ALEXANDER GALLOWAY AND THE NEW REALISM

by Terence Blake 1) AGAINST QUARRELATIONISM On Ale!an"er Gall#$ay%& '()a)*+e L#,*cal Err#r "Alexander Galloway, you have just been quarrelated" Such could be the conclusion to a rather depressing sequence of events on the little atoll of blogs discussing OOO and SR !"# te#pted to add S$%R, but that would not be politically correct& in the sub'tropical regions of the blogosphere( )i*e the planet Solaris, the living blogosphere confronted Alexander Galloway with his deepest and dar*est secret+ he does not *now the difference between "is" and "ought", and his recent post on the proble#s of ,ar#an"s OOO when it is subjected to political criticis# can be refuted and dis#issed by a single phrase( -ut what if Galloway"s recent "quarrelation" in fact proved the reverse. what if it proved that Galloway"s argu#ent was basically sound but of a type that #any did not see# to grasp, and gave vent to what ! once called "fire' jer*ing" the co#bination of fiery affect and *nee jer* reflex responses&( /o be honest, ! only half'li*ed Galloway"s post because, though ! was in favor of his analysis, the post itself contained a structural flaw( 0hile starting out fro# a specific text, an interview with Graha# ,ar#an and using it to s*etch out a general assess#ent of ,ar#an"s philosophy, it nevertheless slipped into tal*ing about OOO in general( /his per#itted )evi -ryant to intervene repeatedly and at length on the general the#e of+ "1y philosophy is very different fro# ,ar#an"s, and ! #a*e politics a central concern( So so#ehow ,ar#an"s philosphy is all right, after all"( -ut unfortunately Galloway included so#e general re#ar*s and even so#e personal re#ar*s about ,ar#an the e#pirical individual&( /his allowed hi# to be "quarrelated"+ despite the great quantity of co##ents, virtually none of the# had anything to do with Galloway"s critique of ,ar#an"s OOO( 2urther, the few that did engage, however indirectly, his political critique reduced it to an e#pty stereotype and accused hi# of such si#ple #ista*es as trying to derive an "ought" fro# an "is"( !n the after#ath there were several cases of the now well'crafted ",ar#an litany"( /his involves beginning by invo*ing piously ,ar#an and singing his praises, progressively #odulating into praises of )atour or Stengers or even 3elanda, or of just about anyone who is thought to be praiseworthy, and sending bac* prayers of than*s for all the grace obtained to its origin in ,ar#an"s action( All this is done of course without the slightest quotation, and by closing one"s eyes to the inco#patibility of ,ar#an"s OOO with the ideas of any of these other saintly figures( /hus by #eans of 4& a swa#p of irrelevant co##ents 5& efface#ent of Galloway"s argu#ent, which is too difficult, apparently, to argue against 6& its replace#ent with an "idiotic" stereotype, that of so#eone who is easy to refute Galloway was quarrelated into oblivion at least in the eyes of the quarrelationists&( Galloway was not in fact situating hi#self inside ,ar#an"s syste#( !f he had tried to derive an "ought" fro# an"is" inside that syste# he would have failed, because this syste# has been produced by a process of purification of his ontology really a flawed episte#ology, or ontoepiste#ology, as ,ar#an has trouble seeing the difference& of all explicit political or ethical ele#ents( !t is this gesture of purification that is precisely the proble#, and that "ought" not to be accepted if your starting point is a radical dissatisfaction with the entire global politico'econo#ic syste# good grief7 did ! just conflate two distinct objects+ the econo#y and the political syste#. ,ar#an does not have anything to say about these two very i#portant objects, and that fact of not #erely just not discussing the#, but of not having the conceptual resources to do so, because of the willful creation of a purified ontoepiste#ology, is the #ain point of Galloway"s critique( Galloway does not illegiti#ately derive, or try to derive, or require that one #ust be able to derive,

