Speculative Medievalisms and From Decision to Heresy

Some of you may be interested in two volumes that have recently come out that I am proud to have been involved with. First is the Speculative Medievalisms volume which collects the papers from the two events of the same name. This is available from the publisher as a free open-access PDF in addition to a print copy you can buy. My contribution is entitled “The Speculative Angel” and includes some translations from Lardreau & Jambet, Corbin, and Gilles Grelet. It includes a lot of other very interesting material.

Second is the Urbanomic/Sequence collection of essays by Laruelle entitled From Decision to Heresy: Experiments in Non-Standard Thought [US] [UK]. I co-translated, with Nicola Rubczak, three of the essays found there, but Robin Mackay has done a stellar job of editing the volume. His introduction is a mix of interview and exposition that is really helpful and clear.

5 thoughts on “Speculative Medievalisms and From Decision to Heresy

  1. Thank you for your work Anthony, and congratulations on the recent success! I am especially looking forward to the work on Gilles Grelet since I have not as of yet had access to any his work, even though I do speak/read French.

  2. No, I don’t recall asking. I don’t believe I have produced anything of too much value yet such that it may catch your eye, but the most “original” composition of mine has been called “Wilderness theology”. I’m trying consider it as a hypothesis of normativity.

    I’ve found that crisis seems to be one of the only things that can adopt a position of authority so as to command action from without. My motivation is simple: I am a bit upset by the fixation on “decisionism” that is being thrown around in Badiou in particular. I think the idea of “crisis” interests me primarily because in a crisis one does not decide, one simply springs into action. Any decision that is made seems to come after the emergency has been handled.

    I’m most interested in considering questions of trauma, violence, crisis, and so forth because they are perhaps the most difficult subjects to tackle. I say this because historically I do not believe they have been given a fair treatment (Benjamin, Arendt, Zizek all fall short) and they seem to be that with which we are most concerned. It’s just difficult to get a project off the ground.

    You may take a look at it here, but it’s still a work-in-progress: http://inthesaltmine.com/wilderness-theology/

    Thank you for your time! Best wishes, David.

  3. In particular, it seems we have much to say about the question “givenness” which to be sure has its roots in Kant. But, what do we have to say about “takenness”? This, to me, is key to thinking about normativity.

Comments are closed.