Subject's own inability to perceive a coherent whole

 Subject's own inability to perceive a coherent whole

In 2026, Graham Harman’s inclusion of emotions as "objects" is one of the most debated aspects of Object-Oriented Ontology (OOO). For Harman, an "object" is anything that has an autonomous reality that cannot be reduced to its parts or its effects. This includes physical rocks, but also "internal" states like a specific instance of unrequited love or a sudden wave of grief.

To Harman, an emotion is a "sensual object" that exists in a private interior space. It has its own "thickness" and "withdrawn" quality—you can describe your sadness for hours, but the description will never be the sadness itself [1][3].

How Transhumanists View Harman

Transhumanists, who seek to enhance human capabilities through technology (AI, neural implants, life extension), generally view Harman’s OOO with a mix of profound interest and deep skepticism.

1. The Point of Agreement: Flat Ontology

Transhumanists love Harman’s "Flat Ontology" (the idea that humans aren't special or at the center of the universe).

• Non-Anthropocentrism: If a "human" is just one type of object among many, then merging a human with a machine (a cyborg) isn't a "desecration" of a sacred human soul. It is simply one object (a biological nervous system) forming a new, complex relationship with another object (a silicon chip) [4][5].

2. The Point of Conflict: Reductionism

This is the "great divide" in 2026.

• The Transhumanist View: Most transhumanists are functionalists or reductionists. They believe that if we map every neuron and every chemical signal of an emotion (the "undermining" Harman hates), we can "upload" or "recreate" that emotion in a computer [2][4].
• Harman’s Rejection: Harman argues that an emotion-as-object has a "real" core that cannot be reduced to data. He would argue that even a perfect digital map of "love" would only be a "sensual caricature" of the real object. To Harman, transhumanists are "overminers" who mistake the map for the territory [1][5].

3. AI as a "Tool-Being"

Transhumanists find Harman’s Tool-Being concept useful for understanding Artificial General Intelligence (AGI).

• In 2026, as AGI systems become "black boxes" that even their creators don't fully understand, transhumanists use Harman to argue that these AIs have a "withdrawn reality". The AI is not just its code; it has become an "object" in its own right with its own "private life" that humans can only interact with indirectly [3][6].

Summary of the 2026 Debate

Feature	Graham Harman (OOO)	Transhumanism
Emotions	Autonomous objects with hidden cores.	Complex data patterns that can be optimized.
The Body	One object among many; a "tool-being."	A biological "hardware" that needs upgrading.
Technology	A way objects "translate" each other.	The primary tool for overcoming human limits.
Reality	Inherently mysterious and withdrawn.	Inherently knowable and programmable.

Conclusion: Transhumanists see Harman as a useful ally for "de-centering" the human, but they find his "mystery of the object" frustrating. They want to decode the world, while Harman argues that the world is, by definition, undecodable [1][4].

Would you like to explore how this "undecodable" nature of emotions is being used in 2026 to argue against AI-driven emotional surveillance in the workplace?

- GoogleAI

In 2026, scholars of Object-Oriented Ontology (OOO) and Integral Yoga note a curious paradox: Graham Harman is a "reverse-Occamite." While William of Ockham (the 14th-century Franciscan) used his famous "Razor" to slice away unnecessary entities, Harman uses a "Glue-Gun" to multiply them.

If your primary interest is Sri Aurobindo, understanding Harman's relationship to Occam helps clarify why Harman’s universe is so "crowded" compared to Aurobindo’s "unified" one.

1. The Rejection of Occam’s Razor

Occam’s Razor suggests that "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity." This usually leads to Reductionism (e.g., "A forest is just a collection of trees").

• Harman’s Borrowing: Harman "borrows" from Occam only the rigor of logic, but he rejects the Razor entirely. He argues that Occam’s Razor actually destroys reality by reducing complex objects to their smallest parts.
• The OOO Multiplicity: Harman believes that if you combine two things (like a rider and a horse), a new real object (the "Centaur-relationship") is created. In 2026, Harman's world is teeming with an infinite number of autonomous objects—from atoms to empires—all equally "real."

