Identities Journal for Politics, Gender and Culture Vol. 8 / No. 2 / Summer 2011

Ben Woodard Plotting Nature’s Havoc: Potential Realisms between Transcendental Materialism and Transcendental Dynamism

0. Introduction de-realization of the material (if it bears the capacity of transcendence and not immanence), a intellection of na- This text attempts to address how the transcendental ture that synthesizes (bordering on panpsychism) as well relates to the material (whether via realism or materi- as a unknowability that threatens to sabotage the applica- alism) comparatively between (and across) Deleuze’s bility of theory in practice. transcendental materialism, Nick Land’s commentary on transcendental synthesis and Iain Grant’s nascent Schellingian transcendental dynamism. Whereas tran- Ultimately, I wish to argue that the problem of tran- scendence and the transcendental have traditionally been scendence vis-a-vis immanence, speaks to the necessity thought as hovering high above reality, in the thinkers of regionalizing metaphysics and grounding transcen- above the transcendental is a kind of movement within dence as the ontological shift between Transcendental the material though, admittedly, the very presence of Materialism, and Transcendental Dynamism within those transcendence then questions the usefulness of the term registers or stages. Deleuze’s (and Land’s) Transcendental materialism vis-a-vis the term realism as well as tran- Materialism begins from the regime of sense and exca- scendence vis-a-vis immanence. Or put otherwise, in vates the material which is cemented in the immanent the above fields transcendence seems to operate within whereas Iain Grant’s Schellingian Transcendental immanence thereby complicating and perforating the Dynamism attempts to adhere to the progression of stages boundary between realism and materialism. (or Stufenfolge in Schelling’s parlance) as transcendence itself, which, in the real, is deduced as a series of poten- cies or powers. If thinking is to grasp being without over-determining it (as a realism), it seems necessary to materialize the tran- scendental and render the dynamic un-prethinkable yet Or, to put it yet another way, transcendence in transcenden- productive of thought. Yet, these acts cause an apparent tal materialism transcendentalizes sense into intensity, in 81 82 intuition, nor objective or pragmatic grasp of the world via intuition, norobjectiveor pragmaticgraspoftheworldvia to Kantiantranscendental categories,nortopost-Kantian thinkable. This thinkabilityisnotduetoapperception or an idealglowasthisstrange world,initsbroadview, is is anexpansivehorizon,butamaterialismimbued with materialism Their flight. of lines of rhizomatic, the plane, Deleuze (andGuattari)arethinkersofthehorizontal, the attempts havebeenmadetomakeDeleuzeintoa realist. materialism is material is easily obfuscated. Yet several he was a “pure-metaphysician,” the degree to which his of Deleuze’s widerangeyetenigmatic insistence that ences, literature, aesthetics and other realms. Because a materialist carnival that dabbles in philosophy, the sci The expansiveworkofDeleuze is atheoretical delirium, 1. and thetranscendental. it differs fromDeleuze and Land’s usesofmaterialism Grant’s Schellingian Transcendental Dynamism andhow critique of the critical project. Finally, Iwill outline Iain shows its radical difference from Kant through Lands how Nick Land expands on Deleuze’s materialism and of Brassier’s critique of it. Following this I will show I will begin by exploring Deleuze’s materialism by way ture intometaphysicalprogression. transcendence transcendentalizies the progressionofna cognition intoreason,andintranscendental dynamism, transcendental realism transcendence transcendentalizies Immanence to Transcendental Materialism Brassier andDeleuze orTranscendental Ben Woodard