or accuse ,ar#an of not deriving an "ought" fro# an "is", he actually begins fro# an "ought"+ "to be political #eans that you have to 8start8 fro# the position of inco#patibility with the state(((the state of the situation"( /o be political in Galloway"s sense, you #ust start fro# resistance( /he valuation is there fro# the beginning, though it need not be expressed in the for# of an "ought"( 9ontra the "oughtists" who refute hi# so easily, #any valuations are not expressed outright in "oughts" but are coded into the state of the situation, and need to be #ade #anifest( /his is what Galloway does quite effectively, despite the slight rhetorical dispersion that ! co#plained about at the beginning( !t is his detractors that are guilty of a logical error in not seeing in what direction the argu#entative arrow was pointing fro# "ought" to "is" and bac* again to "ought"&( /hese detractors #ay not share Galloway"s valuations, but this fact is part of what he is saying( -y instantiating the thesis, their objections only contribute to proving its validity( -) AGAINST 'E.ULATI/E REALISM Ale!an"er Gall#$ay #n OOO%& ca0*)al*&) real*&1 "Alexander Galloway, you have just been counterfactuated"( Alexander Galloway was then subjected to the supre#e sanction+ counterfactual shrin*age( 0hen he published a su##ary of his argu#ent co#bined with an application to the case of Graha# ,ar#an"s philosophy he was given a stern warning+ he was quarrelated( /he whole affair should have stopped there, but then he recidivated and the penalty is absurdist reduction( /his is no #ere extre#e contraction on the #odel of 1onty $ython"s "su##ari:e $roust"s A la Recherche du /e#ps $erdu in 4; seconds"&( <othing is conserved of the original article+ neither the concepts, nor the argu#ents, nor even the very object of discussion( All #ention of 1eillassoux, the object of the original article, was replaced by a focus on ,ar#an( ! would not drea# of trying to su##ari:e Galloway"s article, so ! will li#it #y re#ar*s to a few disjointed co##ents on his argu#ent( 4& ! thin* it is a Good /hing that Galloway barely even #entions ,ar#an, and concentrates on -adiou and on his politically de'natured successor 1eillassoux( -adiou has co#e closest to expressing in its pure for# the episte#e that corresponds to the latest stage of capitalis#( As 1ehdi -elhaj =ace# has re#ar*ed, 1eillassoux, Garcia, and the OOOxians are #ere variants inside the set'theoretical ontology that -adiou elaborated( 5& Galloway is right to give priority to #aterial history over its ideological transcription in the theses of -adiou and of his OOO derivatives( /his is why ! call OOO a "peculation"+ an atte#pt to appropriate as their private proprietary idea what is in fact a public episte#e( /o the extent that this episte#e is hege#onic we are all OOOxygenated whether we thin* in OOOxian ter#s or not( 6& ! thin* it is a #ista*e to tal* in ter#s of "correlationis#" as if it were a valid concept( !t represents a grotesquely over'si#plified counterfactual re'writing of the history of philosophy, a sort of aha'concept for #yopic #inds that can be applied to anything and everything according to the caprice of the wielder of the ter#( >& An i#portant thesis that is only ti#idly set forward is that of the diachronicity of #athe#atics( 1athe#atics does not give us ate#poral universal truths, as !#re )a*atos in $ROO2S A<3 R?2@/A/!O<S showed quite clearly( /he contrast between diachronic and synchronic ontologies in Galloway"s ter#s between #aterialis# and realis#& is funda#ental, and e#bodies a political choice( 3iachronicity is all the way down and ! would add all the way up, affecting even our own theorising&( ;& A synchronic flat ontology does not have the resources to deal with singularity( ,u#ans are treated as just another set of co#binatory #aterial( Aalue cannot be i#ported into a totally de' valued universe( Aaluation not values& #ust be there fro# the very outset as part of the very diachronic orientation of the various processes co#prised in the world( A diachronic flat ontology authorises and encourages individuation( /his see#s to be what is i#plied in Galloway"s contrast

between "pure ontology" and the "historicity of worlds"&( 2) GALLOWAY ON THE WAY Galloway"s argu#ent rests on a presupposition that is not addressed in the various "replies" one can find( /he presupposition is that elaborating an ontology based on the disjunction of ontology and politics is already in itself a political act( ,owever this sense of politics is outside the purview of the politics elaborated inside the disjunction( /his is why one can spea* of a veritable "uncoupling" and not just a disjunction( !n 3eleu:ian ter#s the fact'value distinction is a secondary for#ation based on prior evaluations of possible #odes of existence( /his is the rationale that 3eleu:e proposes for why Spino:a"s boo* on ontology was called the ?