Over all, I must stress that I’m not arguing against Meillassoux’s criticism of correlationism, just the implications many take it to have, namely, that we can return to pre-critical philosophy and breathe easy. Critique is hard work after all.

The whole issue of what precisely ‘thought’ ‘is’ is one which vexes SR as a whole. It’s the question which is just out of reach throughout all of Brassier’s Nihil Unbound, always visible in the background of his various critiquesof other thinkers. I suppose I find myself closer to Brassier than any other of the four main thinkers because I think (precisely because of his proximity to Laruelle) that he’s poised on the precipice of Critique proper, and all he needs is a little push to take it up explicitly.

BTW, I will be posting a bit more of my account of Deleuze’s metaphysics today, which although it doesn’t present a worked out theory of sense, does hint at what such a theory would involve insofar as it presents Deleuze completely non-anthropocentric theory of ‘signs’.

had a long day here in sydney! and it is still going

I am at a dissadvantage in these discussions precisely because I have not read Meillassoux’s and have only encountered the correlationist argument in Harman’s Latour book. In various places I have raised similar points trying to figure out what the purpose is of dismissing/arguing against correlationism. I guess I should read Meillassoux’s book.

Whitehead talks of conceptual prehensions and processes such as appetition being an intergration of conceptual feelings, etc.

From a Deleuzean POV the subsumption of the event to the object is exceptionally problematic. Events always exceed the object or even the ‘objectile’.

I have written on my blog before about a grammar of the machinic to try to think about a non-human ‘sense’, because our events are not the events of the cosmos or any other thing with the capacity to fold the cosmos. Deleuze would probably say (and I am probably paraphrasing something of Deleuze that I have forgotten) ‘to ask what is non-human thought is to miss the non-human of thought’. The spoeculative realists seem to miss the ‘thought’ of the non-human whenever events are subsumed to objects.

[fixed!]