Plotting Nature’s Havoc:Potential Realisms between Transcendental Materialism andTranscendental Dynamism 1 - - empiricism conscious of its realist limits. (Laruelle 2009, empiricism consciousofitsrealistlimits.(Laruelle2009, philosophy playingwithitselfbut,atitsbest,aradical thought whichisatworst,inFrançoisLaruelle’s terms, Deleuze’s philosophyistheexpansiveself-churningof that materialityistheworkofamachinicunconscious. gized sense in which materiality and the productivity of the powersofreason,butaformulationphenomenolo sensibility oftheontological aswellthe unknowns The two intertwined issues become the knowability/ becoming, andsoforth. tologcal reservoirs whichmake change, individuation, of theworld(namelyvirtualforDeLanda) theon and others Deleuze merely indexes the other worldliness of thisworldforhisrealist criticswhereforDe Landa put another way, Deleuze can be seen as being too out empiricism and sensepointstothelimitsofthought. Or, storm ofthoughtsforthe latter Deleuze’s articulation of where fortheformerDeleuze’s thought isself-sealed can bereadagainstvariousrealistreadingsofDeleuze, Laruelle’s aswellRayBrassier’s critique of Deleuze, reaching talons. bearer ofallphilosophy’s over-determining and over- not already made philosophizable. Deleuze becomes the philosophy asiftheseentities, orpacketsofdata,were reality) that isthenworkedonwiththeinstrumentsof synthesis, itsmental characterization of the real (and philosophy on the whole and its use oftranscendental François Laruelle’s condemnation of Deleuze is thatof 163-164) - - Identities Journal for Politics, Gender and Culture Vol. 8 / No. 2 / Summer 2011 ontological status of knowing and sense. The crux of of the transcendental has, as we’ve already suggested in this relation is that of transcendental materialism, and of passing via De Landa, of opening up the sub-representa- those terms in relation to one another as well as sense and tional or pre-individual. Again, following Brassier: “This knowing all of which are frequently couched within rep- pre-individual, impersonal transcendental field sought resentation. These terms are, of course, all too broad to for by Deleuze constitutes the empirically inexhaustible fully flesh out in one go, but the attempt will be made to realm of virtual singularities” which are nomadicially show how the communication and connectivity between (ibid., 57-58) distributed. them is particular to Deleuze’s philosophical work. This wide field of transcendental immanence means, in relation to our privileged terms of knowing and sense, As puts it “as far as the empirical realm is that the real becomes a philosophical singularity (ibid., concerned, the business of a genuinely critical transcen- 58) as a means of the real to think itself. (ibid., 59) The dentalism lies in articulating real conditions of ontological philosophical singularity then maps the unpresentable actuality rather than ideal conditions of epistemological reservoirs via an altogether different sense of sensibility possibility.” (Brassier 2001, 54) Brassier goes on to say provided by the great smashing of the world into onto- that the transcendental, for Deleuze, is a methodological logical univocity. Continuing through Brassier’s critique, flattening of subject and object whereby the transcenden- it is the disjunction of difference and repetition which tal is immanentized. keeps representation at bay while allowing for breaks be- tween various singularities, between what is thinking and what is being thought (ibid., 60) but this difference pre- It is here we circle back to the thoughtful horizontals supposes the presupposition of an unthinkability which is previously mentioned as the opera of Deleuzian work. in thought itself. (ibid., 65) Deleuze’s horizontality is accomplished chiefly by placing the transcendental below ground in order for it to expand It becomes necessary here to avoid the vertigo of termi- rhizomatically sideways. This planting is supplanted by nology and return to the onto-epistemological scaffolding Deleuze, again following Brassier, in Deleuze’s attack on being deployed. The problem becomes if thought is the transcendental as from the I (or subject, or thinker, or self-productive, then the unthinkable is only a byprod- from consciousness) immediately atomizes the processes uct of the process of thought expanding outwards via and powers attributed to that subject thereby eroding the the very process of thinking: “the unthinkable is at once efficacy of representation. (ibid., 55) Deleuze’s “circum- absolute limit and ground of deterritorialization ... and vention of the first person phenomenological perspective,” pre-supposition which is internally posited as unthink- Brassier argues, “effectively explodes the very kernel of able exteriority via the self-positing of thought” (ibid..) subjectivity, subverting it as its originary root by disman- which seems to simultaneously invoke qualitative differ- tling the principle of ontological individuation through ences between being and thinking while asserting their which it is constituted.” (ibid., 56) Deleuze’s atomization unity. While an obvious response would be that the being 83 84 them andastheyarein themselves.”(Brassier2008, transcendent disjunction betweenthingsasweknow manence of thisworldin such a wayasto dissolve the “Deleuze insists, itisnecessarytoabsolutize the im Tying this problem to immanence Brassier states that cesses whichallowvariousformsofthingness.(ibid., 82) is possibilityofdiscerningbetweenanythingand the pro which isultimatelya“hyleticindiscernability”where there losophy, risingfromtheseedofitsalwaysalready-ness, Thought isalreadythere,asLaruellewarnsagainst allphi Brassier yetagain: ality means inrelation to knowingorsensing. To quote actu of difference the what sense, or know, to difficult which are within the plane of immanence, it becomes dividuation requires the actual and the virtual, both of broad plane of immanence. But sincethe process ofin individuation occurring fromtheintensities within the curs betweenthevirtualandactual in theprocessof oc disjunction the where be would strafing, Deleuze’s Or, todipintoterminological vertigo,thedefenseof given thehavocofhorizontality. ficult, if not impossible, to localize the genesis of thought of theworldisthat very playofdifferences it seems dif virtual differentiation oftheactual.(ibid.,69) tiation of thevirtualimmediately impliesaco-responding a reciprocal co-implication whereby every actual differen parallelism between virtual intensity and actual extensity; alisation inscribes a circuitous loop; a relative asymmetrical individuation as sufficient reason for the virtual’s self-actu Ben Woodard