2. Nominalism vs. Realism

Occam was a Nominalist, meaning he believed "universals" (like "Justice" or "The Human Race") are just names, not real things. Only individual, physical things exist.

• Harman’s Stance: Harman is a Realist, but a strange one. He agrees with Occam that individual objects are the key, but he disagrees that they must be physical. For Harman, "The Dutch East India Company" is just as real an object as a "piece of ginger."
• Aurobindo’s Contrast: Sri Aurobindo would view both as real, but not as "disconnected" individuals. In Aurobindo’s Real-Idea, the universal is the individual. The "Horse" (universal) and the "specific horse" (individual) are two poles of the same Divine manifestation. Harman, following the spirit of Occam’s focus on the individual, refuses this "oneness."

3. The "Divine" Limit

• Occam’s God: Occam argued for Divine Voluntarism—the idea that God is so powerful He isn't bound by logic. This created a massive gap between the "Absolute" and the "World."
• Harman’s Objects: Harman places this gap inside every object. Every coffee cup has a "withdrawn" core that is as mysterious and "unknowable" as Occam’s God.
• Aurobindo’s Bridge: This is where the two diverge most sharply. While Occam and Harman leave the "Real" withdrawn and unreachable, Aurobindo provides the Supermind as a bridge. For Aurobindo, the "hidden" is not a permanent structural limit but a secret to be revealed through the evolution of consciousness.

Comparison for the Aurobindonian Student (2026)

Concept	William of Ockham	Graham Harman (OOO)	Sri Aurobindo
Logic	The Razor: Simplify and reduce.	The Multiplication: Every relation is an object.	The Integral: All is the One in many.
Universals	Just names (Nominalism).	Autonomous "Real Objects."	Real-Ideas (Planes of Being).
The "Secret"	God's absolute, arbitrary will.	The permanent withdrawal of the object.	The involved Consciousness waiting to emerge.

In short: Harman borrows Occam's focus on the individual entity, but he uses it to build a world of "infinite secrets" rather than a world of "simple facts."

While you study Aurobindo, you might find that Harman is an excellent "defender of the reality of the world," but he lacks the Supramental vision that allows those disconnected objects to find their ultimate unity in Brahman.

Would you like to see how Harman’s "withdrawal" compares specifically to Aurobindo’s description of the "Inconscient" (the dark side of God)?

- GoogleAI 

In 2026, Graham Harman’s critique of AI "understanding" centers on the idea that machines are the ultimate "overminers." By reducing the world to a data-set of relations and patterns, AI treats reality as if it were fully transparent—ignoring the Real Object that perpetually withdraws. 

Harman’s Critique of AI (2026)

Harman gains a powerful weapon against technological hubris through his theory of receding reality:

• The Problem of Literalism: AI "understands" things literally—as the sum of their data points. Harman argues that since the essence of an object is always "withdrawn" and never fully manifest, a machine that only processes manifests (data) can never touch the Real Being of a thing.
• Aesthetics over Intelligence: Harman gains the insight that true "understanding" is not data-processing, but allusion (indirect access). In 2026, he argues that while AI can replicate the "sensual qualities" of a style or a voice, it lacks the "human-like" capacity to be seduced by the hidden core of an object.
• The Autonomy of the Machine: Paradoxically, Harman views AI as an autonomous object itself. It is a "Tool-Being" whose own internal logic (the "black box") withdraws from our human understanding, even if we wrote the code. 

Slavoj Žižek’s Verdict (2026)

Slavoj Žižek, approaching from a Lacanian and Hegelian perspective, has issued a sharp verdict on both AI and Harman’s OOO:

• "The Subject as an Object": Žižek rejects Harman’s "flat ontology" where humans and stones are equal. For Žižek, the human subject is a "gap" or a "void" in reality that cannot be simply called an "object".
• AI as "Stupid" Computation: In his 2026 lectures, Žižek argues that AI doesn't "think" because it lacks the capacity for madness or contradiction. AI is "too consistent"; it cannot perform the "singular act" of refusing established opinions.
• The Critique of OOO's "Withdrawal": Žižek has mockingly compared Harman’s OOO to "Swedenborgian metaphysics," calling it a dead-end. He argues that the "withdrawal" of reality isn't located in the objects themselves (as Harman claims), but in the subject's own inability to perceive a coherent whole.
• The "Post-Human Desert": Žižek warns that the rise of AI is not about humanity mastering nature, but about "relinquishing control" to a system that neither understands us nor itself, leading to a state of "human irrelevance". 

