FOR ONE THINK TO LINK TO ANOTHER.... a third actor required

Seems obvious to me, NOW (after 1994, when I did first meet Latour--the famous Latour '94 had me riding cybernetic bicycles) but now it's said "Latour's gonna get us out of this jam" says Harman (this occasionalist Jam that Heidegger left us in) about which then (in the House of Lancaster) there was much argument. "

A thing has potential that isn't actualized" instead of ignoring the acrorn. A crowd of allies is needed. Latour "condemns" potentiality (even in Euclid's Geometry, you can't predict it. THE FOOD IS NOT IN THE RECIPE, or potentially present). However, GH says there's a problem here, something about seeing it in Relations).

A builder who is not building right now. If there is nothing behind it, creating tension, why one moment of time lead to another moment of time. (yes. these are paraphrased words from the 2008 talk by Gh in LSE). Where GH says: We need to get through Heidegger to get to this, through this. I pause at this word time because of what Julian Jaynes has noticed about time: that it is a spatialization-in-itself; and this spatialization is a "feature" of consciousness (so there are some problems here, but not insurmountable).

Fourfold Structures in the History of Philosophy.: Bacon's Square Pig; Eighteen dichotomies; and the second principle of division (hopelessly embarrassing). Where does the veiled underground withdrawing hiding world come from? Wheres the phenomenal world of visibility? Where's the appearance IN CONSCIOUSNESS (Husseurl is not a REALIST) (says Gh).

Shall I circle this desk? Am I seeing a profile. A difference betweena  THING and its QUALITIES....

substance isn't added on....
like tea into jam and bread....
or tea and the toilet (at the level of language)


Invisible Things/ Real TOOLS.....http://richmedia.lse.ac.uk/isig/harman.mp3