REVIEW ARTICLE OF HUBERT DREYFUS AND SEAN KELLY'S

ALL THINGS SHINING

(with speci ! "e#e"e$ce t% thei" t"e t&e$t %# D 'i( F%ste" W !! ce) *+ Te"e$ce B! ,e

-) LURING BACK THE GODS ALL THINGS SHINING is an ambitious book, that aims at helping us to find meaning in our lives by way of a philosophi ally informed reading of some of the great lassi s of the !estern "anon# It seeks to address a popular audien e rather than a professional one$ it has its roots in Heideggerian philosophy but the style is not that of a ademi prose and it uses e%amples taken from news items, the pra ti e of sport, and readily available literary lassi s su h as TH& '()SS&), TH& (I*IN& "'+&(), and +',)-(I".# It an be read without any ma/or diffi ulty and with a great deal of pleasure, but it has the ambition of addressing the grand 0uestion of the sear h for meaning and for a life worth living in our ontemporary world# This is a world that the authors, Hubert (reyfus and Sean .elly, des ribe as 1postmodern1, 1te hnologi al1, and 1nihlist1$ a world where the 1shining things1 have been lost, where we are sub/e t to a rushing burden of hoi e without the guidan e of an un0uestioned framework of meaning, su h as served as a foundation for life and its meaning in previous epo hs# A ording to these authors the world was formerly a world full of intensity and meaning, 1a world of sa red, shining things1 2 f# the preamble 3, whi h eli ited moods of wonder and reveren e and gratitude and openness# This is the e%planation of the book4s title# However the shining things are now long gone, and life has be ome permeated with moods of sadness and lostness, a purely personal affair to be managed by the plans and hoi es of the losed-off 1autonomous1 ego# The solution proposed is a reappropriation of Homer4s polytheism, now understood to be a polytheism of moods, su h as we an see the outlines of in +',) (I".# An important part of this response is the ne essity to ultivate a spe ifi skill that an help us dis ern when we an or should let ourself be taken up in the moods we en ounter 2e%ample$ a nonviolent freedom mar h3 and when we should resist and walk away 2e%ample$ a Na5i rally3$ this skill they all 1meta-poiesis1# There is something very attra tive about the ideas in this book$ the pluralism of understandings of being, the polytheism of moods , meta-poiesis, a sub/e tivity of openness to the world and wonder at its shining things# ,ut there are ambiguities that make one wonder 2in the other sense of wonder3 whether the book avoids the trap of romanti nostalgia# Its vo abulary is often nostalgi $ 1lure ba k1 the gods, 1un over1 the wonder, 1reveal1 the world# Also there is the danger of proposing merely a new postmodern theology, however philosophi ally distilled and sublimated# Here we an ite the suggestive slippage from 1the shining things1, inde% of a world harged with intensity and meaning, to the more theologi al sounding 1sa red things1, as if that were the same thing# ,ut surely a life based on intensities, on moods and on meaning without any referen e to the sa red is worth living# A last worry is that with their onstant evo ation of moods that attune a sub/e t and reveal a world the authors seem to be stu k in what 6uentin +eillassou% alls the 1 orrelationist ir le1, unable to talk about the world outside its orrelation with sub/e tivity and with a parti ular understanding of the world# It seems that (reyfus and .elly are aware of this problem and try to under ut their grand narrative of a su ession of in ommensurable understandings of being with a different model based on Heidegger4s notion of a thing thinging# 'ne e%ample that (reyfus gives in his le tures is that of the feast in the film ,A,&TT&4S 7&AST, a fo al event that assembles or gathers together elements in a way that makes them shine, that brings them out at their best# The polytheism of moods would then be reinfor ed by a pluralism of things thinging, but this is left undeveloped in the book# Another tra e of this attempt to maintain the grand narrative and to make room for other ways is the on ept of marginal pra ti es and the things that embody them# 'ne dominant understanding of being is only a hegemoni rather than a totalitarian paradigm, and ea h epo h ontains many other things, events, pra ti es as marginal phenomena# This model has the further advantage of making hange on eivable#

