from Shaviro’s response

Shaviro sent a quick and friendly e-mail. Here is a brief sample:

“Obviously I am trying to argue for ‘subjective aim’ as a way to avoid the Scylla of substance without falling into the Charybdis of relationality-with-no-remainder. So I am arguing for a position that, according to your argument, simply cannot exist. Obviously this is tricky, which is why I want to hold off until I have more time to develop my assertion.

As for Kant… I am really just trying to say that Whitehead, like you, has both a pro-Kantian and an anti-Kantian side, essentially the same as your points a and b.”

On the first point I would ask, “why call substance a Scylla?” Keep in mind, Shaviro knows my position well, so I think he’s aware that I’ve jettisoned a great deal of the traditional concept of substance. That’s why I say “object” instead. Relationizing everything continues to be viewed as some sort of automatically cutting-edge, intellectually progressive gesture (I have the same ongoing dispute with Hallward) and I’m not sure why. It’s so easy to remove the deleterious aspects of the old substance-concept.

I’m actually in the mood to make another “subjective aim” post but the timing is bad. Two more solid days of running the Conference, today and tomorrow, followed by preparations for the trip and then the trip itself.