ADDING SIMONDON TO THE “AXIS” OF PROCESS

Real objects are a-temporal for Harman, as in his system time is a sensual illusion, so they cannot be processes. This is where Levi Bryant initially tried to correct the dualist defect of Harman’s system, its simplistic bifurcation of object and process. Harman rejected all such modifications. Bryant’s system is quite compatible with Simondon, and it would be a good move on his part to incorporate more Simondon into his thinking.

Bernard Stiegler has recently come out in favour of re-reading Whitehead and so implicitly endorses the sort of Whitehead-Simondon-Deleuze-Latour axis that Harman is so afraid of. I take Stiegler’s critical comments on Latour’s “denial” of philosophy as a remark on the conceptual limits of his system rather than a rejection of it. Harman is very much the regressive thinker here.

Note: I am grateful to a facebook discussion with Yuk Hui for helping me clarify this point.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to ADDING SIMONDON TO THE “AXIS” OF PROCESS

  1. grfuller says:

    Harman’s reading of Whitehead is too narrow. Rather than an ‘entity’ (as an object), Whitehead’s “society” (as event) is more useful for understanding becoming as an ongoing process of negative and positive (conceptual, material, etc) prehensions prehending each other.

    Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s