The other on ept that merits developing is the notion of meta-poiesis whi h allows us to navigate between different moods and different understandings, tra ing out our own individual path# As su h, it would seem to be the pluralist virtue par e% ellen e# 'n e again I would put this notion of metapoiesis in relation with the ability to engage in marginal pra ti es and assemblings, being able to take things out of their stereotyped uses and set them thinging, thus produ ing hange, and allowing ommuni ation between in ommensurable understandings# (reyfus and .elly seem to have realised that they were in danger of e%pounding an epo hal solipsism, and gave indi ations for a way of ommuni ating a ross the barrier of in ommensurability# 'n e again we see, as both (eleu5e and 7eyerabend have emphasised, that openness must pre ede 2logi ally3 losedness or we will never be able to get outside our framework# 7inally, for a book whose message is pluralist its bibliography is surprisingly monist# There is no mention of su h pluralist philosophers as 8aul 7eyerabend, +i hel Serres, Gilles (eleu5e, !illiam "onnolly, or Alain ,adiou# As regards Niet5s he, (reyfus and .elly seem ontent to repeat un riti ally Heidegger4s vision a ording to whi h for Niet5s he on e the onse0uen es of the death of God were drawn 1the lone sour e of meaning in human e%isten e would be the strong individual4s for e of will1 29:3# 'n this point I think that the fellow-pluralist !illiam "onnolly said it all in an arti le on Niet5s he 2;Niet5s he, (emo ra y, and Time<3# "onnolly asso iates Niet5s he with an ethi of ultivation 2meta-poiesis=3, non-theisti gratitude, multidimensional pluralism, ;nobility as multiple nobilities< 2and not the Na5i deformation of Niet5s he>s thought as promoting a warrior ethi , strong will et #3, and even ;modesty as strength<# .) ON DAVID FOSTER WALLACE'S SU//OSED 0NIHILIS10 In "hapter ? of ALL THINGS SHINING 2entitled 1(avid 7oster !alla e4s Nihilism3 (reyfus and .elly dis uss (7!>s ;This is !ater< as an e%ample of !alla e4s ;need to reate meaning e% nihilo out of the individual< 2ATS, ?@93# They find that this pro/e t involves a pragmati ontradi tion as being able to reate meaning e% nihilo 2A e% ego3 and impose it on a situation would mean that anything goes, that any meaning is possible, but only as for ed on things by the autonomous individual>s will# This is an impossible task$ it would re0uire the individual to have the inhuman strength of a solitary god, willing and reating meaning without onstraints# 7or them (7!>s ideal was to be ome a monster of self- ontrol 2ATS, 993, a master of ;e%er ising ontrol over how and what you think< 2ATS, BC3# 'n this interpretation the key words summing up (7!>s form of sensibility, or understanding of being, are$ autonomous ego, individual, will, for e, strength, ontrol, imposition, diffi ult task, hoi e, de ision# This is the language of voluntarist nihilism# !hat is strange about this interpretation is that it des ribes e%a tly the form of sensibility and possibility of life that !alla e wants to make us learly and burningly aware of, in THIS IS !AT&D, so that we an get out of it, and pursue our individuation a ording to a 0uite different model# This whole te%t is brimming with intensity and meaning and openness to the world outside of nihilisti li hEs and stereotypes# If you haven>t read it already you should do so at on e, it is an ethi al te%t of great for e# ;7or e< here means ;power to provoke a onversion<, ; apa ity to produ e a transformation<, and not the ompelling power of an individual, able to impose his arbitrary will on himself and on the world# !alla e does use those key words 2;power<, ;individual<3 or their e0uivalents all through ;This is !ater<, but their sense is somewhat different when onsidered in terms of the alternative non-ego- entered form of sensibility that !alla e is trying to sket h out and to get us to adopt# !alla e is not trying to advo ate a new stan e inside our urrent form of sensibility, hen e his repeated insisten e that he is not deploying dida ti stories or giving edifying moral advi e# That would be an intra-worldly manoeuvre# !alla e situates himself at the meta-level so as to des ribe our urrent nihilisti form of sensibility, and also a different form of sensibility 2or world, or understanding of being, or possibility of life3,

one where I am no longer ;operating on the automati , un ons ious belief that I am the enter of the world<# !alla e alls the world as viewed and e%perien ed through this egoisti sensibility ;the soalled real world< and wants us to see that living in its terms is a real possibility, but that doing so will lead us into a state of death-in-life# This is very far indeed from the ;need to reate meaning out of the individual>s will< 2ATS, ?@93 that (reyfus and .elly find in (7!# (reyfus and .elly, in ;All Things Shining<, give several e%amples of an ethi al problem$ !hat is the appropriate response to the surging up of a pulse of physis su h as a great moment in a football mat h, the ompassion and resistan e stirred by a spee h by +artin Luther .ing, the fanati al hatred in a Hitler rally# They envisage two types of response$ let yourself be swept away 'D walk away# (etermining whi h response is appropriate in any given situation is the ob/e t of a meta-skill that they all meta-poiesis# This meta-skill is their response to the ;burden of hoi e< that assails us in our post-modern se ular world$ ;it resists nihilism by reappropriating the sa red phenomenon of physis, but ultivates the skill to resist physis in its abhorrent, fanati al form< 2ATS, ?F?3# Physis is an ambivalent phenomenon leading us into a sa red affirmation of life or into its fanati al negation# !e must learn when to ;leap in< and when to ;walk away<# !alla e in ;This is !ater< gives another type of e%ample$ the mood