Monthly Archives: December 2011

Can we be open to and informed by the sciences without turning them into an untouchable transcendental authority? Jussi Parikka thinks that this is possible if we do not let ourselves be intimidated by epistemological reductionism, however skilfully camouflaged. Parikka’s … Continue reading →

Is Quentin Meillassoux a good guide to the history of philosophy? Meillassoux seems to think that Kantian and post-Kantian philosophy is under the sway of what he calls “correlationism”. The object oriented philosophers love to cite this model because it … Continue reading →

In a first post on the issues raised by Parikka concerning the pretentions of object-oriented ontology I expounded his worries concerning its false unification behind shared transcendent terminologies. Naxos, coming from a totlly different direction, was seen to advance the … Continue reading →

Can the individual member just stipulate his way out of an objection that is addressed to his heterogeneous group? Jussi Parikka has published a very interesting post on object oriented philosophy. He raises several questions but the answers are either … Continue reading →

In a recent post I argued that appeals to immanence cannot be reconciled with an epstemologically naïve submission to the authority of science. I was inspired by a post of Levi Bryant on Spinoza here and by two posts of … Continue reading →

Immanence for James Hillman is the element where psychological creativity can develop: “Where spirit lifts, aiming for detachment and transcendence, concern with soul immerses us in immanence” (THE MYTH OF ANALYSIS, p27) This espousal of immanence has led Hillman to … Continue reading →

Is a pluralist or an epistemological anarchist reading of Spinoza possible? Feyerabend criticises Spinoza for his epistemological and ontological arrogance in situating other human beings at a lower level of existence. The very privileging of conceptual understanding over the imagination, … Continue reading →

This is an excerpt from and prolongation of my dialogue with Naxos at Schizosophy: Strangely, I met Deleuze in 1980 and the question of epistemology came up in a confusing way. Here is my transcription from memory: Deleuze: What would … Continue reading →

Woodard criticises Rosi Braidotti for not being able to give up the “language of the subject”. (Rosi is quite capable of defending herself, but I cannot resist referring to her brilliant essay in THE FORCE OF THE VIRTUAL, where she … Continue reading →

The figure of the cyborg seems to be a continuation of Deleuze’s figure of the spiritual automaton. This is a concept that appears in the cinema books, but in fact the cinema books are not primarily about the cinema at … Continue reading →