having said that, I have had some thoughts (mostly to do with Chronology) as it appears to be 1999 that is a crucial year in the Harman bio... leading up to a surprise turn circa 2004-7 during which term the coise was praised. The writing is marvelous (Harman has a free range of objects to choose from and uses them wisely). I can't speak about Heidegger, but I did rush out and buy Latour (well, ordered it for christmas, during the snowstorm). Also looked up my old friends from Lancaster who were introducing Latour to me back in 1994. In Business Management Sch. one survives). I'm thrilled to look forward to years of reading ahead. Perhaps, at last, philosophy in English that I can read (is there any comparison to Hobbes and Hume?). My own interests were Derridean, years ago and I'm the first to admit I could dissapear up my own * with Heisenbergian-quivers and all. When did Derrida discuss Correlationism? (Did he need to? Did it matter; once a "writer" has incribed "himself-as-w" or scripteur, all else follows.) Surely he was aware of the dilemma (experts might refute). For my own mind, at least, the book has come with a big sigh of relief, as I mentioned to Robert J, at least a language for where my own "fiction" interests have lay is now upon me. (Flat ontology/strange mereology). I rushed out to the local website, immediately, and cross checked a few variables, samples, if you will, of Meillassoux's text. Found one from Middlesex Uni (that seemed to say it all). But with Latour, comes "assemblages" and "netowrks" (my lazy arse said, do I really have to read that?). I ordered the book. (Harman sort of makes you want to read the philophers that he is writing about, and that is a good thing). So, there I was, knee deep in snow right slap in the middle of the UCLA conference on Hyoerobjects and Object Oriented Ontology. I say knee deep in snow; my work-shed (Hasting' Hut), silver lined with space age foil, equipped with solar panels (running two computers, a jet black kettle and a suave lighting arrangement that is perfect for the eyes) watching as Mr Harman is introduced, and chit chat about Tim's U stream fades into the background as Bogost (?) discusses a resurgent interest in the arts, perhaps opera. Meillassoux's name had erupted into consciousness (or that other thing which isn't consciousness which appears to be operating) thrugh Tim's symposiums on Hyperobjects. A name unfamiliar to me as the spelling of, it turned out, a new French Master. (It's no surprise today that Harman's forthcoming on Meillassoux in July 2011 has bee praised by Zizek; yes, it is clear that if Harman does a treatment (a Harman treatment on Zizek, i'll be buying that too: he really does want you to know more about the one he is referring to. And why not? It's important, after all, isn't it? Given the fundamental observations about the concequence for us of being inside the Correlationist's circle (without even realising the consequences) prevented thousands (?) from asking other questions.) No doubt. But now these new objects are emerging. I pen in Zizek. You tube Haraway, Zizek and Latour, and find Latour in a museum, stone walled by acoustic variations before i stummble upon a clear audio. But it is not him that really interests me. It is Meillasoux. It is Meillasoux's break with Correlationism. It is Harman's way of explaining the nature of the what can be viewed after one has made the break. I personally love reading Husseurl, although as HArman suggests, I did remain mostly in the "bracketing" off category (a highly powerful feature in anyone's book), and learned to apply it in life while thinking. But Harman's pointed out that that's not the most interesting part of Hussewurl. And then Harman makes clear, what he thinks isn't what Husseurl thinks or certainly not what Heidegger thinks. A philospher announces himself, I suppose. Essays in hand (printed of the interswabble network), i set to reading, and notice most quickly a very real shift in my perceptions. Christmas is coming. A new way to relate to the objects and the bah humbug and roar of noise that dins out the quiet thought (there is a reason for the Latour Hut). So, this thought brings me to Chicago, because when one mentions Huts to me in philosophy, I always think of Pirsig (whatever one may think og him, quelle marvel in my eyes?!) and there, plump in Zen, Chicago. Having resolved the subject object divide long ago, even Pirsig would have to bow to Harman for bringing to view all that we can now write about and think about. Not "the christmas presents, but their speaking to us" within all the streets and houses, up and down the country the acoustic wanting to be bought and displayed as much as the how can i pay for this brigade. I digress. Most surprised anyway to see Chicago as source again, and vindicated also by Harman's honesty about his slow and assiduous approach through the years. But what of Derrida? Perhas it doesn't matter anymore because a new way fo seeing has approached us; the closest thing i can call a revolution in my lifetime at or in the perecptual realm of ideas in which within which I can say, yes, well that is definitely new. And there is a bit of fresh air about all of this. Ferris Wheel. Oil Rig. The details i'll unfold in the hapy years of reading ahead. I\d like to thank these people, sincerely. After Finitude, i hope, will be arriving in January and the others i have mentioned. I feel that i havn't quite missed the beginning of something, but I can see that that something has had its real genesis point long ago as 1999, possibly even 1996. Who knows? Anyway I look now, a new refraction is in place. It's not the pier I see. There's something else now, the always was there.