We see it all the time, tit for tat, bickering and squabbling, I am Tweedledee and Jackson is Tweedledum. So what, how boring.
But this is not always the case. Jackson gave a summary that emphasised personal provocation and obliterated the issues being discussed. In particular his summary missed the polemic about the proper translation of “undermining” into French, perhaps a little over his head. Also he passes over in silence the very grave defects with Harman’s THE THIRD TABLE. But Harman has thanked him and reblogged his summary, so he shouldn’t worry about such little omissions as translation, concepts and argument. My summary: https://storify.com/TerenceBlake/harman-refuted-just-recycles-elsewhere-on-over-con. For the record:
1) Translation: there is a question about translation (of “undermining”, and by derivation “overmining”) that Jackson is absolutely incompetent to pronounce on, but you wouldn’t know it from his “impish” tweets to friends. For him it is all “ego”, my ego of course. Harman is incompetent on this question too. I am bilingual, I am “agrégé”, I work in a technical college specialised in construction. There is no better authority interested in this piddling question for the moment. Meillassoux himself acknowledged my solution as valid.
2) Concepts: My thesis is that OOO is a deconcepted discourse of superior opinion (see my review of Harman’s THE THIRD TABLE). All RJ’s interventions concerning me are in this direction: he “connotes” superiority, without even trying to establish it. Recognition in the eyes of his peers is sufficient.
3) Arguments: I am ashamed to bring this up in a discussion of OOO, but there you are, I am very old-fashioned. Here are some arguments, never answered: https://www.academia.edu/5286316/IS_ONTOLOGY_MAKING_US_STUPID_Pluralist_Thoughts_on_Graham_Harmans_Monist_Idealism