It is by now a notorious, but in my opinion regrettable, fact that the majority of blogs that discuss OOO are written by those of the confraternity of true believers and associates, to both present and former sympathisers. What we have been witness to is the propagation of a philosophical movement that tries to limit discussion of its tenets only to bona fide members and fellow travelers. This is in essence Harman’s reply to Steve Fuller – Fuller is not an insider, so his information is erroneous and even his errors are out of date:
Fuller is simply repeating the typical 2009-era blogosphere mistake of not keeping the various Speculative Realist wings straight.
This exclusion of the other, this insistence on the sole tenability of the insider perspective is not just narcissistic. Given the rather impressive re-writing of intellectual history carried out by its members, given their refusal to engage with its philosophical predecessors except in the form of absurd travesties (or “vicars”) of their real positions, given their propensity to reply to all but the easiest-to-answer objections with caricature or silence, one is entitled to hypothesise something more than a collectively shared failure to respect Gricean maxims of conversation. I think that the OOO community have succeeded in inventing a paradoxical new philosophical stance: group solipsism.