In an interview with Kronos magazine published in March 2011, Wikipedia says,
Ray Brassier denied that there is any such thing as a 'speculative realist
movement' and firmly distanced himself from those who continue to attach
themselves to the brandname:
"The ‘speculative realist movement’ exists only in the imaginations of a group
of bloggers promoting an agenda for which I have no sympathy whatsoever:
actor-network theory spiced with pan-psychist metaphysics and morsels of
process philosophy. I don’t believe the internet is an appropriate medium for
serious philosophical debate; nor do I believe it is acceptable to try to
concoct a philosophical movement online by using blogs to exploit the misguided
enthusiasm of impressionable graduate students. I agree with Deleuze’s remark
that ultimately the most basic task of philosophy is to impede stupidity, so I
see little philosophical merit in a ‘movement’ whose most signal achievement
thus far is to have generated an online orgy of stupidity." --- Ray Brassier,
the author of "After Finitude".
David Morey said to Arlo:
...So how many people here agree with Dan, Arlo and DMB, and how many can see
the problems I am raising? This argument can be read in the book After Finitude
in full, as it is the same one Speculative Realism raises against all
corelationism, and forcing it down the plug hole of history, ...check out
After Finitude if you want to come up with a less floored position and then
come back to me. If you find the real messiah let me know, I'm just your very
naughty nonsense spotting friend trying to help you raise your game. But you
are not interested it seems. Shame on you!
Arlo said to D Morey:
Dan wondered if you're suffering some sort of meltdown. It seems that way to me
too. What you're doing is trying to skirt the valid (and precise) criticisms
about your ideas, why they evidence a misunderstanding of Pirsig (by multiple
people), and why they are inherently a SOM perspective ("SOM" used in the
correct way, by the way), by throwing sand in the bull's eyes (to you the ZMM
analogy). After weeks of being shown exactly where you SOM misunderstandings
are, you accuse everyone else of being "SOM" (I call this the Great Pee Wee
Maneuver, its used quite a bit out of desperation).
> >
> >I can't say I'm surprised, Pirsig's ideas are rather revolutionary and the
> >single biggest mistake I've seen over the years is people trying to dress up
> >their SOM views with MOQ clothing. And while you seemed absolutely intent
> >before about overlaying an SOM (i.e., "patterns have to exist in experience
> >before you then go on to conceptualise them") perspective with Pirsig's
> >terminology, it seems that also has a psychological rabidness to it.
> >
> >Its clear you've hit a "messiah point", where continuing to point out even
> >your most basic misunderstanding will only reinforce your idea that you
> >alone understand Pirsig and everyone else is "SOM" (psychological
> >mirroring). So there is little point in talking, like Dan said.
> >
> >Good luck.
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html
