, and please take this seriously, is that the folks in question – and this isn’t trolling because it’s not opinion, it’s fact – are losing their power essentially because their fad is passing and good arguments and critiques – such as yours – will never be answered. BUT, on the other hand, at least your critiques stand. There is no longer prop-up support afforded by mere enthusiasm available for the other side. So you win. This has been true, for, oh gosh, I’d say at the very least two years now. No one hardly even cares about those guys anymore. It’s passe. What’s more interesting is the insane troll logic they play to folks who still think that they matter. They don’t. I mean, if you have to publish an article convincing yourself and the world that what you do “still exists” – then there is a problem. When that happened I knew that it was “game over.” And we move on.

    Don’t stop blogging, but don’t stop fighting back to what essentially comes down to as bullying, either. You have SO much more to do than worry about folks who not only are bad philosophers and couldn’t get a position off the ground after the wave of faddishness washed over, but who also still cling to the hope that someone, anyone, would take such bad philosophy seriously by turning to publish books through vanity houses so it *seems* like they have something rigorous to say. Please. So lame. And so boring. I mean, if anything, publishing that way is more like trolling than calling people out on a blog.

    Terry, just do your own thing. Cream rises to the crop. You have a great following, your blog is awesome and alot of folks read it. Most importantly, people take what you say seriously. Your brand has “trust” – which the other side doesn’t. There’s a reason big players like Mackay, Brassier, etc. etc. (never mind small time players: you, Hills, me, Oyama, basically the entirety of P.E.S.T.) have “nothing but contempt” for them. But we’ve all moved past them long ago because, well, they have nothing important or substantial to say. As I just read the other day, “it’s not even worth trying to comprehend rigorously.” So let them – all whatever 12 of them – go play the violin for each other. I hardly think that the world is listening.

    Keep blogging. Do your own thing. You have much more interesting and well argued *philosophy* to offer.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Sara Ahmed says:

    You should keep at it: when we are blocked, when we do not get through, we learn so much (I called this ‘practical phenomenology’ in the conclusion of On Being Included, learning about things from the effort to transform them). I made a decision not to engage with OOO despite working myself on objects (in my book Queer Phenomenology and also in my forthcoming book, Willful Subjects) because I thought the work was weak philosophically (including Harman) but also because the tactics they use in reproducing themselves as group are something I refuse to support. But because these tactics are successful we need critical engagements. So keep going!


    • terenceblake says:

      Thanks Sara, it is true that when things break down and one tries to transform the situation, and oneself, that much learning can take place. It is sad too see that one formula for success is weak philosophy plus bad tactics, each supporting and reinforcing the other.


  13. Bill Benzon says:

    By all means keep blogging, Terry. I understand your frustration that the OOOers don’t reply to you. But it is what it is. And I agree with those who want to see you work more on your positive contribution.


  14. Adrian says:

    Keep going, Terence: I am among those who read and enjoy you several times a week, and I get a lot from what you post.


  15. What boycott? I read almost every one of your posts. I think your polemical style gets to the heart of the matter rather quickly, and speed is what blogging is good for. So what if they don’t respond. Let them ignore you. You’ve still got an attentive audience.


  16. inthesaltmine says:

    Terence: I have learned more from your blog, I’d imagine, than any other I have encountered. I’ve been a bit solitary lately, but I’ll make a better effort to engage things here.


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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