INTRODUCTION: SYNCHRONIC VS DIACHRONIC ONTOLOGIES

I will be commenting on a very interesting excerpt from Belhak Kacem's forthcoming book L'effet Meillassoux (The Meillassoux Effect publishe! on the blog "es apports !e Meh!i Belha# Kacem$ Kacem situates %uentin Meillassoux (%M in the context of the post&Ba!iousian generation' that is trying to inherit not only from Ba!iou but also from (eleu)e$ In my language' they are trying to combine elements of a synchronic ontology with those of a !iachronic ontology$ Belha# Kacem* + ,-est une mo!e !es philosophes !e ma g.n.ration' /ui m-a agac. che) beaucoup* comment 0compossibiliser1 (eleu)e et Ba!iou2 3arce /ue son talent est incommensurable 4 la concurrence' %M est all. bien plus loin' et 4 sa lecture on se !it souvent /u-il est bien pr5s !-y parvenir$ Et pourtant 4 la fin non$ "e pr.sent livre vou!rait contribuer' au&!el4 !es criti/ues' 4 ce /u-il r.ussisse quand mme+$ +It's a fashion amongst philosophers of my generation which has annoye! me a lot* how to +compossibilise+ (eleu)e an! Ba!iou2 Because his talent is incommensurable to the competition' %M has gone further than most' an! rea!ing him one ten!s to think that he is very close to succee!ing$ 6n! yet finally he !oesn't$ The present book woul! like to contribute' beyon! its criti/ues' to him succee!ing after all+ (my translation $ 7or Belha# Kacem this opposition of incompossibles an! the attempt to overcome it can be seen in %M's implicit loyalty to (eleu)e in his concept of +super&,haos+ an! his vacillating loyalty to Ba!iou in the notion that +mathematics8ontology+* +9e vais plus loin !ans 0l-hypoth5se !e travail1* %M nous cache et se cache son !eleu)isme foncier par un ba!iousisme schi)ophr.ni/ue+ +I go further in my +working hypothesis+* %M hi!es' from us an! from himself' his basic (eleu)ism un!er a schi)ophrenic Ba!iouism+$ In Belha# Kacem's analysis there is a contra!iction at the heart of Meillassoux's system* %M's super& ,haos is the negation of the factial eternity of logic an! mathematics' an! logic an! mathematics are the +factial negation+ of any form of super&,haos$ Thus Meillassoux is torn between two absolutes' each of which is the negation of the other$

( !: MEILLASSOU"'S #LU$$ AND THE %HANTOM %RO#LEM

Belha# Kacem !escribes Meillassoux as committe! not only to theorising ontologically the real as a game of chance but also to participating in the game of ontological poker as a super&player' as a :magnificent player of philosophical poker' bluff inclu!e!;$ Meillassoux-s :bluff; is to presuppose a !emonstration that in fact he never gives* :la stabilit. universelle !es "ois est corr.l.e 4 la supposition' noum.nalement mise en r.serve' !u super&,haos$ Mais comme nulle part il n-a r.ellement fourni une telle !.monstration' !ont nous verrons en son lieu /u-elle ne peut tenir /u-4 un approfon!issement !e la /uestion !u lien entre ontologie et th.orie !e l-.v.nement' il .prouve la n.cessit. in extremis !e noum.naliser son super& ,haos; :the universal stability of the "aws <of =ature> is correlate! to the supposition' noumenally hel! in reserve' of super&,haos$ But nowhere has he really provi!e! such a !emonstration' which we will see in its proper place that it can only come from a !eeper consi!eration of the /uestion of the link between ontology an! theory of the event' he feels it necessary in extremis to noumenalise his super&,haos; (my translation $ Belha# Kacem calls the inference from the ontological !iachronic storm of super&,haos to the empirical synchronic stability of the "aws' as we observe them in our experience' the :phantom problem;$ This problem is not formulate! as such by Meillassoux' much less resolve!$ ?hat prevents the problem from being consi!ere! is Meillassoux-s master&stroke' which Belha# Kacem

calls his :3yrrhic stroke;' which consists in the bluff that the !emonstration has alrea!y been given$ This bluff allows him to maintain' while !enying it' (eleu)e-s ,haos' an! even to ra!icalise it by subtracting the @ne&6ll that englobe! it$ The bluff allows %M to remain (eleu)ian while preten!ing to be faithful to Ba!iou$