of rage and frustration that whooshes up in a traffi /am or in an over rowded supermarket# !hat is the ethi al response that our meta-poiesis an permit in this situationG !alla e is loser to (reyfus and .elly than they seem to think as he proposes a sort of paradigm- hange, a transformation in our per eption# 7a ed with this whooshing up of negativity, do you give in to your ;natural hard-wired default setting<, your ertainty that everybody else is /ust in your way, that only you matter, that everyone else is rude and obno%ious and repulsiveG 'r an you use your freedom to rework this natural default setting, hange your paradigm, ultivate a different form of affe tivity, per eive people differently and be affe ted by them differentlyG This freedom is the meta-skill to transform our sensibility and to hoose new bifur ations along our path of individuation# (reyfus and .elly don>t see the meta-poieti aspe t in (7!>s spee h# He is not talking about a new improved first-level skill in handling people or navigating traffi /ams# He is talking about a metaskill for resisting being swept away by the whooshing up of negative affe ts# )ou an>t /ust ;walk away< from the over rowded supermarket or the interminable traffi /am# ;!alking away< is not always possible nor even desirable, and it is an ambiguous solution at best# (7! proposes a number of what an only be alled ;spiritual e%er ises< to allow you to e%perien e the stressful or enervating situation differently# He suggests imagining another e%planation for the behaviour of those we find obno%ious or infuriating# He is not advo ating some sort of voluntary fantasy or ounter-fa tual ratio ination to alleviate the stress of the supermarket, he doesn>t ask us to imagine that the repulsive lady s reaming at her kids is really a giant s0uid disguised by a ;per eption-filter< 2as in a (D !H' episode3, but /ust to onsider that she may have been staying up every night with her husband dying of bone an er, or something else of the same order of plausibility# The aim is not to impose an arbitrary meaning by sheer for e of will# The aim is to make us aware that F3 meanings are already being imposed on the situation, preventing us from seeing it as it is ?3 these already e%isting meannings an be subsumed under a single paradigm, our hard-wired default setting of ;fear and anger and frustration and worship of the self< B3 other meanings are possible if we open our selves to the multiple field of gods to be worshipped 93 these other meanings an be subsumed under a different paradigm, one not entered around the ego but based on de- entered attention and aring for others# (7! wants to free us from our e% essive ratio ination, our overintelle tualisation, get us out of our hypnoti state of immersion in and servitude to our internal monologue# He wants to get us out of our nihilisti understanding of being where we as autonomous individuals ea h feel we are the enter of the world, and everyone else is a help or a hindran e#

The meta-poiesis that (7! des ribes subtends a different understanding of being where attention an dissolve the stereotypes of the nihilist versions of reality and open us to the multiple forms of the non-nihilisti sa red$ ;be it H" or Allah, be it )H!H or the !i an +other Goddess or the 7our Noble Truths, or some inviolable set of ethi al prin iples<# These are the many gods we an worship and that give us meaning and life$ ;pretty mu h anything else you worship will eat you alive<# So (7! is all for ;luring ba k the gods< to populate ;the now egotisti al sky<, as (reyfus I .elly, iting +elville, des ribe their pro/e t# The vision that he wishes us to onvert to is not one of the ego- entred individual imposing his hoi es by sheer will-power, that is the paradigm he wants to es ape from# True, he speaks in terms of ; hoi e<, but this is not egoi volition but rather the noeti a t 2to use ,ernard Stiegler>s term3 of resisting the programmed response to the situation and of apprehending other ways of per eiving it and a ting within it# 8erhaps there is a omponent of self-defense in (reyfus and .elly>s riti0ue of !alla e# After all (7!4s writing does ontain an anlysis of the hyper-intelle tual redu tion of life# A problem with ALL THINGS SHINING is the nature of its on rete e%amples# As university professors of philosophy they are targeted by !alla e, and it is not enough to turn to the opposite pole of physi al a omplishment, whether in sports with ,ill ,radley or in heroi res ue with !esley Autrey if one wishes to es ape from the stultifying dualism of mind and body, or of noesis and physis# 7urther, not all depression is a dead-end, yet (reyfus and .elly sti k to the bright 'lympian gods and do not talk about Saturn and s holarly melan holia# In THIS IS !AT&D !alla e tries to open us to others as having their own lives outside their roles as in onvenien es or obsta les to our desires, and all that (reyfus and .elly an see is an appeal to will-power# (reyfus and .elly have trouble seeing depression and boredom as intensities, and so asso iate them with the ego and the desire to trans end human life and the