Laruelle and The ‘Speculative realist’? 

Is this an offhand comment about the Speculative Realists and OOO ??
You be the judge. 

(from “Christo-fiction”):

It appears to me that he suggesting that this science of which he talks about will be able to account for the ‘speculative ‘ability. Indeed, this is exactly what I will do in speaking of <a href=”https://lancek4.wordpress.com/2014/06/20/the-significant-event-part-2″>the significant event </a> and the pocket veto in reference to Graham Harman’s Object Ontology.

And actually he goes on in this chapter to address Badiou and the placement of void, but as well even   Suggest that the endeavor involves a “science of religions”. Pg33 .

Wow; he actually says “a new science of humans”. 

— is this what I’ve been saying? How did I know that? How is it that my conclusion is pretty much the same as his conclusions? How is it that he addresses the same issues that I address? And me hardly even reading a small fraction of what he’s written? 

I’ll stop going on like this, but I think the obvious answer is that somehow L and I and other people have come across a particular experience that is exceptional and not common, but is indeed significant.  

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s