Plotting Nature’s Havoc:Potential Realisms between Transcendental Materialism andTranscendental Dynamism ------But giventhepulverization of the difference between the Juggernautofunivocity. beneath economy whole the flatten to attempts Deleuze ment to divide representation from objectivity (ibid., 2) 3) That is, whereas Kant relied on the faculty of judg these termsleadintothelimitsoftranscendental. here arenotthatofjudgement,aesthetics,andthe sublime, cifically, terms the intensity. while that reason this for is It namely intermsoftheconceptsenseand,evenmore spe lies problematicallyonthepseudo-physicalizedempirical more phenomenological(Massumi)Deleuze’s ontologyre the morerealistreadingsofDeleuze(DeLanda)and questions thelimitsofsenseinDeleuze. That is,despite tations of Kant’s structured reason yet, at the same time, it making thisthejumpingoff point for diagnosingthelimi lation betweenjudgmentandaesthetics(viathesublime) continue throughoutthispaper. NickLandengagesthere The ecstaticaestheticbindsseveralthemeswhichwill the aestheticdimension.(ibid.,17) sense tomagnifyempiricism through theunbindingof Deleuze Brassier shows,reinvigorates the function of as Again, the world? to access justifies Deleuze that it thought and being and the disabling of knowing,howis dental condition of all experience” which utilizes Ideas as dental conditionofallexperience” whichutilizesIdeasas understood inKantianterms. The virtualisthetranscen virtual. Ithinkthatthismuch-disputed conceptcanbebest ‘transcendental empiricism’ centersonhis notionofthe Deleuze andKantinthefollowingway:“Deleuze’s own Steven Shaviroinhistext Without Criteria , explicitly links , explicitlylinks ------Identities Journal for Politics, Gender and Culture Vol. 8 / No. 2 / Summer 2011 unpresentable but real, thereby avoiding both dogmatism thinkable. Given this problem it is perhaps unsurpris- and skepticism. As Shaviro argues however, there are sub- ing that one of Deleuze’s most interesting commentators stantial differences between Kant and Deleuze specifically François Zourabichvili argues that there is no the fact that Kant’s transcendence is in the realm of the of Deleuze, and that, one could argue, that Deleuze’s subjective whereas for Deleuze it is impersonal and pre- philosophy is one of sense and not unsensible metaphys- singular. (Shaviro 2009, 33-34) In an argument similar to ics. Given that, Brassier’s response following from his Land, and summing up this relation, Shaviro concludes: critique of transcendental immanence and transcenden- “the virtual is entirely distinct from the possible. If any- tal materialism outlined above, it is unsurprising that in thing, it is closer to Nietzsche’s will-to-power, or Bergson’s Brassier’s own project he seeks to exclude thought from elan vital. All of these must be understood, not as inner materiality but not by given it ahistorical a priori forms essences, but as post-Kantian ‘syntheses’ of difference: but by binding it to nothing. transcendental conditions for dynamic becoming, rather than for static being.” (ibid., 35) But what is unsatisfying here is the ground of thinking in relation to the status of material or materialism, and The obvious, perhaps even silly question here, becomes hence our interest in transcendence not as different in how does an apparatus of sense that is becoming (whether kind from immanence, of arching over materiality but be- human, non-human) senses becoming? While a common ing a modality of immanence and or ground. To this end Kantian deflection is that critics of Kant misunderstand we will engage Nick Land and Deleuze. the role of the constitutive and the normative, it does not adequately explain how the normative structures Kant in- vokes came into being but merely dismisses such questions as operating with in a form of philosophy already always 2. Land and Deleuze or Transcendental dismissed by Kant. This dismissal merely metastasizes the Materialism to Transcendental Synthesis decisional (or correlational) structure of philosophy so that not only does the critical project think thinking as the only Nick Land’s work has often been described as a hyper (or legitimate form of philosophy but also asserts that to at- mad black) Deleuzianism given Land’s nihilistic tenden- tempt a break out of the circle isn’t even philosophy yet cies (as opposed to Deleuze’s cloying positivity) and his, later moves in Kant’s own work (especially in the Opus in a sense, Deleuzian attack on Deleuze himself. I do not Postumum) suggest that he yearned for some grounding of wish to challenge this representation. Here, following the the speculative that was somehow non-structural. above remarks on Kant and Deleuze via the issue of sense, we will map how Land’s utilization of sense and synthesis further problematizes the immanence-transcendence rela- Advocating for an ontology of becoming must then tion as it crosses the connection of thinking to being as was explain the genesis of the structural that is not purely articulated above in Brassier’s critique of Deleuze. 85 86 that neededtobestaunched” (ibid.,148)naturebecomes wound flowing freely a still was nature understanding, having been domesticated by the transcendental forms of thinking as it defangs nature when he writes: “Far from Land continues to lay into Kant for restricting faculties of matter cando.”(ibid.,322) 138) “Thoughtisafunctionofthereal,something that sumed undertheexperience ofourvulnerability. (ibid., sub is sublime dynamic the specifically of sublime, the and notits excess (ibid., 137) -the generative excess of then argues speakstobeingtheverygeneration of reason that self exceeds as intuition (ibid., 135,145)whichhe Land argues that the sublime is oneformofthinking the decisional status of philosophy itself. Beyond this, (ibid., 92),whichperhapsindexesLaruelle’s critique of scendental thinking is onlyever thinking about thinking a kind ofunintentional excess (ibid., 70) andthat tran synthetic a prioriknowledge(ibid.,64)whichindexes Furthermore, LandcritiquesKantfortheconceptof McKay andRayBrassierputitintheintroduction: materiality, fromanintensivematter(ibid.,13). As Robin transcendental istheeruptionofsynthesisfromunknown that Kant’s transcendentalis“productivesynthesis”asthe Landargues 7-9) (ibid., in synthesis. interested cifically extra-philosophical fromKant(Land2011, 6)asheisspe Throughout thetextsin scendental level.(ibid.,13-14) priori conjunction of judgement and experience at thetran conjunction at the level of experiences and synthesis as a there is noreal difference between synthesis as empirical Ben Woodard

Fanged Noumena Plotting Nature’s Havoc:Potential Realisms between Transcendental Materialism andTranscendental Dynamism , Land pulls the , Landpullsthe - - - - Later onhecontinues: nal (ibid.,151),itisunplannedsynthesis.17,313) a dangeroussurplusofenergy asmaterial as itislibidi destratification.” (ibid., 28) ungrounding, nowmaterialised andoperationalised as sorb thoughtitselfwithin theprogrammeofageneralised interests ofknowledge,butproceedsinsteadtofully ab namic of critique ceases to becompromised by the transcendental Spinozism “inwhichthecorrosive dy ing bothKantandHegel)bycompleting Schelling’s of theproject of Schelling’s positivephilosophy (critiqu otherwise, Land (in an odd twist) forms a kind of urgrund but developsafarmoreDeleuzianproject.(ibid., 22)Put duction Land nominates his ownproject as Schellingian absolutism. Mackay andBrassier stateintheintro As is underevolvedalthoughtheybothentertain a fractured Land’s articulated further or defined not Schellingianism Because the fangedness or uninhibited nature of nature is critique ofthecritique. this constructivism can functionasapositivization of a ity inapositivesensebeyonditsconstructivism though materiality. It is difficult however to qualify this material thought’s capacity to beanactive materialism, a dynamic grasp onnon-thoughtbuthedoesn’t wanttodisregard which Kantattempts to override or disavowthought’s On the one handLand wishes tocritique the audacity by which depend upon projecting productive relations beyond tal synthesis, which is to say: it egresses against structures Kantian transcendental philosophy critiquestranscenden their zoneofeffectiveness. (ibid.,321) ------Identities Journal for Politics, Gender and Culture Vol. 8 / No. 2 / Summer 2011