/,!9S( Galloway #uddies these waters when he tal*s about the #oral sphere and the ethical sphere, and the afferent notions of aligned and unaligned politics, at the end( And it gets even worse with his tal* of an "absolute #oral sphere" identified with either "history" or the "social totality"( /his is a very strange way to posit an absolute, against his whole conceptual fra#ewor*, but to tergiversate over its identity( /he whole piece reads li*e a co#pro#ise between an old'fashioned 1arxist critique and a #ore sophisticated atte#pt to avoid the aporia of post'-adiousian thought( /he blog post was written after the article and shows a #ore advanced state of Galloway"s reflection( $ersonally, ! would li*e to see the article rewritten so as to e#body a #ore )aruellian and thus "non'#arxist" perspective, and to eli#inate the #ore classical #arxist ter#inology and reasoning( 1ehdi -elhaj =ace# #a*es it clear that the "great outdoors" ai#ed at by 1eillassoux can only be reached by getting out of the badiousian episte#e( /his episte#e is not invented by -adiou hi#self but by the #ove#ent of the econo#y into the pri#acy of speculation over invest#ent, and the consequent delegiti#ation of all noetic values( So whether one has read -adiou or not one is entangled in this process of disindividuation and de'singularisation( !t #ay be helpful here to co#pare )aruelle and Bi:e*()aruelle and Bi:e*, but ! thin* that Bi:e* is a so#ewhat contradictory figure in that while his syste#, li*e )aruelle"s recogni:es the hallucinatory or phantas#atic nature of the real as projected by other syste#s it falls short of applying that insight to his own freudo'lacanis#( So#ehow Bi:e* both gli#pses )aruelle"s stranger'subject and brings it under a reductive renor#ali:ing interpretation( ! tal* about this here+ http+CCterencebla*e(wordpress(co#C5D45C4DC4ECunconscious'jungians'the'theological'turn'is'an' unconscious'variant'of'the'jungian'turnC So ulti#ately Bi:e* advocates living with the politically correct phantas#, but unfortunately he regularly slips and forgets that his interpretative *ey is a phantas# too( <onetheless Bi:e* see#s on that count to have gone further than )aruelleFs philosophy !!, where he still appealed to the authority of science( ,owever he does not get to the level of )aruelleFs philosophy !!!, as he represses this awareness of the phantas# and the exposure to alterity( On the other hand, )aruelle re#ains disappointing in ter#s of explicit politics, and this is of a piece with the disappoint#ent one #ay feel with that aspect of GallowayFs text( -ernard Stiegler states the proble# #ost clearly here when he says that post'structuralis# has left so#ething i#portant unsaid or unanalysed and that despite its pro#ise has left us politically and ! would argue ethically, and even psychologically& unar#ed( !n that sense -adiou, Bi:e*, )aruelle, and Stiegler and even, though ! hate to ad#it it, ,ar#an& are part of the sa#e series of phar#ocological responses to this predica#ent, though they ta*e very different directions( 0hat re#ains to be done is the forging of the ar#s and the tools necessary for a new psychic and collective individuation( 3) ON HOMOLOGY Gall#$ay%& Ba"#(&*an Me)4#" /he proble# with Alexander Galloway"s article is that it is too ti#id( /he notion of "correlationis#" tis not to be ta*en seriously, it is a bogus elasti'concept that should be eli#inated fro# precise discourse about the history of philosophy, despite its intuitive appeal( !t is OOOxians who #a*e a #assive use of ho#ology argu#ents in their free and easy accusation of anyone and everyone as

"correlationist"( Get this can only be done by ignoring the conceptual revisions actually effected by such thin*ers( 2or exa#ple, ,eidegger #ay be called a "correlationist" though ! do not li*e the ter#& before the /urn, but certainly not after( /al* about "language is the house of being" as correlationist is just wrong, and the whole point for ,eidegger was to get away fro# the residual correlationis# of SB( And even here 3reyfus #a*es a good case for the idea that ,eidegger was a realist with regard to science( On the question of #athe#atics suddenly changing status after its integration into the #ode of production via software, ! thin* Galloway should defend the strong reading of that clai#, as can be found in 3avid -loor"s progra##e, which applies to #aths too( )atour is curiously silent on the subject of #aths, but he see#s to #e to prefer letting others #a*e the brea*throughs and then he integrates the# into his post'wittgensteinian syntheses( /his would be the place to de#arcate hi#self fro# -adiou"s clai# that the way out of the nihilist ideology, de#ocratic #aterialis#, that corresponds to capitalis# is via an appeal to ?ternal /ruths( !t is distressing to see the ignorance surrounding the uncovering and articulation of structural ho#ologies as a way of evaluating the political charge of various philosophies( -adiou hi#self has no proble# with ho#ological argu#ents and explicitly draws attention to the ho#ology of capitalist un'binding and nihilist ato#ised philosophies( 2or hi# the question is "how to get out(((of ro#aniticis#, without consenting to the nihilist sophistic whose pure present is the world #ar*et, the econo#y, and the consensual auto#atis# of capital" le cahier, Osiris 4EHE, p5II&( 9apitalis# as abstract power i#pels the #ove#ent of unbinding, revealing beings as pure #ultiples+ "that is the ineluctable effect of the universal invest#ent of the ter#s of our situation in the circulating #ove#ent of the general #onetary equivalent" 1A<!2?S/O 2OR $,!)OSO$,G, chapter on nihilis#, #y translation( <ote, all this chapter is relevant&( <othing is essentially bound or correlated to us, all is unbound or withdrawn, within the generalised co#putation of capitalis#( -adiou accepts all this( ,e is the one that argues that the disjunction of ontology and politics as -ryant puts it "the clai# that political clai#s and ontological clai#s are distinct *inds of clai#s"& is a political act with dire consequences -ryant+ "such a clai# i##ediately entails that one nihilistically endorses the capitalistic exploitation"& unless one can bring ontology under the c#n"*)*#n of an e#ancipatory politics( -ryant #a*es fun of this as if it were so#e cra:y idiosyncratic idea of Galloway"s, but -adiou actively argues for it( 2or -adiou, a generalised ato#istics of withdrawnness is nihilistic sophistry allied to cynical exploitation, unless politics is there fro# the start as a condition of a way out of this closed and sterile "atonal" world( ?ven ,ubert 3reyfus and Sean =elly, ie two ,eideggerians who are very #uch <O/ #arxists, use ho#ology argu#ents, that were put on the cognitive #ap by ,eidegger and structuralis#( /hese sorts of argu#ents are #assively present in continental philosophy and can be done well or badly( -audrillard did it brilliantly against 2oucault, and #ay even have been resposible for the ethical re' orientation of his later wor*( /he sa#e can be said for )ardreau"s critique of )yotard"s )ibidinal ?cono#y phase, which led to his ethical and political turn( 2rench thin*ers are very sensitive to this sort of objection that they #ay be reproducing #etaphysical andCor capitalist structures and presuppositiuons in the deep structure of their concepts( /hey ta*e this sort of argu#ent very seriously and thin* it i#portant( !t is one of the #ajor #otors of their conceptual evolution( 2oucaultian power is not subjectivity, nor even hu#an, nor is ,eidegger"s language or 3eleu:e and Guattari"s desire( /here is no "correlation" here( On the contrary, these concepts were elaborated very precisely to get away fro# the correlationist trap( Just saying "language is a hu#an thing so #a*ing it central is correlational" is an incredible regression, shutting one"s eyes to these thin*ers" reconceptualisations of these supposedly fa#iliar pheno#ena( /he concept of "withdrawal" is an incredible si#plification of the world that renders it co#putable, while dispensing us of the need to individuate it and ourselves with it( ! say no withdrawal without abundance 2eyerabend"s concept&( K0ithdrawalL is tied to a co#putational understanding of -eing( /he sensual object, being Kutter

