Graham Harman interview at fasanyic

Here. Good, clear read, though he again discusses his notion of time, which I still find quixotic:

Time in my model is nothing but the tension between sensual objects and their sensual qualities. What gives us the sensation of time passing is the fact that the same sensual objects endure for a certain period even though there is a constant shimmering of qualities along their surface….From this model it should become clear why time is always reversible but space never is, or never perfectly so. Time concerns nothing but the superficial drama of surface qualities swirling atop a sensual object that is somewhat durable but ultimately unreal. (My emphases)

He then mentions memory and such as that which “reverses” time since it’s just sensual anyway. But I’m also not clear what space not being reversible means. Does this mean that things cannot change their relation. I can only suppose so, since space itself is itself an inner relation of the object between its real self and its  sensual qualities, which obviates questions about spacial relations among different objects, as in Heideggerian deseverance, which calls into question previous ideas of space.

One comment

  1. I’m pretty sure there are spatial/temporal processes that are irreversible. I don’t mean to be a jerk, but the quote sounds like something he just came up with off the cuff.

Comments are closed.