The theme of my blog is pluralism and individuation in a world of becoming. Recently I have spelled that out in terms of a metaphysical research programme whose heuristic core is an open, immanent, pluralist, processual (diachronic), apophatic, democratic ontology.
I have intervened from a non-partisan perspective in a very touchy intensely partisan set of problematics, discussing Feyerabend, Hillman, Deleuze, Badiou, Zizek, Laruelle, Latour, Serres and Stiegler. My aim has been to create bridges between problematics and to open up free dialogue. I have met with much resistance to my efforts from the partisans, but I have also been greeted with much encouragement from the generally interested public.
A foonote to that research has been the critical discussion of various research programmes that do not satisfy some or all of these of criteria, in particular Graham Harman’s version of OOO, which proposes a closed, transcendent, monist, static (synchronic), cataphatic, élitist ontology.
I have occasionally added, as a footnote to that footnote, a critical analysis of the “official” or critics of OOO. Some of these sub-footnotes seem to want me to share their exaggerated sense of their own importance, and to punish me for not endorsing their self-image. In doing so they employ the same tactics as those they affect to criticise. I will just have to live with that.