Update: I think Kvond’s idea of “bad poetry” and “essentialising bestiary” corresponds to what I have called OOO’s “counter-factuation” and de-concepting”. A very illuminating recent example is when a low-level OOOxian saw fit to publish a “storified” version of my exchange with him, omitting his personal provocations and removing all conceptual content. This is how dialogical adversaries are “framed” in certain debates.
Kvond on ” the usual bestiary of essentializations directed at those who critique OOO. “I suppose it is interesting when the people you critique start to fantasize about you, either turning you into monsters or persona of every stripe”.
Harman makes a note of the criticism no doubt someone has directed towards his writing:
Another example is when people accuse a philosophical text of degenerating into “bad poetry” (this is a popular one). The people who use this phrase would be no more supportive of good poetry than of bad; they simply want to exclude all poetry from philosophical work. Yet they can’t say: “But that’s poetry!”
I have to say this certainly isn’t a criticism I have leveled at Harman’s writing, though I have been very cautious in aesthetically judging the quality of his sometimes profuse use of adjectives and sensuous illustrations. Honestly at times the verge on the edge of “bad poetry”, and Harman himself has laughed at some of the phrasing he uses in the Vicarious Causation essay. As a poet and a fiction writer I would never exclude the poetic from the expression of a…
View original post 330 more words