Land’s material codification of thought moves between creative modes of thinking, kinds of thinking which leave Spinoza, Schelling and Deleuze, utilizing Schelling’s themselves open to madness in Kant’s eyes. Yet, a total dynamization of transcendence as well as Spinoza’s sub- eradication of systematization, or formalization, mate- stance falling into the intensive zero or body without rial or otherwise, complicates the structures of thought, organs functioning as the brain-dead engine of all failed whether thought and materiality can be differentiated. identity. Thinking becomes a capacity of matter itself (ibid., 172, 188) while at the same time “Matter cannot be allowed a category without being certified for ideal- While Schelling moves between mechanism and vitalism ity.” (ibid., 210) Land’s materialism moves beyond all Land feverishly runs Deleuze and Guattari’s machinic judgment while allowing all the turbulences of matter to model where both arrive at a processual nature that chews serve as paths of exploration and not instances of inhibi- and gnaws at formal solidity the difference between how tion or individuation. (ibid., 211) both thinkers relate being and thinking given a flowing nature.

The tension in Land is between the faulty utilization of philosophy as thinking itself versus the resultant materiali- Land’s strategy, borrowing from Brassier’s critique, is ty of thought becoming an expression of the material. That the materialization of critique where for Schelling it is is, Land is critical of Kant’s transcendental idealism yet it the atomization of intuition. Brassier argues that Land’s remains unclear how materialism relates to Kant’s articu- philosophy is problematic since he eschews the neces- lation of the transcendental vis-a-vis idealism and realism. sity of a noetic fall back it becomes difficult or maybe impossible, to distinguish between thoughts and things a distinction imperative for any claim to realism. Land notes and privileges Schelling’s critique of Kant’s transcendental program (ibid., 263) and expresses the importance of the inhumanization of cognition (ibid., This is further complicated by immanence in Land as a 293) opposed to transcendental philosophy as the con- kind of non-divided energy. In The Thirst for Annihilation summation of judgment. (ibid., 300) Yet this machinic Land connects immanence to time (time being that which unconscious raises the problematic of whether or not the is necessary for Schelling to maintain a heterogeneity in his atomization of subjectivity which Brassier critiques in monism). “Time,” Land writes, “is thus the ultimate ocean Land and Deleuze moves to far towards the phenomeno- of immanence, from which nothing can separate itself, and logical. (ibid., 303) in which everything loses itself irremediably.” (Land 1991, 95) Further on Land writes: “transcendent matter loses the That is, while Land rightly critiques Kant for relying on perfection of its inertia (design), and nature implodes into trans-historical categories to suppress both nature and the spasms of its own laceration.” (ibid., 96) 87 88 outline ofthisisexpressed byLandinthefollowing: materiality and caused by that materiality. The clearest by varyingqualitative difference registered within that er thatmaterial is transcendent or libidinal) is caused camp wheretheheterogeneity of amaterialism (wheth ment, LandwouldseemtofallmoreintotheSpinozist sense ifnotintheKantian sense. Followingthis argu which can be read as transcendence in the Schellingian to asensingmaterial which harborsamodal difference tracing the roots of various stratifications of intensity back into intensity, whereLand tries to reverse the formula of transcendentalmaterialism transcendentalizes sense Or, toputityet anotherway, inDeleuzethetranscendence least partiallytranslatableintothoughtorthethinkable. affect) insofarastheypresupposesomesensitivity at of sense(ortheaesthetic or judgment or forthat matter categories of intensity question the ontological validity sense isstillsensibledespitethischaotic ground. The some rawness or unthinkability to synthesis for Land, tion andtheunplanned-thatis,wheretheremightbe question becomes: Is there atension between construc this bringsupahostofotherissues.Putanotherwaythe Land’s case,areremanded to thedomain of intensity but Land’s relentless nature. The degrees of difference, in monadic individualism as thetwofallintojawsof the limitsofSchelling’sKantian holistic monismversus thinkable and intensive. It becomes difficult to determine only to self-present itself as anis-ness,orbeing, that is a body without organs, a unit of materiality that seems gence of time bringingmateriality back tozerointensity, forms then are original, they coexist with the very emer fests timewithmateriality in variousforms. Yet these The universe as time takes apart nature while nature in Ben Woodard

