Most people apparently, both pro OOO or contra OOO, want me to stop talking about Harman’s philosophy and go on to something else. I do not see it like that: I have devoted considerable effort to analysing a philosophy that has a degree of surface plausibility and that presents itself as the worthy successor of the Continental philosophies that I admire. I find that this “successor” theory is an empty shell, composed of a network of tautologous reformulations of a few core tenets that do not hold up under scrutiny. I do not wish my analyses and arguments to disappear into the archive of dead letters to to the conceptual denialists. I will continue to reactualise, improve, and add to my arguments ad libitum. This theme and my treatment of the arguments have become part of my particular conceptual music, and are as far as I am concerned quite positive despite the negative form. It is the pseudo-positivity of a philosophy based on travestying the past and present of our noosphere and of avoiding all engagement with the hosts of critical arguments that have arisen and then faded from view that is the true negative.
The critique of OOO is an important part of my conceptual music, but it is not the dominant theme, nor is it the center of my philosophical composition. By now I have written far more on Latour than on Harman, and I am generalising my conclusions in an ongoing analysis of Levi Bryant’s transposition and naturalisation of Harman’s ideas. I have written a lot on Laruelle too, and I am far from finished. I am critical of Stiegler’s work, but I think he gives us many very useful analyses. I have started up a second blog devoted to philosophy and science fiction, http://xenoswarm.wordpress.com/, which has no critique of other thinkers. So I am very far from the stereotype that some are trying to stick on me, of devoting myself to an OOO hate-blog.
And I haven’t yet mentioned my stuff on Deleuze and Feyerabend, a constant of my work for over 40 years, though I prefer to think with them rather than to expound them into a system. Do those who want me to be more positive really want to see an insipid collage of half-baked ideas and creeping crawling clichés under the title of ONTO-PLURALOGRAPHY?
However, I will be publishing soon in French an article on Deleuze and Frank Herbert’s Dune Saga. And there is lots more to come. I am also working on a book or a monograph on OOO, so I am certainly not dropping that theme, but playing it out to the fullest extent. I think that many critiques of Harman’s work though sound (and more convergent with mine than the authors seem to want to admit) are just the tip of the iceberg. I however am very coherent and thorough-going, and not held back by theoretical timidity and academic docility.