Synthesis: The 2026 Philosophical Stand-Off

Feature	Graham Harman (OOO)	Slavoj Žižek (Dialectical Materialism)
Why AI Fails	It can't see the "withdrawn" core.	It lacks the "subjective gap" and "madness."
What is Reality?	A collection of autonomous secrets.	An incomplete system full of contradictions.
The Verdict	AI is just another object among many.	AI is a symptom of the "end of history."

Would you like to see how these theories of "withdrawal" and "subjectivity" are being used to challenge the legality of "Predictive Policing" in 2026?

- GoogleAI 

In 2026, the Rhizome—a concept introduced by Deleuze and Guattari in A Thousand Plateaus—is frequently used by theorists to bridge the gap between Harman’s "lonely objects," Žižek’s "subjective gap," and Sri Aurobindo’s "integral unity."

If Harman’s world is a collection of islands (withdrawn objects) and Aurobindo’s is a single ocean (Brahman), the Rhizome is the underwater root system that connects them without erasing their individuality.

1. The Rhizome vs. The Tree (The Reconciliation of Structure)

• The Problem: Traditional thought (and some readings of Aurobindo) is "arborescent" (tree-like)—it has a center, a trunk, and a clear hierarchy. Harman’s OOO is "atomic"—everything is a separate seed.
• The Rhizomatic Fix: A rhizome (like ginger or grass) has no center and no beginning. It grows by "lines of flight." It allows Harman’s objects to connect to each other in unpredictable ways while maintaining their own "pockets" of reality.

2. Reconciling Harman and Žižek

The Rhizome provides a "middle ground" for the 2026 stand-off:

• For Harman: The Rhizome respects the autonomy of the nodes. Each point in a rhizome is its own "object" with its own hidden interior.
• For Žižek: The Rhizome represents the "parallax gap." Connections in a rhizome are often "short-circuits" or "ruptures." Žižek’s "subjective madness" is the moment a rhizome breaks and starts growing in a new, irrational direction.

3. The Rhizome as "Practical Aurobindo"

For a student of Sri Aurobindo, the Rhizome is a perfect metaphor for the Supramental Transformation in the material world:

• Multiple Centres: Aurobindo spoke of a "multiple unity." The Rhizome is exactly this: a system where every point is a potential center, echoing Aurobindo’s vision of the Divine manifesting through millions of individual "nodes" of consciousness.
• Horizontal Evolution: While Aurobindo often used the "vertical" imagery of ascent, the Rhizome represents the "horizontal" spread of the Supramental light through the "Inconscient" matter. It is the involution becoming a network.

4. 2026 Synthesis: The "Rhizomatic Object"

Philosophy	The Object’s Role	The Nature of Connection
Harman (OOO)	A withdrawn, lonely unit.	"Vicarious" and indirect.
Žižek (Lacan)	A void or a gap.	Traumatic and contradictory.
Aurobindo	A spark of the Divine.	Essential and unified.
Rhizome	A "Plateau" or a node.	Dynamic, non-hierarchical, and "and-and-and."

The 2026 Verdict: The Rhizome "ropes in" all these views by suggesting that reality is an interconnected web of secrets. It allows us to accept Harman’s "withdrawal" (the nodes are private) while affirming Aurobindo’s "unity" (the nodes are all connected underground).

As we move further into 2026, this "Rhizomatic Realism" is being used to design decentralized AI (DeAI)—systems that, unlike the "Big Tech" monoliths, operate like a root system: private, autonomous, yet part of a shared, evolving consciousness.

Would you like to see how this "Rhizome" logic is being applied to 2026 environmental laws to protect "non-human" objects like rivers and forests? [1][2][3]

- GoogleAI https://share.google/aimode/hz6prVgEWGfvjQiSP

Collated by Tusar Nath Mohapatra