Skip to main content

The metaphysics of paradox?

I'm signing a contract with the Edinburgh University Press to publish the book I called Deictic Absolutes in the Speculative Realism series. They want to change the title of the book and name it Indexicalism: The Metaphysics of Paradox. I'm not yet fully sure. I copy here the table of contents:

Table of Contents

Introduction: Reality and speculation

Speculative realism and the Great Outdoors
Totality and speculation
Other dialogues
The paradox of deictic speculation

1. Indexicalism: a paradoxico-metaphysics

Indexicalism
Paradoxico-metaphysics
The routes to indexicalism (and paradox)
Situated metaphysics
Monadologies
Totality
Demonstratives and proper names
Tense realism and baroque realism
Horizon
Measurement
Exteriority and externalism
Proximity
Object-oriented
Tentacular thinking

2. The metaphysics of the others
The others
The φύσις of the others
Perspectivism
The metaphysics of the others at the age of the correlate
Meillassoux
After speculation
The priority of the others
The interrupted nexus
Process metaphysics of the others
Robinsonology and transcendental xenology
From the Other to the Great Outdoors
Perception and supplement

3. The hospitality of perception
Doors of perception
Hospitality and the Given
The complexities of receptivity
Importance and supplement
Perceiving is responding
Metaphysical empiricism
Pan-perceptualism
Proximity, conversation and experience
Deictic absolutes

Coda: The circumscription of Potosí
Epistemic abundance
The Potosí principled
Ch'ixi
Being up for grabs
Absolutely situated

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Giving Birth

This is a month of giving birth: 1. On the first day of the month (my birthday) I sent out my book BUG (Being Up for Grabs) to publisher. A birth-giving moment. 2. On the forth, we started the Journal, called Journal of Questions. It is a Jabèsian and Jarryian endeavor that intends to reflect in many languages about the gaps between thought and translation. It will be available soon. 3. On the 10th, day before yesterday, offspring Devrim A. B. was born. Her name means revolution in Turkish and is a roughly common name. She's very attentive and concentrated - especially on her own fingers that she learned to molest in her youth during her womb months. She was gestated together with BUG. Hope the world enjoys.

My responses to (some) talks in the Book Symposium

Indexicalism is out: l https://edinburghuniversitypress.com/book-indexicalism.html   The book symposium took place two weeks ago with talks by Sofya Gevorkyan/Carlos Segovia, Paul Livingston, Gerson Brea, Steven Shaviro, Chris RayAlexander, Janina Moninska, Germán Prosperi, Gabriela Lafetá, Andrea Vidal, Elzahrã Osman, Graham Harman, Charles Johns, Jon Cogburn, Otavio Maciel, Aha Else, JP Caron, Michel Weber and John Bova. My very preliminary response to some of their talks about the book follows. (Texts will appear in a special issue of Cosmos & History soon). RESPONSES : ON SAYING PARADOXICAL THINGS Hilan Bensusan First of all, I want to thank everyone for their contributions. You all created a network of discussions that made the book worth publishing. Thanks. Response to Shaviro: To engage in a general account of how things are is to risk paradox. Totality, with its different figures including the impersonal one that enables a symmetrical view from nowhere

Hunky, Gunky and Junky - all Funky Metaphysics

Been reading Bohn's recent papers on the possibility of junky worlds (and therefore of hunky worlds as hunky worlds are those that are gunky and junky - quite funky, as I said in the other post). He cites Whitehead (process philosophy tends to go hunky) but also Leibniz in his company - he wouldn't take up gunk as he believed in monads but would accept junky worlds (where everything that exists is a part of something). Bohn quotes Leibniz in On Nature Itself «For, although there are atoms of substance, namely monads, which lack parts, there are no atoms of bulk, that is, atoms of the least possible extension, nor are there any ultimate elements, since a continuum cannot be composed out of points. In just the same way, there is nothing greatest in bulk nor infinite in extension, even if there is always something bigger than anything else, though there is a being greatest in the intensity of its perfection, that is, a being infinite in power.» And New Essays: ... for there is ne