I hope Dr. Harman sends you a thank you card for providing the clearest, most straight-forward, and most enjoyable overview of his thinking that I’ve ever heard.
I don't like the use of the word "fictional" to describe perception, "approximate" would be more reasonable, or "relatively fictional" even. Unless he's suggesting reality is just a projection of the mind, it's the wrong word, imo. I don't get the inside/outside argument: "The assumption that where we stand is the mind". But by definition that's true, it's not an assumption. What does "the mind has an exterior" mean? His terminology isn't easy to understand. How can anything "point outside any relation at all"? It sounds like an oxymoron... If you can point to it, it must have a relationship to you. Right?
I hope Dr. Harman sends you a thank you card for providing the clearest, most straight-forward, and most enjoyable overview of his thinking that I’ve ever heard.
@@telosbound Dr. Harman! If you're reading this, Trey is amazing! Email him! You'll be glad you did!
Dope clip set.
Great introduction to Triple O
Do you have any takes on Bruno Latour ?! I would like to hear some thoughts
Great video very informative thx!
Markov Blanket
I don't like the use of the word "fictional" to describe perception, "approximate" would be more reasonable, or "relatively fictional" even.
Unless he's suggesting reality is just a projection of the mind, it's the wrong word, imo.
I don't get the inside/outside argument: "The assumption that where we stand is the mind". But by definition that's true, it's not an assumption.
What does "the mind has an exterior" mean? His terminology isn't easy to understand.
How can anything "point outside any relation at all"? It sounds like an oxymoron... If you can point to it, it must have a relationship to you. Right?
I’m not a big fan of this Barlaam, I mean, Harman, fellow…
There are no objects 'for' Ontology or 'of' Ontology: there is no such thing as ‘object oriented ontology’ .
You are not a color
You can see it but you can’t be it