frustration that this is impossible# The post-Hungian analyst Hames Hillman is not so simplisti , and has des ribed the importan e of depression and boredom for deepening our psy hi life 2 f# D&*ISI'NING 8S)"H'L'G), passim3# Another problem with ALL THINGS SHINING is its appeal almost e% lusively to e%treme e%amples# +eta-poiesis e%ists in their book when we refuse to give into the hate at a Na5i rally, but they a use !alla e of hubristi will when he dis usses how not to give in to the anger and frustration one an feel on a 0ueue at the supermarket# (reyfus and .elly, despite their antimetaphysi al intentions, would seem to be guilty of a metaphysi al split manifest in the very type of e%traordinary e%amples they give# Stanley "avell>s &mersonian emphasis on a return to the ordinary is a useful orre tive to their obsession with mastery# The offee-drinking e%ample 2p?F:-?FJ3 with its distin tion between ritual and routine is a step in the right dire tion, and they talk about the ;e%perimentation< to dis over how to bring things out at their best, and thus to respe t both the singularities of the materials and a ts omprising the ritual and one>s own singularity# They ontrast the ;generi < way of doing where things are treated as e% hangeable and meaningful distin tions are obs ured, to a ;parti ular< approa h where we ;rise up out of the generi and banal and into the parti ular and skilfully engaged< 2?FK3# So we individuate an a tivity or domain while individuating ourselves at the same time# )et (reyfus and .elly, while des ribing this struggle with the reign of the stereotype, use a language of un overing and dis overing, and so imply that meaning is pre-e%istent rather than emergent# 7urther, despite their pluralism and immanen e and polytheism of moods, (reyfus and .elly have a one-sided view of intensities or what they all ;shining<, a view that e% ludes the ;pathologi al< intensities# All this talk of ;shining< 2really as pluralists they should be saying ;shinings<3 is potentially Elitist# It most often limited to human e% ellen e as e%pressed in best ase s enarios, despite their phenomenologi al orientation# Shining is supposed to be a a des riptive, and not a normative, notion# 'ne ould ompare this with (eleu5e and Guattari>s ry in ANTI-'&(I8LS$ ;&verything must be interpreted in intensity< 2pFKB3

7or (IG this is already what Niet5s he and Artaud were doing# And I would add that (avid 7oster !alla e is engaged in this pro/e t of redemption from nihilism, and not, as (reyfus and .elly laim, of its ulmination# If we take this point of view of intensity then we may avoid what threatens to be a form of hermeneuti nostalgia over the supposed superior inventiveness of the Greeks and of mourning for the loss of the Greek event# 7or pluralists like 7eyerabend, (eleu5e, and Lyotard, our ontemporary time is hara teri5ed not by the nihilist ondition of the loss of meaning and intensity, but by an in rease of novelty and inventiveness, a surplus of abundan e# They refuse to endorse the narrative of de line that we see at work in ALL THINGS SHINING# To onvin e us of the ontrary we need only be attentive to the multipli ation of invention in the domains the s ien es, the arts, politi s, religion, and personal relations# The proper mood is not nostalgia and regret, but openness and affirmation# The goal is not to ;bring ba k< the shining things, but to be attentive to the shinings that are already present or being produ ed# +ood and on ept are losely linked# To dispel one we often have to de onstru t the other# ;The Greeks< is a false unity, a on ept that belongs to the dogmati image of thought# The idea of the ;Greek mira le< uts them off geographi ally and hronologi ally from the multipli ity of sour es, influen es, en ounters, e% hanges, and rivalries# This reates an image of their inventiveness as stemming from some absolute break and absolute beginning, su h that the Greeks be ome in ommensurable with what went on before and elsewhere# This poses the novelty and inventiveness of the Greeks as some impossible to attain norm# There seems to be no way that we an ever make su h a leap again, so we are redu ed to /ust adding footnotes to 8lato# ;In ommensurability<, however, is not the final word# ,eneath the hermeneuti losures and in ommensurabilities lie the pragmati en ounters and e% hanges# ;The philosphers have always been something else, they were born of something else<, laim (eleu5e and 8arnet 2(IAL'GL&S II, page K93# +i hel 'nfray develops the same idea for the Greeks$ ;8rotagoras the do ker, So rates the s ulptor, (iogenes the assistant banker, 8yrrho the painter, Aristippus the tea her M are not professionals of the profession in the postmodern fashion<# This ;something else< is not /ust another profession, but also another site, the outside with its freedom from the semanti poli e and the hermeneuti priesthood# The forum and the agora allowed philosphers to address and dis uss with anyone, as does the blogosphere today 2potentially=3# Hermeneuti novelty is often the illusory onstru t of the retrospe tive pro/e tion of striated stru tures