Grok
----

An Evaluation of the Chen Jingyuan Case Based on Graham Harman's Core Ideas in Object-Oriented Ontology (OOO)

Graham Harman (1968-), a founding figure of speculative realism and object-oriented ontology (OOO), reconceives metaphysics in *Tool-Being* (2002) and *Quadruple Object* (2011) as a flat ontology where objects—human, non-human, abstract, or concrete—possess autonomous reality, withdrawn from full access by any relation. His core ideas include the "withdrawal" of objects (their inner essence forever veiled, resisting reduction to perception or use); the quadruple object structure (real object, real qualities, sensual object, sensual qualities in a fourfold tension); and a critique of correlationism (Kantian limits tying reality to human access), advocating speculative realism that grants objects equal ontological dignity without anthropocentric hierarchy. The Chen Jingyuan case—a doctoral scholar sentenced to 20 months for "picking quarrels and provoking trouble" (PRC Criminal Law Article 293) over Twitter forwards—through Harman's OOO lens, exemplifies relational overreach: the judiciary relationally reduces Chen's withdrawn objects of inquiry to "disruptive tools," violating quadruple dignity and veiling the speculative autonomy of thought.

#### 1. Withdrawal and Ontological Autonomy: Judicial Reduction as Violation of the Object's Inner Real

Harman's withdrawal posits objects as inexhaustible— their real qualities forever partially veiled, resisting total relational capture; speculation honors this autonomy without mastery.

Chen's forwards (e.g., <100 retweets of Hayek critiques or the "Trump-kneeling Xi" cartoon) are withdrawn objects: autonomous intensities of scholarly speculation, their inner real (non-causal flux, symbolic depth) veiled from full access. The verdict violates this: presuming "high education implies discernment" relationally captures them as "knowingly false tools," reducing autonomy to usable "disruption." The closed-door trial enforces the breach: Chen's prison letter—speculatively unveiling withdrawal through taxonomy (art/emotion/reason/fact) and avalanche theory—remains partially veiled, its real inaccessible. Harman would decry this as ontological violence: the prosecutor's unverified admission hints at withdrawal's excess (evidentiary voids), yet the sentence totalizes relation, echoing OOO's critique—objects like texts or ideas demand speculative dignity, not reductive utility.

#### 2. The Quadruple Object and Relational Tension: The "Evidence Chain" as Distorted Fourfold Harmony

Harman's quadruple object structures reality in tension: the real object withdraws from the sensual object (perceived form), unified by real and sensual qualities; harmony lies in this irreducibility.

The "evidence chain" distorts this fourfold: Chen's real object (inquiry's withdrawn essence) is sensualized as "disruptive form" (perceived "threat"), real qualities (non-linear autonomy) veiled by sensual ones ("intent" from education). Selective enforcement fractures tension: millions unpunished sensualize harmlessness, yet Chen's quadruple is asymmetrically captured. The non-oral appeal amplifies disharmony: the letter's speculative quadruple—taxonomy bridging real (flux) and sensual (posts)—is excluded, as the "shut up" directive sensualizes silence over real withdrawal. Harman would see this as speculative failure: the judiciary's relation flattens the fourfold, denying objects' dignified tension—justice demands irreducible harmony, not coercive reduction.

#### 3. Critique of Correlationism and Flat Ontology: Human-Centric "Order" as Speculative Denial of Object Equality

OOO's flat ontology rejects correlationism—reality tied to human access—granting all objects equal speculative reality, free from anthropocentric scaling.

The verdict's correlationism denies equality: "disorder" scales human "intent" over object autonomy (forwards as equal entities with withdrawn digital-symbolic real). Evidentiary voids (zero ripple) expose the denial: the prosecutor's admission correlates doubt to human error, veiling non-human objects (platforms' flux). The 20-month sentence anthropocentrically scales punishment, as selective unpunished shares flatten ontology's equality. Harman would affirm speculative resistance: Chen's dormant account withdraws equally, a flat trace beyond correlation—OOO's dignity endures, unscaled.

#### Conclusion: Harman's Lens on the Case—A Relational Veil Over Withdrawn Dignity

From Graham Harman's OOO, the Chen Jingyuan case is a veiled withdrawal: reduced objects lose fourfold harmony, correlationism denies flat equality, speculative autonomy eclipsed by capture. As of October 25, 2025, no retrial or exoneration has occurred; Chen's account remains dormant, its quiet a withdrawn object's speculative dignity. This case cautions: relations tempt mastery—honor withdrawal, or reality recedes. As Harman objectified, "Objects are not what we think, but what thinks us"—may justice yet speculate their real.