More on Accelerationism

In the spirit of Dominic Fox’s comments, I thought I would post a few thoughts about the recent discussion between Anthony Paul Smith and Pete Wolfendale.

One of the things that’s striking to me is the call, on the part of Accelerationists, for interpretive charity. I mention this not primarily because I want to protest it, nor because I want to defend a certain flippancy in responding to Accelearationism (which no doubt I could be pinned with at times), but simply to analyze it. My question, very simply, is why it is that critiques of Accelerationism seem to be received as if they were lacking in charity. Is it because the Accelerationist project is imagined as having a value such that too hasty critique of it would lead to a dismissal that would be ultimately unfortunate? (If so, in virtue of what is this value derived?) Is it because the Accelerationist project is imagined as being fundamentally right, such that critiques of it could not touch its essence but only stem from seizing on an accidental misphrasing? … Again, these are serious / honest questions – I don’t mean to phrase them in such a way that they are already read to be lacking charity.

On a related point, I wanted to clarify a bit about the nature of the critique of Accelerationism that I, at least, advance. It is, rather (perhaps too) bluntly, that it is a developmentalist project, which is to say that it is, in the narrative and possible positions it sets up, structurally complicit in the colonialism and anti-black racism that are entangled in modernity. (Perhaps this could be disentangled – I don’t think so, but in any case, given the historical reality I think the burden of demonstrating this disentanglement is on those who advance the modern project, and this means, at the very least, that critical awareness of such entanglement ought not be pathologized in advance as a kind of refusal to participate in a “positive” project of emancipation or “space of reasons.”) Read the rest of this entry »

Immanence and Hadewijch

Readers might be interested in a series of posts being written by David Driedger, who is of course a long-time participant at AUFS. Titled “Excessive Love,” they address the intersection between immanence and Hadewijch. From my understanding, there’s one post still to arrive, but Parts One, Two, Three, and Four are already up.

Is “Non” Baseless? (A Non-Philosophical Theory of Nature Book Event)

Given a book such as this, which does so much so well, to approach a response by way of summation or comprehension is to risk binding oneself to cliché or dilution. Better, perhaps, to just pick up one of the singular insights with which the book is littered. One of these insights is embedded in Smith’s analysis of Quentin Meillassoux’s critical reading of François Laruelle. Following Smith’s own incisive account, the point of this analysis is not to start another intra-philosophical war, now between Meillassoux and Laruelle. It is rather to give attention to, or to study, what it is about Laruelle’s thought that remains unthinkable by philosophy, or by the sort of work named and called for by philosophy. This is to say that Meillassoux’s misreading of Laruelle, and the critique that depends upon this misreading, can be taken as an indication of the incommensurability between standard philosophical practice and the practice of thought that is at issue under the name “Laruelle.” Read the rest of this entry »

ICYMI: Series on “Refusing Reconciliation”

Just wanted to call the attention of AUFS readers to the fact that the second post of Amaryah Shaye’s excellent series is now up over at Women in Theology. But if you haven’t already, then first check out the initial post.

“Reconciliation is antiblack and thus antichrist. It is anti-black because it requires the supersession of the black in order for its unity to be found in its white Christ. By black here, I don’t mean a particular skin color or identity, a certain vocal affectation, musical aesthetic, or capacity for rhythm (though I do mean all those things, too). Instead, I mean blackness as a radical refusal of the movement of reconciliation, and thus, of whiteness. To be black and to be made black is to take seriously the work of refusal, which is an antagonism, a thorn in the side of the sovereignty of whiteness. To be made black is not to be made other than one already is, in the sense that one must supersede the black in order to become a better whiter self or world or being. Instead, to be made black is to be undone through an encounter with an other that interrupts the logic of self-making, the logic of world-making, as supersession. To become black is to remain in instability, is to remain in solidarity together in instability. To become black is to be against the movement beyond sociality for the sake of becoming logical and reasonable. To become black is to refuse being made a something–to be and become nothing. Not because nothing is an absence or a lack of life, but precisely because nothing is the abundance and multiplicity out of which life is formed.”

 

Posted in blog posts. Comments Off

Deleuze and the Naming of God Now Available

This is just a quick announcement that my book, Deleuze and the Naming of God: Postsecularism and the Future of Immanence, is now out. Which is to say that physical copies have appeared, that it’s available on Amazon (at least in the US and the UK), and so on.

The introduction is available online. The cost of the book is rather prohibitive, as it’s being published now only in hardback. If you’re able, though, it’d be great if you could ask your library to order a copy. This might aid the eventual publishing of a paperback version. Also, EUP would no doubt distribute review copies.

Thoughts Surrounding Accelerationism

I can’t claim to have followed all of the debates surrounding the Accelerationist Manifesto (excerpts in italics in what follows). But I have remained intrigued by it—certainly intrigued enough to make my way to the accelerationist event this past weekend, given its proximity to my current location.  The duration of doing this got me thinking, in a relatively more concentrated way, about what accelerationism’s saying, but moreso about what’s being done by this saying and the attention attracted by this saying. I figured it would be worth setting down some of these thoughts. And let me say in advance, these thoughts are scattered, and no doubt they can be found to have missed some kind of nuance in accelerationism, etc.—so, these thoughts are not “just ideas,” they are just ideas. Read the rest of this entry »

Announcement: Modern European Philosophy and the Problem of Religious Language

Modern European Philosophy and the Problem of Religious Language

In Association with the Forum for European Philosophy and Royal Institute of Philosophy

Tuesday 5th November, 4.30 – 7.00

SOTA Library, 19 Abercromby Square, University of Liverpool

This workshop will explore the rich resources for analysing, theorising and interrogating religious language within the continental tradition. It marks the publication of two new books in the field, Daniel Colucciello Barber’s Deleuze and the Naming of God: Post-Secularism and the Future of Immanence (Edinburgh University Press) and Daniel Whistler’s Schelling’s Theory of Symbolic Language: Forming the System of Identity (Oxford University Press), as well as the reissue of Steven Shakespeare’s classicKierkegaard, Language and the Reality of God (Ashgate, 2001; Biblio, 2013).

The event is free and open to all. No registration is necessary, although, if possible, do let Daniel Whistler (daniel.whistler@liv.ac.uk) know of your intention to attend. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in blog posts. Comments Off
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,107 other followers