onto the past# 8ragmati novelty is far more ambiguous and fluid, tied to the intensive en ounter rather than the regulated e% hange# This is why Lyotard too sees no differen e between the an ient Greeks and us, in terms of the withdrawal of ,eing and the loss of inventiveness$ ;Nothing has withdrawn, we have not ;forgotten< anythingN the an ient Greeks, Hera litus the inbetween of faith and knowledge, are no more originary than Hanis Hoplin#< The omparison with (eleu5e 2and Guattari3 is interesting as I often think of (eleu5e and 8arnet>s (IAL'GL&S II in relation to ALL THINGS SHINING, and of (eleu5e>s oft e%pressed desire to onstru t a pop-philosophy O whi h I think e%presses part of (reyfus and .elly>s ambition for ALL THINGS SHINING# 8op-philosophy does not mean a demagogi al anti-intelle tual hostility to theory or on epts or erudition, it is philosophy that has an immediate appeal to readers who find something useful for their lives 2and thinking is essential to the human form of life3N but it must also have enough on eptual ba kbone to make it really a ontribution to philosophy and not /ust opinionating or free-asso iating on a theme# I have been fre0uenting the two sets of thinkers 2(eleu5e and Guattari, (reyfus and .elly3 for some time now, and the 0uestion arises for me of the relation between them, between their respe tive philosophi al understandings# The relation is lear in terms of my overall pro/e t of a dia hroni ontology, of ;pluralism and individuation in a world of be oming<$ both sets of thinkers are pluralistN they de enter the sub/e t, its sovereignty and its agen yN they give great importan e to affe ts or moodsN they re/e t the domination of te hnologi al rationalityN they situate themselves

firmly after the death of GodN they seek to go beyond any nihilism that this may be thought to entail# The points of onvergen e are many and varied# ALL THINGS SHINING is 0uite Heideggerian in orientation and talks in terms of physis, poiesis, te hnology, and meta-poiesis# The level of physis involves the 1whooshing up1 of moods that are transindividual and that draw people to per eive and to a t in ertain ways# 8oiesis is an affair of skills that allow us to per eive important distin tions in a material and a t on it to bring it out at its best# (eleu5e and Guattari and talk in terms of affe ts, assemblages, and autopoiesis# The tone is 0uite different, being more open and diverse in their bibliographi al referen es and in their sensitivity to so ial and politi al dimensions# The notion of assemblage is used powerfully to de enter the notion of human agen y and distribute it throughout the superordinate groupings or assemblages of humans and things that ;whoosh up<, if you will, perdure and vanish# This is physis in a deleu5ian senseN and I have always found the ALL THINGS SHINING sense too limited, as it seems to be restri ted to the upsurge, perduran e, and vanishment of publi ly shared moods and their asso iated per eptions and a tions# ,ut ob/e ts and agents and events are important parts of the assemblages we onfront or belong to# There seems to me to be a omplementarity between the two sets of thinkers that I an bring out in terms of what I think is a hesitation in (eleu5e and Guattari over the meaning of the word ;affe t<, whi h sometimes is loser to physis and sometimes is loser to poiesis# 8hysis-affe t hara terises a plateau of affe tive tonality, a hae eity, that an last a moment or an afternoon, or several years# 8oiesis-affe t hara ters the powers of being affe ted 2of per eiving differen es that matter3 and of affe ting 2of provoking and revealing differen es3# The whole notion of skills and rafts that ALL THINGS SHINING finds so important signals the ne essity of a ultivation of affe ts, of the dis ipline of working on our affe ts to favorise more affirmative, more reative per eptions and a tions# This is a pro ess of individuation, the poieti path of developping one4s skills, an apprenti eship for whi h, a ording to (eleu5e, ;there is no method but only a long preparation<# 2) ADA1 S3 1ILLER'S CRITI4UE5 Atte$ti%$ 's 1e $i$6 In (e ember ?@FF Adam S#+iller, the author of S/ECULATIVE GRACE5 B"7$% L t%7" $( O*8ect9O"ie$te( The%!%6+, published a te%t riti ising Hubert (reyfus and Sean .elly>s ALL THINGS SHINING for its misunderstanding of (avid 7oster !alla e, whom, as we have seen, they a use of nihilism# +iller a uses (reyfus and .elly themselves of nihilism for having based their argument on the ;saving power< of meaning as a remedy against the nihilisti loss of meaning of the modern world# Su h meaning, a ording to +iller, is a distra tion from the real task of redemption$ ;+ythologies 2ma ro-s ale meaning-maps3 are a byprodu t of religion in the same way that stories are a byprodu t of life# This is fine# ,ut our stories are not alive and our maps are not the way# It>s a mistake, I think, to think that religions are in the business of making meaning<# !hile I fully agree that (reyfus and .elly give a reading of (avid 7oster !alla e4s work that is demonstrably wrong, I think +iller was a little severe in his treatment of