(&!: DEMONSTRATION VS DESCRI%TION IN THE GENESIS O$ STA#ILITY

In Belha# Kacem's analysis Meillassoux is force! into a Kantian position !ue to the fact that his (eleu)ian absolute' super&,haos' is atteste! neither by common sense nor by the sciences$ 6ll the known worl!s' Belha# Kacem un!erlines that they are known by science' +attest massively' interminably' to the remar/uable monotony of "aws' an! even to a sort of ontological bore!om' a non&!iversity+$ This super&,haos is nowhere to be seen or to be observe!' an! is unknown by science$ Ao !espite his anti&Kantianism Meillassoux is oblige! to noumenalise his super&,haos* +Il faut recourir' puis/u-il ne se manifeste pres/ue #amais' &sinon au gran! #amais&' au bon vieux noum5ne pour ren!re fort commo!.ment ce super&,haos hors !-acc5s imm.!iat+$ +Be has to resort to' because it almost never' not to say absolutely never' manifests itself' to the goo! ol! noumenon to remove this super&,haos very conveniently from all imme!iate access+ (my translation $ Belha# Kacem emphasises that (eleu)e' thanks to his Bergsonian influence' has no nee! of a noumenon' an! so !oesn't noumenalise his virtual ,haos$ =or !oes (eleu)e have a problem with the stability of "aws (the +stupi! stability of natural "aws+' as Kacem calls it ' because his proce!ure is !escriptive* +la 0sup.riorit.1' pour l-instant' !e (eleu)e' sur %M' est ce /ue ce !ernier consi!.rera comme une inf.riorit.* le !escriptif !u processus par le/uel le virtuel' hant. par l-inconsistance absolue !e la vitesse infinie !u ,haos' consiste pourtant+$ +the +superiority+' for the moment' of (eleu)e over %M lies in what Meillassoux consi!ers to be an inferiority* the !escription of the process by which the virtuel' haunte! by the absolute inconsistence of the infinite spee! of ,haos' nevertheless consists+$ (eleu)e's proce!ure is !escriptive' an! so has no problem passing from virtual chaos to actualise! "aws$ Meillassoux however preten!s to a!opt a purely !emonstrative approach' but can give no !erivation of stupi!ly stable empirical "aws from inobservable super&,haos' so he is oblige! not only to treat the super&,haos as a noumenal absolute' but also to regar! the link super&,haosC"aws as miraculous$

('! CONCLUSION: THE NOUMENAL A#SOLUTE AND THE (ITHDRA(AL %RO#LEM

Belha# Kacem argues that Meillassoux noumenalises the !iachronic (super&,haotic flux whereas Barman noumenalises the synchronic (timeless real ob#ects $ 9ust as %M has trouble explaining how a with!rawn super&,haotic flux can give rise to stable natural "aws' Barman cannot explain how with!rawn timeless real ob#ects can give rise to sensual fluxes$ In both cases there is an inability to account for the uni/ue anthropological an! cognitive nature of science' its synthesis of historicity an! realism$ Both philosophers posit a noumenal absolute behin! the veil of strong with!rawal (unobservable' unknowable' an! inaccessible $ This with!rawal is structural an! transcen!ental rather than physical an! empirical' but the contra!iction in Meillassoux's case between the two absolutes of super&,haos an! mathematics lea!s to a becoming +entitative+ of the structural super& ,haos in the guise of the coming of the Do! who may be$