Plotting Nature’s Havoc:Potential Realisms between Transcendental Materialism andTranscendental Dynamism - - - - - many of the same issues ofKant’s somewhat mysterious In this,Land’s transcendental materialism struggles with heterogeneity within unity vis-a-vis the work ofreason. Deleuze andSchellingstumbles uponthepossibilityof at the cost of difference-in-itself. The difficult relation of of individual bodies within the realm of freedom) but only unity (amonismbeyondSpinozabecauseofthe capacity proto-Deleuzian faction, practices a radical conception of we willaddressinthenextsection,Schelling, ina As difference initself. ence asduetoreasonanddifference asontological, or not impossibletoregisterthedifference betweendiffer if difficult becomes self-differentiality,it as materialism But, ashasalreadybeennoted,despitetranscendental Land, allowsforonetodetect the locality of anintensity. circumvents this byappealing to sensesincefor ing it into pure consciousness. (ibid., 116) Again, Land Spinozistic substance Kantdomesticates thought byturn later Kant). ButwhereasLandlocates zero inakindof toward GermanIdealismandKant(particularly sways the ally andhorizontally. (ibid.,170)InthissenseLandagain itself, strata by whichtranscendence extends outunilater stratifies nature which by mechanism the - immanence For Landtranscendence is merely the differentiation of and fromwhicheveryseparation orisolation must drawits erything real in transcendence must abysmally participate, of) transcendence; the generative materiality in whichev but complexsourceofdifference in (intensive gradations manence buried beneath the crust ofthingsisthe common difference from indifferentiation. This isbecause the im fe a tish - which represses both indistinct immanence and the - separation petrified a of instance the is thing The force. (ibid.,196) ------Identities Journal for Politics, Gender and Culture Vol. 8 / No. 2 / Summer 2011 use of the manifold and the problem of extensity in the Hegel but also lambasts his absolute for not being able to Opus Postumum. The problem becomes that materiality properly maintain difference in itself. is intensive yet some not material register (some separa- tion or formalization) which for Deleuze and Land (and arguably Kant) is sense yet if Land wants to ground or It will be argued that Schelling’s non-sense based (yet horizontalize (or make rhizomatic) transcendence than non-Kantian) usage of the transcendental as well as materiality thinks and senses itself. Synthesis becomes Schelling’s dynamism (contra Deleuze’s immanence and auto-synthetic and there is no registerable difference be- materialism) allows for a form of realism that Deleuze’s tween thought and non-thought only a self-determined philosophy does not. meter of intensity, but this receptivity must be either fun- damentally separated from materiality (as Kant does) or self-differentiation must make a difference that is simul- Grant closes Philosophies of Nature after Schelling by ex- taneously ontological and not. amining the differences between Deleuze and Schelling specifically through the lens of dynamism as transcendental physics. (Grant 2006, 187) This physics is transcenden- This problem, I want to argue, leads one to dynamism tal as it simultaneously explains the emergence of things and not materialism as materiality does not adequately while presupposing the unity of thought and matter that is, address heterogeneity, a heterogeneity necessary which Schelling’s transcendental physics is the method by which suggests, and is required by, any kind of realism however unity explains difference. (ibid., 188) weird, heretical, or speculative that realism be. The central difference between Schelling and Deleuze is that for the former continuity is the possibility of differ- 3. Deleuze and Schelling or Transcendental ence whereas for the latter it is difference in itself, the Synthesis to Transcendental Dynamism former occurring through a self-fracturing identity. (ibid., 189) Key to this distinction is the fact that Schelling’s If Deleuze is an ontological astronaut (with Land pushing utilization of the transcendental is a form of ontological this towards the theoretical equivalent of Science Fiction regime change and not a marker of sensible intensity. Horror) then Schelling is surely an ontological archae- Furthermore, Schelling’s dynamism provides to be more ologist. Schelling is endlessly haunted by the past, by the useful than transcendental materialism simply because time before the world, by the chaotic darkness, of nature instead of receptivity and sense being separated in order as primal forces, of the absolute. As Christopher Groves to be barraged by intensive material, all things are shot points out, Deleuze’s relationship to Schelling is half through with force (ibid., 190) making them intuitable if criticisms and half praises. Groves in “The Ecstasy of not completely sensible. Grant sums up this difference in

Reason” points out that Deleuze defends Schelling from the following fashion: 89 90 342) and“there’s anecessaryasymmetry, ifyoulike, ture” (Brassier, Grant,HarmanandMeillassoux 2007, be nothinking. The priori is nature. ... Unless there were a nature there would cede concept due to the fact that, as Grant argues: “The a Dynamism mustprecedemateriality as Ideamust pre continuation, ofprocesses,powers,andsoforth. reality asthatwhichisthestoppageandsimultaneously ous urgrund (Schelling 1997, 122) one must begin to view cannot relyonagroundwithoutthehorrorof previ of construction (dialectical or otherwise) and since one formulation asavirtualmultiplicity (and Guattari).Schelling’s conceptisopposedtoDeleuze’s as generative(andpre-conceptual)patterncontraDeleuze as constructioninSchellingrelationtothePlatonicIdea nence totranscendenceaswellinregardstheconcept problem ofgroundasitmanifestsintherelationimma activity, orhowdynamismrelatestotemporality, andtothe The problemthenswingstotheoriginalforce,orcentral tions ofproductivity.” (ibid.,191) the unlimited, while limited things areinturn“approxima potentiations, determining the limited thing asapowerof transitions, whileidentity consists inpotentiations and de- contrast, the becoming of beingconsistsinpassagesand them, and those exercised upon them. For Schelling, by the balance ofpowersbetweenthoseexercised between in a struggle over the determination of sensible bodies and tithesis the unshakable vertical radiance of the solar One, subterranean multiplicity of becomings have as their an teeming the Deleuze, for first, the Concerning Idea. the of hand, the focus ofthe forces, and on the other, the nature Idea. What differs between the two accounts is onthe one ed on bothsidesbythe forces and actions of matter and For Deleuze as forSchelling, limited objects are exceed Ben Woodard prius

Plotting Nature’s Havoc:Potential Realisms between Transcendental Materialism andTranscendental Dynamism ofthinking is necessarily na 2 since it is not the act sinceitisnottheact ------entity’s) inabilitytocaptureitspreconditionsisanaspect Furthermore, Grantdemonstratesthatthought’s (orany that whatprecedesitasitsnecessaryground.”(ibid.,343) what precedes it and alwaysat the same time requires metry whichmeansthatthoughtisalwaysdifferent from between thoughtandwhatprecedesit,it’s thisasym explained solelybyitsinitial primordialprocess. well asmatter whichisdynamicyetcannotbe thing, as a not is but is which that not often is thatbeing difficulty mediary concepts.(Schelling 1997,150)Itisdue to this inter onto hold to philosophy of inability the to difficult it asbeing(conceptual being). Schelling connects this and thedynamicexceeding matter or beingasweknow by non-conceptual due toboththelimit of the concept Matter (and/orbeing)iscomprisedofforcesand is there (Schelling 2007a,143) as little of acapacity as thereissomethingofabeing.” and completely objective being, inwhichthereisjust it isthecapacity tobe.Indeed,itis “Being, therefore,isimmediately, justasmuchbeing in thatithasnotyetbecome thebeingthat it already is: tours ofthistrouble.Beingisthepotency to bebutnot Grounding of Positive Philosophy Schelling’s somewhat turgid discussionofbeing in the possibilityofrealismasitrelatestobeingpotency. and philosophy of trajectory the for ramifications serious thought) isthoroughlynaturalizedaspartofnature,have as thatthetranscendental(themostextensivecapacityof there issomethingpriortothought(natureas of natureandnotonlythought.Schelling’s suggestionthat demonstrates the con pure being, entirely prius ) as well ) aswell The - - - - Identities Journal for Politics, Gender and Culture Vol. 8 / No. 2 / Summer 2011

