Bakker is caught in a picture drawn on the basis of the bifurcation of subject and object and of the consequent quest for certainty. This quest fails, and messiness or disorder can no longer be seen as obstacles to cognition or to meta-cognition but as active facilitators of them. This is the lesson of Michel Serres’ THE PARASITE, amongst many other works that Bakker « refutes » so glibly with his repetitive scientistic mantras. Bakker has no idea of the paradigm change that makes disorder and uncertainty, in other words « error », into key components of knowledge.
Anyone who posits some form of efficacy or constraint outside the natural order on the basis of some kind of interpretation of ‘experience’ has the same argumentative burden to discharge: How do you know? What justifies such an extraordinary (supernatural) posit?…What makes the question so pressing now is that their instrument, reflection, has finally found itself on the coroner’s table. -R. Scott Baker
There is nothing « outside » the natural order. In this sense, I am opposed to the transcendentalist’s move to remove Reason or the reflective understanding from physical reality. There is indeed a supernaturalist residue in much transcendental and phenomenological philosophy. This is why my project has always been to theorize « the natural order » as itself always already creative, aesthetic, interpretational, experiential (mine is a naturalized transcendental (Schelling’s « Nature is a priori »)). There is no « other » world from which the causal efficacy of our world derives. With our universe…
Voir l’article original 933 mots de plus