Skip to main content

The genetics of contingency

Discussing Hamilton Grant in the Speculative Philosophy course. Comparisons between the two kinds of speculative materialisms (his and Meillassoux's) were the high points. Hamilton Grant makes use of Schelling's Unbedingt (unconditioned, but maybe also "unthinged" - which points at the pre-aristolelic anti-somatist physics that Schelling wants to usher in, a physics where bodies are not assumed to be the starting point but the question of how to fold up matter into bodies is part of the endeavour). The Unbedingt is somehow like an absolute - it is not conditioned, it is not in a correlation and therefore it would not lead to any kind of metaphysics of the subjectivity (or metaphysics of the correlation). This is what makes Naturphilosophie different from process philosophy, in the former there is an unconditioned while in the latter there are no more than biconditionalities (correlations). (We were playing with words like Zweibedingt or Beidebedingt for correlation.). There is someting beyond all correlations: the history of matter, that is nature. For Schelling - and for Hamilton Grant - natural history or the physics of all could play the role of disclosing the origami of matter. This endeavour shows matter continuously in the making - and materialism has matter to be unconditioned.

How does the natural history of matter compare with the absolute contingency of Meillassoux as strategies to go beyond the correlation pale? The Unbedingt of nature is not mere facticity, it involves a genetic element. Schelling opposes history (and nature) to regularity - when there is regularity there is no history (the orbit of the stars are history only in their clinamens). History makes some foldings cheaper than others - some occurrences easier to take place. There is a genetics added to the contingency in the Hamilton Grant's absolute. I can become Genesis P. Orridge and I can grow older but the second has a lower cost of transport. Schelling introduces history to the business and that affects the notion of contingency (and that of necessity) to a considerable extent. In a sense, the absolute is contingent - in this terms: nature is Unbedingt. However, everything else depends on nature, they are correlated, bedingt, they are contingent on nature. All the foldings of matter depend on matter. Matter itself is ungrounded but bodies are grounded on matter. In other words, there is a genetics of contingency.

This genetics has to do with the generalised recaptulation account of nature that Kielmeyer wanted to extend beyond the organic. It is an account of the eternal return of the same in different shapes. Clinamens are the engine of history (and the factory of bodies). The (small) differences are the purpose of the repetition - Deleuze quotes Blood in Difference and Repetition saying that the same comes back to bring about the different. There is no regularity, there is history - and genetics. Matter is folded and the refolded, the folding is contingent but acts not on a blank slate but rather an already formed origami. This is the genetics of conditioning. Not moved by necessity, but still pointing at an absolute.


Popular posts from this blog

My responses to (some) talks in the Book Symposium

Indexicalism is out: l   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

Necropolitics and Neocameralism

It is perhaps just wishful thinking that the alt-right seemingly innovative and intrepid ideas will disappear from the scene as Trump's reign comes to an end. They have their own dynamics, but certainly the experiences of the last years, including those in the pandemics, do help to wear off their bright and attractiveness. Neocameralism, what Mencius Moldbug and Nick Land with him ushered in as a model of post-democracy that relinquish important ingredients of the human security system, is one of these projects that is proving to be too grounded in the past to have any capacity to foretell anything bright beyond the democratic rusting institutions. It is little more than necropolitics - which is itself a current post-democratic alternative. Achile Mbembe finds necropolitics in the regimes were warlords take over the state-like institutions (or mimick them)  to rule on the grounds of local security having no troubles killing or letting die whoever is in their path. Neocameralism pos