Furthermore, any necessity of being must necessarily be Immanence, which does not properly enter Schelling’s before necessity, before the demands of the conceptual, vocabulary, is that what follows the self-inhibition of dynamics must allow for the conceptual, the conceptual transcendence, following transcending its initial inhibi- cannot necessitate anything. (Schelling 2007a, 207) This tion (where it leaves itself and the originary contingency pre-necessary necessity is the transcendent concept (de- or primary potency is left as nothing or no-thing) as at- void of anterior potency) opposed to the immanent concept. traction and contraction and becomes non-identical, (ibid., 208) The transcendent is only that which transcends it begins the series, or succession of things. (Schelling something else and is therefore only transcendence in, and 1994, 114-116) For Schelling materialism fails as it is about, thought. Concepts are “mere infinitudes” (Schelling simply atomistic and cannot explain the genesis of in- 1984, 143) meaning that they are infinitely individual or telligence (Schelling 1993, 57) without turning matter infinitely finite. (ibid., 150) In opposition to this powers into something else (which Deleuze does but by turning and potencies are that which describe the activity proper to materialism into a conceptual thinkability). Schelling being. The first primordial being (the transcendent abso- utilizes the concept as that which is the thinkability of lute) self inhibits in order to generate a bifurcation thereby the Platonic Idea (Schelling 1995, 31) to utilize concept causing a succession of powers. (Schelling 1994a, 203) beyond this is only for the pleasure of the philosopher as Laruelle suggested above. The concept is only a small part of retransforming reality into ideality mimicking the This succession of powers does not seem to directly cor- unknown transition from ideality into reality. (Schelling respond to succession of things as appearance: 1966, 13) This model of genesis is Anti-Kantian and anti-Deleuzian. In Nature, therefore, the whole absolute is knowable, al- though appearing Nature produces only successively, and in (for us) endless development, what in true Nature, exists Schelling dispatches with the Kantian categories of a pri- all at once and in an eternal fashion.” (Schelling 1995, 272) ori and a posteri and secondly Schelling places the very function of subjecting or thinking in nature and not any Nature is dynamic yet appears substantial as a result of na- ture being an inhibited infinity, absolute activity inhibited subject as a formal gap or other form of aleatory struc- ad infinitum.” (Schelling 2004, 15) ture. For Schelling nature performs the ontological and epistemological work thereby subordinating the ideal to Against Deleuze, and in service of a non-substantial dyna- the real in terms of genesis, or ontological, if not phil- mism Schelling writes: “there is an end to all those absolute osophical priority. The very status of this work, of the qualitative differences of matter which a false physics fixes productivity of nature rewires the Kantian-Hegelian ori- and makes permanent in the so called basic substance: All entations of both immanence and transcendence as both matter is intrinsically one, by nature pure identity; all dif- become part of real nature and not ideal constructions. In ference comes solely from the form and is therefore merely the Grounding of Positive Philosophy Schelling critiques

ideal and quantitative.” (Schelling 1995, 137) Kant’s form of transcendence as an empty gesture, as a 91 92 (Schelling 1984,12) idea (Schelling1994a, ity (ibid.,)wherethethingisonlyappearance ofthe potential infinite an as idea the presenting empiricism, idea assomethingoutsidethelimitsofbothlogic and Throughout histexts,Schellingconstantlyarticulates the of natureandsubsequently, oftheidea. an endeavor which is always futile given the dynamism Schelling, nature’s attempt to become an object to itself, nature. (Schelling 1966, 116) Ideality then is,following becoming living ormerely a partofanalwayschanging engine of consciousness (human or otherwise) as ideas gested, as the idea no longer belongs to any particular This thinking nature flirts with Platonism, as already sug such isnaturethinkingthroughusattemptingtothinkitself. idea ispartofnatureandinus,thenthinkingas thought aboutNature.”(Schelling1995, and necessarilyunderlieseverythingthatourracehasever say, arbitrarily generatedit,buthowand why itoriginally of such a Nature has got into us; not merely how we have, such a Naturearoseoutsideus,buthoweventhe very idea nature. Schellingwrites:“werequiretoknow, nothow tologically tothematerialistprojectorphilosophyof are separatetheidealistprojectisalwayssubordinateon Whereas forSchellingthematerialistandidealistprojects or bringstherealtoideal.(Schelling2004,194) dence is whenmovement occurs fromidea to existence thing. (Schelling 2007a, 208)ForSchelling transcen transcendence which isnottranscendent to anyparticular Ben Woodard

177) theideaispartof nature. Plotting Nature’s Havoc:Potential Realisms between Transcendental Materialism andTranscendental Dynamism