sha#L ,ar#an, /,? /,!R3 /A-)?, I&, is de'valorised ontologically in favour of the real object that is purely intelligible( So abstractions are given pri#acy over what #a*es a difference in our lives( ! thin* KwithdrawalL is one of those at first glance intuitively appealing but ulti#ately incoherent concepts that ,ar#an tries to found his philosophy on( /he co#putational understanding of -eing is the understanding that originates with 3escartes and renders possible the various specific co#putational disciplines that exist today( !t is the hege#ony of the KcountL( /his is what de'valorises the sensual qualities to #ere secondary status ( ,ar#anFs real objects are not sensible but only intelligible in the sense that they can be objects of our intellection( ! have thus argued that they are transcendent abstractions un*owable and untouchable, says ,ar#an&( 2or the ,o#eric understanding things do not withdraw, argue both 3reyfus and 2eyerabend( 2or 1elville, once again things do not universally withdraw but abound, argue both 3reyfus and 3eleu:e, though there is progress co#pared to ,o#er in that 1elville as exe#plar of the pluralist paradig#& does #a*e roo# for withdrawal as well( /he set theory references are tied to a detailed argu#entation by -adiou in -?!<G A<3 ?A?</ on the role of set theory as an ontology of the pure #ultiple( -adiou see#s to consider post'cantorian set theory as the #ost acco#plished for#ulation of what was i#plicit in the 9artesian pri#acy of the co#puto( ! however ta*e a #ore 0ittgensteinian line and thin* that even #athe#atics is constructive in nature and not so#e eternal real# waiting to be discovered( 5) GALLOWAY%S 6.ON7USIONISM6 ! a# in fact very critical of GallowayFs article, finding it confused and chaotic( !t presupposes too #uch, and Galloway hi#self has not been willing to do the pedagogical wor* of filling in the bac*ground necessary to at least let one understand what the presuppositions are, even if one does not agree with the#( ! have ta*en up the rather than*less tas* of explicating so#e of these presuppositions, but only because so#e of the critiques see#ed to #e to be deliberately obfuscating the#( One cannot do everything in an article, one is forced to presuppose #any things, and so one has to build on the shoulders of oneFs predecessors( So ! would say that the allusion to -adiou is the first trac* to ta*e up( 0ithout going in to the #assive detail of -?!<G A<3 ?A?</, we #ay turn to the so#ewhat shorter 1A<!2?S/O 2OR $,!)OSO$,G( !n chapter ; -adiou explicitly ac*nowledges the ho#ology, or identity of structure, between capitalis# and set theory( !t is not a question of whether capitalis# is #a*ing use of set theory or not, in both cases capitalis# is or approaches as its li#it, the abstract #anipulation of interchangeable ele#ents, that are treated as pure quantitative #ultiples whose qualitative aspects can be brac*eted out as such, although they can be factored into the capitalist co#putation as giving rise to diverse for#s of extraction of value( 1any people ta*e this view of the progression fro# invest#ent'oriented to speculative capitalis#, and find it a horrifying prospect( So they wish to elaborate a philosophy with an e#ancipatory potential( <ow as you can see we are dealing with philosophy at a very high level of abstraction and, ! would add of self'reflexivity( -adiou thin*s that his philosophy is in danger of reflecting the sa#e structure as capitalis# and he finds that very worriso#e( /he idea is that you will not be able to propose any real change if the very structure of your theory reproduces the structure of that which you want to change( ,ence -adiouFs extre#e care in including and accounting for the ?vent in his ontology( And also for the possibility of politics as event, and not just as the #anage#ent of #ultiplicities( /his necessity of including politics in the very fabric of his ontology is for -adiou itself a political necessity( And the disjunction of politics and ontology affir#ed by OOO is in -adiousian eyes a political gesture in itself, and a very questionable one( So nothing hangs on whether set theory or any specific progra##ing language is actually used in any specific capitalist endeavour( @nfortunately Galloway #uddied these waters by #ixing in a

very interesting co#parison of OOO and object'oriented progra##ing( /his is at a #uch lower level of abstraction than the general argu#ent and #uch #ore e#pirical in nature( !t leaves open replies li*e Java is not used as #uch as so#e other language for exa#ple, and these replies #iss the general argu#ent altogether( ! thin* Galloway went out on a li#b unnecessarily, putting so #uch e#phasis on object'oriented progra##ing as opposed to other sorts of progra##ing languages( /he general argu#ent does not rely on this strand, which has the status only of an interesting or a#using instantion of the general idea that software is #ath and that capitalis# is now, to a large extent, #aterialised #ath( /he ter# of Kho#ologyL is in fact too wea*, we are tal*ing about an identity of structure instantiating itself in different ways( -adiou hi#self