their general pro/e t in ALL THINGS SHINING# (espite applying their on epts erroneously in their dis ussion of !alla e, they do give great philosophi al importan e to (7!4s essays and novels, and even when they riti ise him they are using his values and ideas 2often without even realising it3# Their notion of ;meaning< is not one of referen e, or even of signifi ation, but is rather like ,runo Latour>s notion 2in D&H'I"ING3 of religion as onversion to an attitude of attention to the things that are near us# It must be remarked that in Latour>s s heme in AN IN6LID) INT' +'(&S '7 &PIST&N"& myth would seem to orrespond to the mode of e%isten e of 1beings of metamorphosis1, of those beings 2divinities, ghosts, an estors, emotions, ar hetypal images3 that are formative of the psy he, whereas religion is a mode that onstitutes us as persons# +yths give us meaning and psy he, religion gives us attention and personhood# +yth, magi , affe t and fantasy an transform us,

whereas religion is a matter of love and onversion# I do not fully agree with this s hema, but I an see its motivating for e# +y own dissenting view is that, while there is surely a differen e between myth and religion, even in the very refined forms that Latour and (reyfus and .elly propose to analyse them, both of these are sub-modes of a more general mode that ould be alled the mode of individuation# !hatever one may think of this last point I was stru k in reading the interview with (avid 7oster !alla e published under the title 6LA". THIS !A), by how all his advi e on writing was the e%a t opposite of (refus and .elly>s interpretation of !alla e# In ALL THINGS SHINING they laim that !alla e was trapped in the autonomous ego and its masterly will# )et in 6LA". THIS !A), as in THIS IS !AT&D, !alla e is full of advi e about how to avoid taking oneself to be the entre of the universe and how to stop using writing as a nar issisti monologue that reinfor es one4s onfinement in the ego4s illusions of self-suffi ien y# The aim of writing for !alla e is en ounter, onversation, e% hange and the adventures of dialogue# The onne tion between (avid 7oster !alla e and ,runo Latour seems dire t in this ase# (7! too wants to provoke a ; onversion< away from the ego and towards the world around us, and to that e%tent his work is religious in s ope# :) NON9THEISTIC GRATITUDE ALL THINGS SHINING is a te%t of pluralist phenomenology and ontology that proposes many interesting ideas and analyses# However it ontains some ambiguous formulations, and needs to be prote ted from possible theologi al o-optation# !hat is at stake is the o asional importation into the immanent phenomenologi al perspe tive and des riptions of trans endent ontologi al assumptions by means of theisti or ;believerly< language that has ontotheologi al rather than phenomenologi al import# This an be illustrated in (reyfus and .elly>s analysis of the ;event< in 8ulp 7i tion where Hules and *in ent are left uns athed after being shot at 2p:C-K?3# Surprisingly, (reyfus and .elly ome down in favour of Hules> rea tion, despite its being fa tually false# 2He speaks of ;divine intervention< and spe ifies$ ;God ame down from Heaven and stopped the bullets<3# The important issue for them is not fa tual but phenomenologi al# They say$ ;gratitude is the more fitting response<# I think they should have said ;non-theisti gratitude is the more fitting response<# 'therwise, they seem to be ommitted to saying that a reationist is right despite his false beliefs about evolution 2and his rea tionary politi s=3, as long as he feels gratitude at the mira le of human life# Non-theisti gratitude is a gratitude at the abundan e of the world and of its events, an affirmation of what happens without any idea of providen e or other trans enden e# It is what Niet5s he names amor fati, and (reyfus and .elly name the ;gift without a giver<$ ;the Greeks felt that e% ellen e in a life re0uires highlighting a entral fa t of e%isten e$ wonderful things outside your ontrol are onstantly happening for you 2ALL THINGS SHINING, KB3# I must admit that at first I was hostile to this idea of a ;gift without a giver<# +y argument was that this was bad phenomenology, that the phenomenon was not being e%perien ed or not being des ribed in a pure state, be ause the very notion of the event as ;gift< and of the appropriate response as ;gratitude< seemed suspe t to me, ontaminated by the theisti onnotations of these two words, as implying ne essarily a ;giver< of the event, whether one ons iously intends the impli ation or not# I be ame re on iled to this vo abulary when I ame upon the more e%pli it formulation ;nontheisti gratitude< in the work of !illiam "onnolly# In ;The &thos of 8lurali5ation< "onnolly talks about a third possibility outside the theisti and se ular belief systems, whi h he alls ;postse ularism<# In his e%pli ation, postse ularists omprise ;numerous agents of resistan e to the monotheisms and monose ularisms< who ;define themselvesQretrospe tively, as it wereQas arriers of nontheisti gratitude for the ri h diversity of being#< 2pFJ@3# !hat bothers me about (reyfus and .elly>s analysis of Hules> rea tion is that they separate

