Visions of Temporal Accumulation is an interesting new blog by Artxell Knaphni, who tried to enter into dialogue with Levi Bryant over the question of naturalism. Bryant first replied dogmatically and condescendingly, but when Artxell tried to debate the issues and asked for arguments his comments were accused of being « aggressive and condescending » and finally censored. In his analysis of the incident (the whole process, from encounter to censorship, took only 2 days!), Artxell points out the « evasion of the arguments », indeed the « disdain for rational argument ». He points out the contradiction between the slogan of a « democracy of objects » and the real « instinct for deception and manipulation ». He talks of the insularity and closure of Bryant’s actual practice leading to the promulgation of an illusion and the imposition of a brand.
This new instantiation of what is after all a recurrent pattern holds no surprise except for Artxell’s conclusion: « Perhaps, by practicing a thought of closure, they seek to maintain the illusion of ‘mind’ ». I think we can put this in relation with one of the aspirations of Artxell’s blog in his inaugural post After Thought? After Mind? where he asks: « Might it be possible to actually communicate a transcendence of the conceptual? ». I think this question explains why some of us were initially attracted by the pretentions of OOO to embody a non-ordinary philosophy, and why we were fairly rapidly disappointed. There is a promise of a negative theology in OOO, in the strong sense of « negative » which would take it outside onto-theology and into a non-theology and a non-philosophy, take it outside of the mind and its stratified concepts into the plurality and the flux of immanence.
My critique of OOO is not so much that it is negative theology, but that it is bad negative theology and won’t admit it. Feyerabend admits it. He says explicitly « I myself have started from what Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita said about the names of God » (CONQUEST OF ABUNDANCE, 195). He also calls his point of view a form of « mysticism with arguments », see the letter-preface to AGAINST METHOD, available online here:
http://www.kjf.ca/31-C2BOR.htm. This « mysticism with arguments » is what I have been calling « diachronic ontology ». So for me a « transcendance of the conceptual » is possible if, as Paul Feyerabend invites us, we think and act outside stable frameworks and fixed paths. This is the exact opposite of the path that OOO has chosen, where we find increasingly no mysticism and no arguments.
AGENT SWARM 
I’m not sure about the negative theology, but I’ll agree with you on Feyerbend’s diagnostic approach which does fit nicely within your conception of a diachronic ontology. I think Jon Lindblom’s excellent post on Intensive Thinking sums Brassier’s extra-conceptual realism perfectly:
http://intensivethinking.blogspot.com/2012/05/brief-summary-of-ray-brassiers-project_25.html
I have some arguments with aspects of Ray’s project, but on the whole it is a viable path and a worthy approach; as well as one that needs to be dealt with as a working and ongoing project in contemporary philosophy. Of course I believe that all aspects of these traditions both Analytica and Continental should be effectively worked through even if you disagree. Let’s face it my own neo-materialsm brings with it aspects of a dialogue with many of the major Idealists, and we still have a lot to learn from the old theological philosophers as well. One must keep an open mind toward the whole tradition. The moment you close the door on even the dead end paths one and tries to push them outside discourse is the moment that repression comes back to haunt you.
Being a irreductionist against the old materialism is a difficult process and one that has to accept an openess to what other traditions have actually discovered along the path. To be dogmatic is senseless, to expose one’s own paranoia toward the truths of those other traditions. Obviously there will always be debate and argument, but that need not deliver us to the gallows. I know most current philosophy goes against my own investment in Spinoza, Schelling, Schopenhauer, Marx, Nietzsche, Freud, Bataille, Deleuze, Land, DeLanda, etc… But hey I even enjoy your thoughts, which force me to rethink my own positions, and for that I respect your opinions. I think a philosopher like Zizek whom I respect but disagree with in his Idealism, yet not in his Marxian non-Hegelian moments is just one type of energy that is fabulous even if we agree to disagree. As you pointed out on AK’s site there are many materialists who are neither of the old shool nor deterministic in the reductionist fold of the term.
Anyway thanks for keeping us honest! 🙂
J’aimeJ’aime
Terence, « Visions of Temporal Accumulation » is offline at the moment. I found out that the free domain, .co.cc, was not a good one, banned by Google. So am moving it to a proper domain that I have, should have used it at the start, really. Will send details when it’s running.
J’aimeJ’aime
Yes I noticed it was offline, and I was sad as I thought your blog was quite promising. Keep in touch and express yourself to the full.
J’aimeJ’aime
Terence, the blog is online again.
Your comment about larvalsubject’s « furtive shifting » was difficult to decipher, in terms of the full extent of its logical scope, although the logic itself was straightforward, once everything had been tracked. I felt that your characterisation could be applied, in a more general way, to the dogmatic tendencies that cluster around the scientific ideal. My response is here: http://visionfiction.theotechne.com/WordPress/?p=209
The new address is « visionfiction.theotechne.com », which replaces « visionfiction.co.cc ».
J’aimeJ’aime