accepts this identity, or Kho#ologyL, and is very worried about it(the whole architecture of his philosophy is based on assu#ing and overco#ing that ho#ology by adding to his ontology of pure #ultiples an ontology of the ?vent( /he ?vent is what is non'ho#ologous to capitalis# and it is the *eystone to his political ontology( !n conclusion, there is so#e conceptual confusion in the article and that there is a lac* of pedagogy in its presentation and in GallowayFs follow'up( ,owever, the #ain argu#ent is untouched by his critics( As so#e of the# clai# to have read -adiou but si#ilar argu#ents can be found in 3eleu:e and Guattari, and in -ernard Stiegler& ! thin* that so#e of these people are pandering in bad faith to the bewilder#ent of people who have not gone through the pedagogy of 9ontinental $hilosophy and so wonder where so#e of Galloway"s affir#ations are co#ing fro#( 'OSTS.RI'T 8 LET%S MA9E MORE BADIOUS Marke)*n, 1e)a04y&*c& *n )4e e0#c4 #: &0ec(la)*+e ca0*)al*&1 ! do not believe that a historical epoch is characterised by one episte#e to the exclusion of all other ways of perceiving, thin*ing, and being in the world( /he present is #ore co#plex and #ore #ultiple than this #onist vision of the episte#e #ay suggest( /here are also relics and re#ainders of past episte#es, ger#inal s*etches of episte#es to co#e, parallel episte#es developping and deploying their rMgi#es of perception and of practice nearly unperturbed by the transfor#ations and sedi#entations occurring around their field of influence( Get one episte#e #ay co#e to e#body and to dictate, to reflect and to reinforce, the do#inant self'understanding of an age( Such an episte#e #ay co#e to expression in pure or distorted for#, or it #ay lead a #ore obscure, unstated and unperceived, but nonetheless potent existence beneath the threshold of awareness or *nowledge( -adiou states in its purest, #ost general for# the speculative #etaphysics that corresponds to the currently do#inant episte#e( @nfortunately, his philosophy is a #ere #a*e'do co#pro#ise bridging the gap between his great pluralist predecessors 3eleu:e, )yotard, 2oucault, 3errida& and the pluralist wave )aruelle, )atour, Stiegler& that has already succeeded hi# without hi# or his followers even noticing( -adiouFs ontology is not a new start but a spatialising recuperation of the attain#ents of the previous philosophical generation( Spatialised pluralis#, synchronic pluralis#, is a caricature of what has gone before, yet conserves even in reduced for# so#e of its conceptual de#ands and so#e of its vitality( -ut even here -adiou was obliged to co#plete his synchronic ontology and episte#ology& with a diachronic supple#ent, in his doctrine of the event( Speculative #etaphysics is bac*, we are told by so#e co##entators( -ut in fact it never left us( -e that as it #ay, the new speculative experi#ents and reseach progra##es #ust choose either to align the#selves at least i#plicitly with the -adiousian paradig# this is de facto the OOOxian choice as it generates naturalised, lacanian, #achinic, de'politicised, de'scientised, or #ore si#ply KartisticL and KliteraryL variants of the sa#e general #eta'ontology&( Or they #ust confront the #ore radical pluralis# of )aruelle, )atour, and Stiegler, and leave behind the new confor#is# that the OOOxian version of -adiousis# is trying to i#pose #ore by ru#our and #ar*eting than by actual argu#ent(

Regression and stasis are not progress, no #atter how #uch a tiny lobby #ay assure us of the contrary( /o be clear, ! do not apply the category of #ar*eting to -adiou hi#self, just the ho#ology argu#ent, which he hi#self accepts as a valid objection that needed to be answered by his doctrine of the event( ! li*e -adiouFs wor*s and ! appreciate his conceptual depth( -ut he is in regression conceptually co#pared to 3eleu:e, )yotard, and 2oucault, and even to 3errida( !t is the OOO tea# that pretend that after all the deconstruction the ti#e has co#e for a new construction, and so they present their OOO as KprogressL when it is at best stasis OOO& grafted on to regression -adiou&( 2ro# a pluralist point of view, -adiou"s syste# is flawed( !t all co#es down to the proper dosing of synchronic and diachronic di#ensions, and -adiou is too spatialising, too synchronic( ! thin* too that his holding on to )acan seriously li#its the repercussions of his pluralist ontology not only by a too li#ited understanding of the possible processes of subjectivation