“Its alright to have faith in God but… ..:.” –Bad Religion
I guess that lead is a little too confrontive for alot of readers. Oh well…
Find a certain correlation in the situation of three. Of course the issue is of the two; Real philosophical speculation in recognition of the void occupies as it is involved with the two. Alain Badiou in “Being and Event” does an excellent job at describing the issue at hand; the void, the passing through the one, into or becoming the multiple.
Yet I find that the one is most often avoided; conventional philosophy likes to use the void as a ground upon which multiples of one’s exist. Thereby the one is always avoided in the positing of multiple has its foundation. The one is never explored; it is only postulated upon by conventional science such as psychology and the like. And this is the same situation by which the noted speculative realisms came about. If we look closely at what they have to say they’re merely jumping over the one; the irony of Graham Harmon and his OOP is that while he’s talking about objects, universal or real objects, he is in much of the same moment speaking of the one; but of course we have to wonder if he even recognizes this because he is so involved now it seems with architecture and art which is particularly in and pervasively of the real multiple.
The one has been avoided because all marginalized voices are kept in their margin by institutional maxims of multitudinous primacy.
We might begin our investigation of the one through the triune, and see in this all religious postures reflected, including the ideological postures of politics, economics, and like real objective social identifiers. By the proposal of this model, we might see as other people have (Hegel?) the principle of the excluded middle at work; which in this proposal is the Hermaphrodite. With the exclusion of the middle we are allowed then to have real estimations which then may be designated as the demonic. It is not difficult to see in the exchange of multitudinous real aspects and entities the chaotic and frenzied hells of historical (at least some Western) religious ideal. It is through this excluded middle, through the routing of the meaning of the one through the foundation of the multiple, that we find the free agent, the modern individual, which is the agent of transcendence.
It is thus also not difficult to see how the Abrahamic forms of monotheism might be considered to be a sort of rational culmination of reflective religious thought; even while we may question what the notions of ‘rational’ and ‘reflective’ mean, by doing so we have nearly reified that there is a free agent and of reality and have done nothing to approach the one.
To thereby be able to make a comment and or criticism about what we call the continental philosophical tradition, we have to first be honest so as to be able to approach from what François Laruelle calls “the whole”. To bring an analogy; we should no longer simply use the tool, which is for speculative purposes the tool of transcendence (even if we call it immanence), but rather talk about and investigate how the tool is fashioned, what goes in to creating the tool, The dimensions of the tool, various forces that maybe enacted with the tool, and like considerations.
The significance of the speculative real Ideal is not so much that we can have another way of critiquing or talking about real things; it is that the very idea that we call or have called ‘speculative realism’ evidences the fault of the using of the tool. It, if I can use a generalize term, exposes its own fallacy by the continuation of using the method and that has been found to lead to nothing, and thereby requires a divestiture of resources if we are ever to get back to the thing in itself.
But what this means is that the way we come to terms with this incorrection is at issue. The speculative realist, it would appear, would have it that we just get to jump over into the new paradigms through theoretical gymnastics; but this approach gets nowhere as many found in the past 10 years or so, as they were disillusioned with the promise that speculative realism seemed to show.
The institution of this triune aspect in Christian terms is of course the Trinity. Here the triune is Front loaded for reality. With this frontloading then religion precipitates out from itself to thereby be able to have institutions and belief in different cultures and such; the void erupts into multiplicity. The enclosure that is the triune human consciousness (the structure of meaning) cannot have itself enclosed in meaning, which is to say, for meaning, we must believe in our investments. So if such a realization were ever to occur, it would have to occur with respect to the thinking center that maintains its sovereignty as the’ invisible partner’, so to speak. The realization, in certain conditions, could then be found through the projection of the idea upon the universal screen, such that the triune nature of the effective consciousness becomes the Trinity of the Christian religion: The invisible partner thus becomes God, and man becomes God’s creation that is expelled from some prior state due to an infraction of the created upon the (correctly judged) creator. The inclusive state, the hermaphrodite, is excluded, and compelled by its longing against the lost state into that state which is to be gained through the proper adherence to the mandates of the (now) God-creator: Heaven, where all is right and good and justly situated in perfect harmony, past, present, future equals eternity. The demonic is cast with reference to the transcendental circle of return that is never gained in is recurrence, this perfection always projected, countered in the chaotic hell of misery and mayhem. The human being ‘departed’ from itself and the universal operation, becomes that nether-ground, that space of free agency, where a choice is made upon real investment.
The divestiture erupts into the multiple. So further: God becomes that transcendent element with which can occur imminently in our lives, and Jesus that aspect which undertakes chaos by which to return the free agent to perfection. Then in Christianity we have the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost is often described as that aspect or that spiritual element that is involved with getting people to believe; The Holy Ghost is that thing that comes from somewhere else that moves us in whatever way such that we believe in God and God’s ordination for reality. In a manner of speaking it is that which allows for the coordination of chaos, The order from chaos. This order is then the proclamation or Commandments of the Godhead. In a redundant motion Christianity obscures it’s redundancy and makes linear the cyclic motion of redundancy, by proclaiming that which is intuitively gained must be a real and natural order of things. It likewise prohibits a further reflection upon the situation that is given. It there by detracts from itself, extracts a self from its self to thereby reach the excluded middle through duality. We have therefore all the dualistic ordinations; self other, subject object, transcendence imminence, in fact every structural coordination by which reality becomes apparent.