ognitive 2or at least ideational3 aspe ts of his e%perien e from some pure affe tive or emotive ore, and then pro eed to endorse the emotive ore of the e%perien e, in this ase ;gratitude<, while re/e ting the ognitive omponent as /ust an ;attempt at /ustifi ation<# I don>t think a mood an e%ist as a pure emotive state# Dather it in ludes on eptual, affe tive, linguisti , and pra ti al elements# I still think (reyfus and .elly are being unfair to *in ent, as his remark 2;this shit happens<3 ould be seen as a Lu retian endorsement of physis as against Hules> theos# In their own des riptions of the multiple understandings of being they ontrast Heidegger>s view on the su ession of epo hs with Hegel>s view, de laring that for Heidegger there is no ;why<# This sounds to me as if they are maintaining that Heidegger is like *in ent, and ;there is no why< is similar in meaning to ;this shit happens<# However, to ad/udge the vi tory to Hules or to *in ent is to oppose them inside a ommensurable field, and su h a vi tory is empty# 7or me the for e of ATS lies in its attempt to des ribe and e%hibit in ommensurable understandings of being# Lnfortunately, I think that (reyfus and .elly pose a normative overlay to this des riptive task, and so I a use them of doing ;normative phenomenology<# I do not wish to oppose a Lu retian *in ent to a Heideggerian Hules, and I don>t think that this distribution of roles and understandings e%hausts the on eivable possibilities# Dather, I think that a third way an be arti ulated, outside this dualism, one of seeing the event as an o asion for metapoiesis, so maybe there is no need to presuppose one uni0ue response# A metapoieti Hules would allow himself to be perfused with gratitude without affirming, or even feeling, that God stopped the bullets# A metapoieti *in ent ould resist one form of the affe t of gratitude as being too entangled with theisti sentiments, without refusing gratitude absolutely# ;This shit happens< ould be a Lu retian enun iation of opennes to and gratitude for the abundan e of Nature, the affirmation that the world ontains many wondrous ombinations# However, I annot a ept (I.>s solution as it stands# They operate by e%tra ting and de onte%tuali5ing from Hules> theisti per eption of the event the pure affe t of gratitude that they valori5e when it o urs in 0uite other onte%ts# +y feeling is that this gratitude is somehow a li hE losing Hules off from the en ounter with the world, a stereotyped version of the affe t# This is why I embra ed "onnolly>s notion of nontheisti gratitude# ,ut perhaps by still alling it ;gratitude< I am impli itly a epting the validity of this e%tra tion of affe ts and their reappropriation in other onte%ts# The problem is to determine whether there is a living affe t in the li hE or if it is a ari ature all the way down# ;) DOES ALL THINGS SHINING ESCA/E FRO1 ONTOTHEOLOGY< ;'ntotheology< means positing a 2usually unitary3 trans enden e outside and ruling over an immanent field# This is a stru tural ategori5ation$ there is no need for the trans endent element to be e%pli itly religious# 7or e%ample, some forms of humanism have been alled ;theologi al< be ause they abolish God but they put ;+an< in the same foundational role, so the same stru ture as theisti religious belief is onserved# S ientism is another#Going on from there, various authors have indi ated that notions of a unitary sub/e t onfronting a purely ob/e tive world, or of a unitary world as ultimate thing-in-itself are theologi al# 'n a first reading, ATS is ompatible with this kind of tra king down of, dis arding, and reatively going beyond theologi al presuppositions# The (eleu5ian ;evil trinity< of God, Sub/e t, !orld is over ome# 7rom the beginning the onte%t is after the death of God, and the phenomenologi al des riptions are, and have to be ;methodologi ally atheist<# The Sub/e t has at least been attenuated by the riti0ue of the autonomous individual and its losure, by a revision in terms of openness# The !orld has been reworked in terms of different worlds asso iated to diverse understandings of being, and these in turn as epo hal onfigurations of gatherings of pra ti es# )et, problems persist# Lnities are posited and made use of, but are found to lead to diffi ulties#

Some possible ontotheologi al residues in the ALL THINGS SHINING e%perien e$ -) Rec%7"se t% (esc"ipti'e te"&s c%$t i$i$6 the%!%6ic ! c%$$%t ti%$s the use of so- alled ;phenomenologi ally appropriate< des riptive terms su h as ;gift< 2under erasure, as it is ;without a giver<3 and ;authority< 2under erasure, as of ourse there is no giver of orders beyond or behind the authority-effe t3# These terms have personologi al onnotation, even if that is not ther intention .) O$t%the%!ic ! "e(7cti%$ %# the p!7" !ist se& $tic #ie!