but also by *eeping the process of subjectivation cut off fro# the other truth procedures( ! have always favored being able to translate between philosophers such as 3eleu:e, -adiou, )yotard, 2oucault, and even )atour, to overco#e the one'sidedness that ossifies otherwise pluralist thin*ing( 3eleu:e was an ardent practitioner of such translation( /he article where 3eleu:e tries to persuade 2oucault that the correct translation of KdesireL 3eleu:e& as KpleasureL 2oucault& would allow 2oucault to see how close their thought was, is a case in point( 2oucault chose not to see the validity, or the felicity, of such a translation, which is both sad and a loss to thought( @nfortunately, 3eleu:e did not practice his translation'as'beco#ing in the case of ,eidegger, and that too is a loss to thought, there is no reason why one should have to choose between -ergson'0hitehead and ,eidegger'3errida, or between vitalis# and #athe#atis#( 3eleu:e and GuattariFs notion of the abstract #achine is that to get to the concrete abstraction as such is not the proble#( -ad abstraction or insufficient abstraction is the proble#, #a*ing us cling to a for# of concreteness that is just the e#bodi#ent of an unperceived unquestioned abstraction ta*en to be concrete( 9linging to our philosophical idiolect and ta*ing it concretely, we require everything to translated into its ter#s( 1y line of attac* is against synchronic ontology( ! defended GallowayFs writings on the "new" realists because ! thin* the ho#ology argu#ent is i#portant, but only suggestive( ! couldnFt stand the hypocrisy of those who pretended not to understand the argu#ent even though they *new better, and the s#ug inco#prehension of those who really didnFt understand it and were proud of that fact( A''ENDIX ON HARMAN%S ABSTRA.TI/E ONTOLOGY a c#10ar*&#n $*)4 Ba"*#( 1) Har1an an" )4e ne#l*beral 4y0#)4e&*& 0e have traversd a period of polarisation during which the neoliberal doxa reigned uncontested al#ost everywhere, except in a few acade#ic and para'acade#ic enclaves, where a KrefinedL or aristocratic critique was elaborated( /he philosophical result of the extenuation of this cognitive polarisation is in part the develop#ent of an abstractive and a'political& ontology of objects as legiti#ation, relay and effectuation of the neoliberal hypothesis Graha# ,ar#an&, and in part the elaboration of the subtractive ontology of #ultiples as legiti#ation, relay and effectuation of the co##unist hypothesis -adiou&( -) Tr(nca)e" 'l(ral*&1 an" D*ac4r#n*c S(00le1en) !n both -adiou and ,ar#an we have a truncated for# of pluralis#+ a synchronic ontology of objectal #ultiples where the diachronic di#ensionis added on afterwards as a supple#ent( -adiou has two ontologies grafted together -eing A<3 the event&, ,ar#an has ontologically real objects, and sha# ti#e(

2) Unreal*)y #: )*1e 2or ,ar#an ti#e is not a real relation between real objects, but rather a KsensualL relation between sensual objects, in the illusory do#ain of si#ulacra /,? /,!R3 /A-)? calls these sensual objects, i(e( the objects of co##on sense and of the sciences, Kutter sha#sL, -?))S A<3 0,!S/)?S calls the# Kphanto#sL and Ksi#ulacra&( 2or -adiou ti#e in the strong sense belongs to the event in the na#ing intervention, and there also, as for ,ar#an, see#s to be dependent, at least in part, on subjectivity( 3) S(r:ace 'l(ral*&1 an" O+erc#"*n, M#n*&1 /here is also a #onis# which co#es to overcode this ontological pluralis#, at both the ontological and the episte#ological level( At the #aterial or sensual level we have #ultiples of #ultiples or plural objects, prehended in #ultiple *nowledges( At the for#al or #eta'level we have transcendental restrictive categorisation and the pri#acy of philosophical intellection( 5) On)#l#,*cal M#n*&1 2or ,ar#an the real is a unique and separate do#ain, real objects are KwithdrawnLN the objects of co##on sense, of the hu#anities and of the sciences are pure si#ulacra( 2or -adiou the real is the non'qualified #athe#atical #ultiple, and the objects of co##on sense, but also of the sciences and of the Khu#anitiesL, are constructed out of these #ultiples it is to be noted, and this signals an i#portant difference between -adiouFs and ,ar#anFs syste#s, that for -adiou these constructed objects are not necessarily si#ulacra, nor is *nowledge of the# necessarily sha#&( !n both cases there is ontological pri#acy of one do#ain placed over and above the others( 2or -adiou the unqualified