41) Since the very 41) Sincethevery - - - - (Schelling 2007a,133andGrant2006,17) in thenotionbutalwaysreferringtonatureassubstrate. of amobility, knowingthatthismobility is notcontained thinking, andparticularly philosophical thinking, isthat that, as Grantputsit, “nature thinks” as the nature of It shouldbeargued thenthatthoughtisaforceinitself scendental complicatesthegenerativestanceof idea: reality. This relation, and Deleuze’s relation to thetran natural, unthinkable ideas, toexistence, to discernible man phenomenality or reason,isthemovement of these of marking the work ofideation from the ground ofhu of naturalideation, which iswhytranscendence, instead potentiality infinite the is Naturphilosophie, Schelling’s very ground of material necessity, which is the focus of and hisrelationofimmanence and transcendence. The see an attack on Deleuze’s concept of conceptualization tivism of Deleuze’s atomized consciousness butwecan Here Schelling beginstoapproachthe machinc construc 2009, 449) is determinate inadvance of itsdetermination.” (Grant determination, since the converse would entail that being determinate, then this indeterminacy must precede its Or asGrant nicely puts it: “If being is necessarily in transcendent. (Mullarkey2007, 14) nent toitselfandnotanindividualized subject, is thereby involuntarily be sensed...Experience, then, beingimma of the transcendentally sensible is that which canonlyand the ordinaryempirical forms ofcommon sense. The being The transcendental cannot be “induced” or “traced” from - - - - - Identities Journal for Politics, Gender and Culture Vol. 8 / No. 2 / Summer 2011

As Mullarkey explains, Deleuze utilizes the transcen- at its base, fundamentally different from Deleuze’s system dental as generative of experiences as his response to and stands as a better candidate for realism. Hume is essentially in opposition to that of Kant’s. That is, whereas Kant seeks a priori synthetic categories to In Schelling’s system there are grounds and powers as explain the unity of apperception, Deleuze attempts to matter and substance are insufficient to the task of philoso- materialize or physicalize Hume; as Mullarkey writes, phy unless thought is to be integrated into those substances “So, by adopting the position that runs immanence and or matters.3 For Schelling, the first being, or first essence, transcendence together by making immanence abso- must be contingency. (Schelling 1994, 116) Schelling also, lute, Deleuzian empiricism converges with materialism, similarly opposes yet integrates necessity and freedom. finding in purely physical matter the conditions which (Schelling 1966, 16) Yet this freedom cannot be reduced generate the self, such that experience no longer needs a to human freedom or human will but works to connect the host in a (non-material) subject.” (ibid., 14) very anarchy of ground (Schelling 2007, 29) to nature as being in us and working through us. While this empiricism, as radical as it is, would seem to provide a realistic model (albeit one of deep access to the While transcendental philosophy and a philosophy of cosmos beyond thought) it, as Brassier argues, merely re- nature are formally separate, or we might say operation- turns the world to an original and enchanted state where ally separate, they do not speak to two different worlds the world is automatically thinkable. (Brassier 2008, 28) but only two different functional regimes; transcendental The difference between concepts and objects is problem- philosophy is the dynamics (and history of ) the mind. atically flattened. Grant writes: “the final phenomenal link between the act of thinking and the experience of the content of thought The problem of Deleuze, of his hyper philosophy of has been broken; to reinstate it is thereafter the function thinkable immanence is, again following Mullarkey, one of transcendental philosophy, the only science with such a that can be tied to the absence of the negative in his work. ‘double series.’’’ (Grant 2005, 54) This is not to say, pace Without the negative, without points of epistemological Hegel, that the Naturphilosophie is obliterated by transcen- limit or disruption, his materialism becomes a dense ca- dental philosophy but that both transcendental idealism nitude, where everything seems permissible. and naturphilosophical realism are subjectivities, sciences which are both rooted in nature but methodologically apart (Grant 2006, 174) adhering to both monist continuity and 4. Conclusion processual (or dispositional) heterogeneity.

While much of Schelling’s philosophy, as we have seen, is Continuity in Schelling marks the necessity of a non- redolent of Deleuzian transcendental materialism, I main- Kantian transcendence in order to make nature as tain that the above described transcendental dynamism is, self-organizing subject possible as well as making 93 94 specifically, it names a philosophy that wishes to remain to wishes that philosophy specifically, a names it becomes akindofcover foridealism or, perhapsmore to Schelling.Materialism, as GrahamHarmanhasnoted, mains unclear howexactly the term materialism relate possibility ofan“absolutematerialism,” (ibid., 91) itre “vital materialism”, (ibid., 100)whilesuggesting the historical materialism, (ibid., 46)against Fiechtean alism? While Grant’s text mentions Schelling against How doesthisrelate to realismasopposedmateri and soforth.(Grant2006,202-203) potencies, processes behaves modallylikeotherpowers, becomes another kind ofpower(Grant 2009, 446)which being forus.Centrally, forourdiscussionhere,thought ist sense, shiftsthe problems from being the world’s tobe Transcendental Dynamism, inaproperlyanti-correlation ing abouttheworld. The problemsthatarisefroma circumvents and shifts many problems of philosophiz accurately) more fluids building (or blocks building cal Making energies, oractivities the primary metaphysi (Schelling 1995,132) of forces,asself-inhibition towardsnon-dissolution. of that verydynamism,asconstructingananti-thesis Schelling’s transcendental dynamism is aprogression degree ofontological work. The productionofthingsin while Schelling isunwilling to allow substance to dothis folding andunfoldingofexpressionintheOnesubstance for Schelling where inDeleuze this isexplained as the expands andcontactsoutward.Continuityisaproblem ence-in-itself and there is an All but a non-all which from Deleuze since for Schelling there is nodiffer idealism possible. Heterogeneity separates Schelling Ben Woodard