(5 the p"i& c+ %# = 7th%"it+> the book uses a plurality of positivity-laden terms$ intensity, meaning, ertitude, being in the 5one, openness, mattering, worth, shining things, sa red things# This demo rati semanti plurality is sometimes simplified in the dis ussion in an oriented way privileging for e%ample ;sa red< over other possible predi ates# This is a theo rati redu tion of the semanti field# Similarly, in the book the word ;authority< is used only five times# In his interviews Sean .elly uses it far more often# This usage of ;authority< is ambiguous between an immanent and a trans endent a eption of the term# The e%pression ;e%tra-human authority< is 0uite ompatible with an immanent interpretation, but one may regret the personologi al onnotation of ;authority< O there remains a whiff of God>s ommanding in this word# (eleu5e, in a similar onte%t, talks of an impersonal ;power<, but this is almost as unsatisfa tory# The problem here is at least in part an artefa t of the translation into &nglish# (eleu5e has devoted many pages to the reworking and reative e%pli ating of the notion of power as ;puissan e< 2power as apa ity3, and to distinguishing it from that of ;pouvoir< 2power as onstraint e%er ised over another3# .elly and (reyfus have not done a similar reworking of the notion of ;authority< 2and its use as integral to the ALL THINGS SHINING pro/e t alls out for e%pli ation3# 2) ALL THINGS SHINING AS =/O/9/HILOSO/HY> The omparison with (eleu5e is interesting as (eleu5e and 8arnet>s (IAL'GL&S II repeats (eleu5e>s oft e%pressed desire to onstru t a pop-philosophy O whi h I think e%presses part of (reyfus and .elly>s ambition for ATS# As their indi ations of the Heideggerian underpinnings of the book shows, pop-philosophy does not mean a demagogi al anti-intelle tual hostility to theory or on epts or erudition# 8op-philosophy has an immediate appeal to readers who find something useful for their lives 2and thinking, as your fifth ase of truth establishing itself re alls, is essential to the human form of life3N but it must also have enough on eptual ba kbone to make it really a ontribution to philosophy and not /ust opinionating or free-asso iating on a theme# These indi ations of the on eptual underpinnings of ATS and of their own interventions are wel ome reminders that they are not /ust spouting opinions off the top of their head, but arti ulating learly and reatively a long path of philosophi al investigations# 2) Re&+th%!%6is ti%$ is $ &*i67%7s &%'e the e% eption made in the ase of Hesus, treated as himself a work of art# I know ;Hesus< is under erasure as (reyfus and .elly are referring to the hara ter as presented in the Gospels 2whi h is /ust as well as there is no reason to believe that su h a person ever e%isted3# In that ase they should have taken the Gospels as the work of art# Their ;dedu tion< of the Trinity from their tripartite ontologi al s hema involving ba kground pra ti es, an e%emplar, and arti ulator2s3 is parti ularly off-putting, and brings them very lose to Ri5ek>s "hristian atheism# It makes me wonder whether their vo abulary of openness, meaning, wonder et is a set of partial synonyms for 8aul Tilli h>s notion of ;ultimate on ern<, a sort of de-mythologised ontotheology# :) Re(7cti%$ %# !! c ses %# =* (> t% (hesi%$ t% the 7t%$%&%7s e6% (reyfus and .elly>s ontrast between those who believe that there is no meaning in the world aside from what we put in to it and those who are open to meanings that are already there in the situation is too +ani hean# The bad guys are always the autonomous ego guys, from 8enelope>s suitors to Ahab to poor (7! 2whi h pokes a big hole in their thesis of the in ommensurability of epo hs3# I

think Ahab is not a ase of the 2self-3destru tive power of the autonomous will, but rather, as some aspe ts of their analysis suggest, he is a ase of the destru tive power that openness to and espousal of per eptions and pulsions of physis an 2but not ne essarily3 have on the territorialising values of poieti nurturing i#e# of physis overwhelming an ego unprote ted by by metapoiesis# ;) U$i#+i$6 c%&&e$s7" ti%$ is the%!%6ic ! first the different understandings of being are posed as ea h regenting totally an epo h and as mutually in ommensurable# This leads to a strong thesis that there is no overar hing instan e that would e%plain the histori al su ession of worlds 2this is /ust as well, be ause su h an overar hing e%planatory instan e would be theologi al3# However, there are similarities and ontrasts between the diverse worlds, and the whole point of talking about them in ATS is to find features and aspe ts that are of urrent relevan e# This implies some form of ommensuration, whi h (reyfus and .elly spell out in terms of a dominant ma/oritarian gathering of pra ti es and of various marginal pra ti es# This view is a provisional ompromise$ he notion of unitary epo h is itself theologi al# Heidegger himself impli itly riti es his ;work of art< paradigm as still theologi al when he moves on to his ;thing thinging< paradigm# ATS is an unstable half-way ompromise between the ma ros opi ;work of art< paradigm 2still fairly stru turalist3 whi h fun tions as a useful first appro%imation and the the more a urate mi ro-a ount of the thing thinging 2whi h is in fa t one of things thinging, the plural is important as ratifying more learly the intra-epo hal plurality3#