My problem with ALL THINGS SHINING is that it is not pluralist enough and that this is due to its heideggerian foundations. I have begun to read Steven Shaviro’s « WITHOUT CRITERIA » and he begins with a comparison between Heidegger and Whitehead. He considers 8 points of difference: beginnings, history of philosophy, metaphysics, language, style, technology, representation, and subjectivity. Sometimes he is unfair, but his list does capture a difference of tonality that may help to explain both my enthusiasm for and my dissatisfaction with ATS.
A preliminary sketch of Shaviro’s comparison can be found at his blog The Pinocchio Theory: http://www.shaviro.com/Blog/?p=342 .
1)Beginnings: Retrieval vs Production
Heidegger begins with the endeavour « to raise anew the question of the meaning of Being » , Whitehead is not concerned with retrieving the past but with the production of novelty. Dreyfus and Kelly repeat this nostalgic orientation towards the past in their slogan « luring back the gods ». The « luring back » is a monist gesture strangely inconsistent with the pluralist gesture of opening out to « gods ». It is monist because it violates the notion of incommensurability that they so timidly construct to describe the radical difference between understandings of being and then undo by postulating a continuity within the background assured by the presence of marginal practices that correspond to other understandings of being.