In fact all of reality is apparent through this structured duality even as it might attempt to deconstruct such dual structures into multiplicities. This aspect or feature is what we call correlationalism. It cannot be escaped from; it is real, and is the description as a term for the limit of reality. Insomuch as reality has been taken to have a certain potential for identity within knowledge, thereby do we have discussions about how we may rationally either incorporate deal with or escape this correlate of reality. But the problem is always based in the foundational multiple, it is based in the notion that discourse occurs along a stratified and ubiquitous plane where in we find our human being. In the effervescence that seems to always see in such philosophical discourse of lack or something that’s missing, some philosophers have decided to call this reoccurrence of lack ‘void’; but again often enough this type of argument is merely arguing from what is distant toward what is intimate, which is to say from the thinking subject to the object it’s appropriation. This may seem counterintuitive, but it is indeed the centrist subject that allows for such theoretical distancing, and indeed accounts for the speculative realist proposal upon objects. But in every case we see that the usual route of appropriation is from the multiple back towards the subject, which is then the free thinking individual considering such discourses: Redundancy defined.
We thus can have a more thorough meaning of ‘orientation upon objects’. It is thus not another attempt at reconciling various assorted (multiple) real-truths; indeed in his ‘Alien Theory’ Ray Brassier takes the tack of assuming that not only there is a common reality, but that what Laruelle is talking about can be explained sufficiently enough so that people can understand it (a sufficiency of non-philosophical non-sufficiency???)
-aside- As I have said, Laruelle is also guilty of this move that apparently and most probably defies his proposal of a unilateral duality. This move, that I call a move a bad faith, is founded in a type of certainty that what is being spoken about or written about inherently contains or reflects of itself a universal capacity to be understood by everyone through the potential given through the conventional institution that we call education. One is left to wonder of the notion of a unilateral duality has any substance beyond the concept, and should be led directly into Kierkegaard’s question of whether or not there is a teleological suspension of the ethical, or if this question too is merely a hypothetical thought experiment. For if the answer to Kierkegaard’s question is ‘no’, then we have already decided upon the potential involved in the stratified ontology of the human being who can commune with outside sources. Yet, if we can answer ‘yes’ to his question, then Kierkegaard’s, as well as Laruelle’s, discussions take on a whole new dynamic, and in the end we are left to ask why Laruelle, outside of a Zen approach to the platitudinous horizon of inclusivity (conflation of materialism and phenomenalism), would entertain responses to rebuttals that obviously appear as a misappropriation of his meaning. We can conclude, then, that every universal occurrence accords with his proposal. If this be the case, then anyone who would claim to be able to understand him, and thus reference this understanding through deferential use of his terms would thereby be in contradiction to the meaning of Laruelle’s purported state; this contradiction then could only be countered by a religious disposition involving Laruelle’s works, as his works would then be used in a fashion by these so knowledgeable individuals not dissimilar to theological dogma.
This is all to say that I disagree with the dogmatic appropriation of Laruelle’s works, and that the effort which Laruelle is involved with (his bad faith), the contradiction of his meaning with his effort, evidences thus an historical mark, albeit a specifically conventional one. I would even dare to say that if Laruelle could ever find to read my proposal, he would agree with my appraisal of the situation.
By contrast, I purport, in a manner of speaking, that a manner can be developed that will be able to address and expose the content of the excluded middle. The manner that this can be accomplished cannot thereby be another assertion for reconciliation, not another conventional move that assumes upon a common ontological human base. In fact, the only way to be able to talk about what is excluded is, 1) to be honest, 2) take the meaning of the historical philosophical tradition without subjective exception, 3) erect a meaningful partition. This is all to say, take the ‘whole’ to mean an actual, rather than a theoretical, whole. It is not perfection and it is not chaos; these are polemical realities allowed through the excluded middle. It is exactly ‘ordered-chaos’, the position where contingency, whether is be allowed through a transcendent clause or through a random unknown, disappears, and the ontological order precipitates out to its teleological sufficiency, to thereby reveal a different teleology.
We might begin to understand this ‘middle’ as the ‘un-differentiated difference’, that which includes without exception. That which then, by the acceptance that comes our of the uncompromised situation, is able to comment upon the insoluble situation of the real exception founded in the transcendental clause.
Note: I did not go into the directly Gender and sexual connations.
The idea I suppose it’s because we are dealing with definition, and not so much the definitions of definition. The idea is that there is a one and then another that there is a God in heaven who is all pure and distinct, that there is the devil who is chaotic and impure or un-pure.
This notion of course would not necessarily correspond with the gender or sexual discussion. But I’m sure there is some sort of comment that could be made similar to these lines that would concern gender and sex.