Having no talks for several months now blogging should pick up again…the Return of Metaphysics conference was the highlight of the last few months. The talks were very strong across the board and Speculative Realism (either directly or indirectly) was a constant (except for the Heidegger panel) though mostly with Meillassoux as a target for critique. It was also nice to meet some folks I had only known virtually such as Tom Sparrow and Christ Vitale. It was especially nice to meet a fellow Schellingian (Tobias) and talk naturephilosophie. Speaking of, there is a very good blog which often discusses Naturephilosophie here.
I am increasingly torn how to relate dark vitalism (which increasingly I am tempted to bracket as affect space, as a pessimistic negative philosophy in Schelling’s phrasing albeit metaphysically indexing) to the purely metaphysical core of my project, which is Schelling’s naturephilosophie expanded by engaging analytic philosophies of powers as well as other post-Kantian thinkers (esp Schopenhauer).
Reading Land’s Fanged Noumena has been isntructive in regards to this issue as the problem seems to lie in transcendental materialism and the relation between dynamism and synthesis. In the introduction transcendental materialism is that from which synthesis erupts as a kind of primary productivity (13-14)thereby making nature an unplanned synthesis (17). Here Grant’s recent statements about a totalizing synthesis in “Does Nature Stay What it is?” takes a Landian direction as the synthetic is the stratification by which nature natures.
There is a tension between Deleuzian stratoanalysis and Schellingian stufenfolge which centers on intensity – whether intensity is limited to the realm of sense or whether instensity can be an ontological distinction. How material is intensity and how ideas, as part of becoming, are the central issue. For becoming to be becoming it must be engrained with ideas, ideas as attactors and not as simulacra, but how these ideas become material and how this materiality becomes intense or crosses into sense is why Schelling utilizies intuition. But instead of intuition being a romanticized acess to being, it should be seen merely as thought thinking the indirectly ascertained imprint of non-thought on thought in thought. This form of intuition should be taken as speculative intuition – a means of thinking my thinking as coming from the unthought, the unthought being a gross estimate of the materiality of the unthought. This must be codified in terms of Schelling and not Hegel.
Filed under: Iain Hamilton Grant, Meillassoux, Schelling, Speculative Realism, transcendental materialism | 2 Comments