the chair ... qua chair, is not real, because "chair" is not a character which belongs to it "of itself"
This is from Of Essence, which arrived a few weeks ago. Graham Harman talks about this in Tool-Being, page 248.
Buddhists are likewise not nominalists: a chariot isn't a chariot because you call it one. Furthermore--there it is!
Thus OOO comes closest to profound theories of emptiness. The superficial understanding is that "form is emptiness"--modernity, from capitalism to scientism to process philosophy, kind of has that bit down.
What OOO grasps better than anything I've yet seen, the next proposition, which nicely reverses the polarities, like Graham's reading of Levinas and Zubiri:
Emptiness also is form
This is the future folks!