Plotting Nature’s Havoc:Potential Realisms between Transcendental Materialism andTranscendental Dynamism ------that dynamismisrestricted to theregionoflogical space. more oftenthannot,withoutmatter(Grant2011, 70)and deavor. Grantnotesthatcontemporary materialisms are, en aphilosophical as materialism orbiting difficulties in hisessay“DoesNature Stay What-it-is?” addresses the it wishesmerelytoremainintellectually immune. Grant, between naïve idealism and naïve realism or empiricism, dynamism totheformation ofmateriality. the Naturphilosophie mines theshiftfromreal qua tempts toaddresstherelation of senseandthoughtwhere Grant’s) double series, attempts to showhow idealism at nence beingitsintra-modality) whereasSchelling’s (and Deleuze’s philosophyoperates from within sense (imma philosophies canbeconstructed.Inthissensewe cansay forms ofepistemological access and fromwhichdifferent into different modesofbeingwhichprovidedifferent intelligence. dures) inwhichmateriality is secondary, asissenseand modal activitiesprocesses,and proce (forces, powers, produces identities/unities and continuities/differences in tal dynamismbeingisanoriginalheterogeneity which distancing as wellconceptual clarity. transcendental materialism for the sake of methodological I wouldproposethat transcendental dynamism replace and Žižek Slavoj Adrian Johnston. of works Hegelian-Lacanian the as to boththeaboveDeleuzian and Landian systems aswell it) thetermtranscendental materialism remains wedded constructs the I (andnotvice versa asFichte would have as apositive project, at least so far in it argues that nature above essay as Fichte negatively defines it and suggests it While Grant discussestranscendental materialism in the 5 Being,asthereal, transcendentally shifts 4 Intranscenden - - - - - Identities Journal for Politics, Gender and Culture Vol. 8 / No. 2 / Summer 2011

Notes: ___. 2006. Philosophies of nature after Schelling. London: Con­­ti­nuum. ___. 2009. Prospects for post-Copernican dogmatism. Collapse: 1. In each of these cases then I am utilizing transcendence and the Philosophical Research and Development V: 413-414. transcendental in ways (at least partially) antithetical to Kant’s ___. 2011. Does nature stay what-it-is?: Dynamics and the an- usage. For Kant, the transcendental refers to “all knowledge tecendence criterion. In The speculative turn. Continental which is occupied not so much with all objects in so far as this materialism and realism, eds. Levi Bryant, Nick Srnicek and mode of knowledge is possible a priori” (Kant, Critique of Pure , 66-83. Melbourne: re.press. Reason, “Introduction,” VII). Whereas Kant’s transcendental Kant, Immanuel. 1999. Critique of pure reason, ed. and trans. Paul is methodological, Schelling’s transcendence/transcendental is Guyer and Allen W. Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University metaphysical dynamic both with idealism and realism and across Press. both. Land, Nick. 1991. The thirst for annihilation: George Bataille and 2. For a different view, see Alberto Toscano’s essay “Philosophy and virulent . New York and London: Routledge. the Experience of Construction” (Toscano 2004, 120-124). ___. 2011. Fanged noumena: Collected writings 1987-2007. Falmouth: 3. It could be argued that this is what Bergson attempts throughout Urbanomic. his oeuvre. Laruelle, François. 2009. Response to Deleuze. Pli: The Warwick 4. The term Transcendental Dynamism is not widely utilized and not Journal of Philosophy 20. in terms relevant to the discussion here. One notable exception is Mullarkey, John. 2007. Post-: An outline. Xavier Zubri’s utilization of the term (in Zubri 2003). London: Continuum. 5. While numerous philosophies of dispositions, following in gen- Schelling, F.W.J. 1966. On university studies, trans. E.S. Morgan. erally Aristotelian and anti-Humean strands, seek to construct a Columbus: Ohio University Press. realist theory of powers, there remains a reluctance, in many if not all thinkers, to allow for powers all the way down instead re- ___. 1984. Bruno: Or, on the natural and the divine principle of lying on substance which, according to thinkers such as Andrew things, trans. Michael G. Vater. New York: SUNY Press. Bird, lead to quidditism or dualism. ___. 1993. System of transcendental idealism, trans. Peter L. Heath. Virginia: University of Virginia Press. ___. 1994. On the history of modern philosophy, trans. Andrew Bowie. New York: Cambridge University Press. ___. 1994a. Idealism and the endgame of theory, trans. and ed. References: Thomas Pfau. Albany: SUNY Press. ___. 1995. Ideas for a philosophy of nature, trans. Errol Harris and Brassier, Ray. 2001. Alien theory: The decline of materialism in the Peter Heath. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. name of matter. Unpublished PhD diss. University of Warwick. ___. 2004. First outline of a system of the philosophy of nature, http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/4034 (accessed October 1, 2011). trans. Keith R. Peterson. Albany: SUNY Press. ___.2008. The expression of meaning in Deleuze’s ontological prop- ___. 2007. Philosophical investigations into the essence of human osition. Pli: The Warwick Journal of Philosophy 19. freedom, trans. Jeff Love and Johannes Schmidt. Albany: ___, , Graham Harman, and Quentin Meillassoux. SUNY Press. 2007. . Collapse: Philosophical Research ___. 2007a. The grounding of positive philosophy, trans. Bruce and Development III: 307-449. Matthews. Albany: SUNY Press. Grant, Iain Hamilton. 2005. On the eternal bond of philosophy and ___, and Slavoj Žižek. 1997. The abyss of freedom: Ages of the world, physics. Angelaki: Journal of the Theoretical Humanities 10,1: trans. Judith Norman. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 43-59. 95 96 Zubri, Xavier. 2003. Toscano, Alberto. 2004. Philosophyandthe experience of construc Shaviro, Steven. 2009. of IllinoisPress. Welchman, 106-127. tion. In and aesthetics ThenewSchelling Ben Woodard . New York: MIT Press. Dynamic structure ofreality. Without criteria: Kant, Whitehead, Deleuze London: Continuum.

Plotting Nature’s Havoc:Potential Realisms between Transcendental Materialism andTranscendental Dynamism , eds. uih Norman Judith Urbana: University

and Alistair -