do#ain of #ultiples of #ultiples has pri#acy and so 1athe#atics is ontology( 2or ,ar#an the do#ain of real objects is unqualified in ter#s of *nowable co##on sense or scientific properties, even if it is qualified in ter#s of its own nou#enal properties( ;) E0*&)e1#l#,*cal M#n*&1 2or ,ar#an co##on sense and scientific *nowledge do not accede to the reality of objects, the only possible *nowledge is indirect and appertains to philosophical intellection or to the arts under the control of object'oriented ontology, which dissipates the ontological and episte#ological illusions, such as the naturalist prejudice and the scientistic prejudice( Si#ilarly, for -adiou, to each do#ain there corresponds a generic and paradig#atic truth'procedure #athe#e, poe#, political invention, love&( $hilosophy in -adiouFs syste# is not itself a truth procedure, but serves to asse#ble the truths of an epoch and to enounce the co##on configuration of the paradig#atic procedures of the conjuncture and also to dissipate the prejudices resultng fro# the suture of philosophy to just one of these truth'do#ains( -adiou here is again #ore pluralist than ,ar#an, as he recognises the existence of four truth'do#ains, and not just one( <) T4e "ecl*ne #: Har1an=& ab&)rac)*+e #n)#l#,y an" Ba"*#(=& &(b)rac)*+e #n)#l#,y Abstractive and subtractive ontologies are in regression co#pared to the pluralist philosophies of their predecessors( /hey are the co#ple#entary representatives a politicised co##unist version in -adiouFs case, a Kde'politicisedL neoliberal version in that of ,ar#an& of truncated pluralis#, the synchronic shadow of the diachronic ontologies that they ape without being able to rival in their force of thought( >) Har1an=& Ba"*#(&*an*&1 Ma)er*ally 'l(ral*&)? 7#r1ally M#n*&) ,ar#anFs OOO is a specific variant within the general paradig# set out by -adiouFs philosophy( /he ter#inological differences are i#portant( -adiou spea*s in ter#s of #ultiples and events, ,ar#anin ter#s of objects( -adiou explicitly e#phasises the pluralist aspect of his ontology by the choice of the ontologically basic ter# of K#ultiplesL and #anages to #a*e roo# for ti#e and change events&, even if he gives the# a secondary place in his ontology( ,ar#an prefers the #ore unitary ter# of KobjectL, and consigns ti#e and change to the real# of the KsensualL, i(e( of sha#s and si#ulacra(

@) Har1an%& real1 #: real #bAec)& *& a "e8B(al*:*e" an" "e8B(an)*:*e" +#*" 3espite starting out fro# a paradig# that finds its #ost developped for#ulation in -adiouFs set theoreticis#, ,ar#an has consistently adulterated this -adiousian subtention( All truth'procedures are declared to be reductionist and to produce ideological phantas#s( !n -?))S A<3 0,!S/)?S ,ar#an declares ti#es that explaining things in ter#s of #athe#atical structures is reductionist( /hus, his real objects are neither qualitatively distinct in ter#s of e#pirical predicates belonging to the phantas#atic real#s of co##on sense, the hu#anities, the sciences, and even #athe#atics&, nor are they nu#erically or quantitatively distinct as #athe#atics is itself a reductionist phantas#&( So ,ar#anFs real real# is a de'qualified and de'quantified void( 1C) Har1an%& OOO e&#)er*c an" e!#)er*c ,ar#anFs OOO is split into an esoteric and an exoteric version( /he esoteric version is the arid, abstract, de'qualified and de'quantified void, where no exa#ples can be given, and the concepts are e#pty #eta'concepts awaiting yet forbidding instantiation( /he outer face of OOO is one or another forbidden& instantiation, providing exa#ples that can appeal to various audiences or targeted publics( /his is why ,ar#an never replies to criticis#s but just repeats the basic principles and #oves on to a new venue to propose yet another iteration of the syste#, counting on the intuitive appeal of that iteration to produce a shoc* of recognition( .#ncl(&*#n e10*r*c*&1 #: )4e &(bAec)? *"eal*&1 #: )4e c#nce0) ! thin* with 3eleu:e that philosophy concepts& is tied to non'philosophy affects and percepts& in specific #odes of subjectivation that get disciplined by all sorts of structures, codes and stereotypes( ,ar#an"s OOO, with its dichoto#y between real objects and sensual sha#s, puts obstacles in the way of such an interaction, and is equivalent to what -adiou has denounced under the na#e of Kde#ocratic #aterialis#L+ a de'conceptualised subjectivation for the people, and a de'subjectivised functional conceptuality for its #anagers(