You're listening to The Partial Examined Life, a podcast by some guys who at one point said on doing philosophy for a living, but then thought better it.

For episode 385, we're following up on our last discussion on Grand Harmon's object-oriented ontology and new theory of everything.

So now talk to him directly about the issues we had with him in that, as well as getting to

his new book, Waves and Stones.

For more information about the text and the podcast, please see partially examined life.com.

This is Mark Linson-Myer with continuous and discreet touching willy-nilly in Madison, Wisconsin.

This is Seth Paskin, winging it, touching nothing discreet,

with no other discrete object in Austin, Texas.

This is Wes Alwin existing in my own right in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

This is Dylan Casey reflecting on holes in parts, the discreet,

and the continuous in the wake of my half-hawk butchery class in Madison, Wisconsin.

Graham, welcome. Thanks very much. Fresh out of bed in Long Beach, California.

Ah. Yes, thanks for getting up a little early for us to do this. We were very excited by your

previous book. And I feel like your new book,

maybe you moderated some positions, or at least just explain them in a way that was less

objectionable to me, such that some of the rage that I was feeling about the insistence

on Const thing in itself, for instance, has faded., yeah, I guess let's go around the horn, say what we want to get out of this. I for sure wanted to, instead of, we often kind of start at the beginning of the book and go through. And instead of doing that with waves and stones, I think we should just raise the issues as they come up. But I'm certainly interested in the overall issue of ontology, what counts as an object.

I'm interested in the extension of that.

Do we need this distinction between real objects and sensory objects, right?

Contean things in themselves?

Or is Husserl or somebody like that right when they say, you know, of course we don't contact the entirety of an object, but we contact part of it. So it's an aspect. So I am really contacting the real thing. It's just not every property of the thing is relevant to my contact. Of course not. And then as a third thing, causality obviously coming out of that. Seth, do you have anything to add before we get into the discussion proper and let Grandpa? Oh, yeah. I have lots to add.

So first, Graham, you know you have the write-off audience if somebody is enraged by your insistence

...