 of power must be "dethroned," there is a clear link between Latourian "bad transcendence" and Deleuzean "molarity."32 Deleuze and Guattari argue in a strikingly similar way to Harman's 28 Ibid., 252-3. 29 Quoted in Gender Trouble (New York: Routledge, 2010), 34. 30 Quoted in Harman, "Demodernizing," 268-9. 31 Ibid., 269. 32 Ibid., 269. CHIASMA #4 ‡ 2017 24 Peter and Paul passage, that schizophrenics are long past the archaic notion of an "I" behind the material desiring-productions of the unconscious: "the schizo sums up by saying: they're fucking me over again. 'I won't say I any more, I'll never utter the word again; it's just too damn stupid.'"33 Such a view substitutes a monolithic, transcendent, unitary subject (a "molar" entity) for what in reality is an immanent, differentiated multiplicity (a "molecular" entity, or what Latour refers to above as "dispersed"). Deleuze and Guattari, like Latour, argue on the contrary for a dispersed materialism that has no proper name representing a proper individual (extensive, molar), but rather only social, outer, material multiplicities (intensive, molecular). II. "There is no such thing as society": Neo-Positivist Autonomy of the Inner Such mischaracterizations of their interlocutors constitute a significant problem for the ostensible radicality and tenability of the anti-correlationist intervention. However, perhaps more troubling is speculative realism's unequivocal refusal of the epistemological and ontological status of relationality as unamenable to materialism. Because of the movement's genesis with the critique of correlationism (which sees itself as critiquing all forms of "relational" philosophies from Kantian idealism to poststructuralism), it is understandable that the speculative realists would harbor serious doubts about whether relations between beings ought to be accorded any such status. In its most outlandish form, this leads to the strains of dualism and neo-Platonism in Harman's invocation of "vicarious causation"34 (given his view that "real objects are non-relational").35 But even in Meillassoux and Brassier, we see repeatedly that their key frustration is that
of power must be " dethroned, " there is a clear liaison between Latourian " regretful transcendence " and Deleuzean " molarity. "32 Deleuze and Guattari argue in a strikingly similar way to Harman's 28 Ibid. , 252 - 3. 29 quote in Gender Trouble (New York: Routledge, 2010), 34. 30 quote in Harman, " Demodernizing, " 268 - 9. 31 Ibid. , 269. 32 Ibid. , 269. CHIASMA # 4 ‡ 2017 24 Peter and Paul passage, that schizophrenics are long past the antediluvian notion of an " I " behind the material desiring - productions of the unconscious: " the schizo summarize up by saying: they're fucking me over again.' I won't read I any more, I'll never utter the word again; it's precisely excessively damn stupid.'"33 Such a view substitutes a monolithic, transcendent, one subject (a " molar " entity) for what in reality is an immanent, differentiated numerousness (a " molecular " entity, or what Latour refers to above as " dispersed "). Deleuze and Guattari, like Latour, argue on the contrary for a dispersed materialism that has no proper name represent a proper individual (extensive, molar), but rather only social, outer, fabric multiplicities (intensive, molecular). II. " There is no such thing as society ": Neo - Positivist Autonomy of the Inner Such mischaracterizations of their interlocutors establish a significant problem for the ostensible radicality and tenability of the anti - correlationist intervention. However, perhaps more troubling is speculative realism's unequivocal refusal of the epistemic and ontological condition of relationality as unamenable to materialism. Because of the movement's genesis with the critique of correlationism (which see itself as critiquing all forms of " relational " philosophies from Kantian high-mindedness to poststructuralism), it is understandable that the inquisitive realists would harbor serious doubt about whether relations between beings ought to be accorded any such status. In its most outlandish class, this leads to the strains of dualism and neo - Platonism in Harman's invocation of " vicarious causation"34 (given his opinion that " actual objects are non - relational").35 But even in Meillassoux and Brassier, we see repeatedly that their key frustration is that
 of power must be "dethroned," there is a clece link betwesn Latoufian "bad transcendence" and Dxleuzean "nolarity."32 Deleuze and Gjattari aggue in a strmkingly similar xzy to Harman's 28 Ibib., 252-3. 29 Quoted in Gekder Troubla (New York: Roudlddye, 2010), 34. 30 Quoted in Harman, "Demodernizing," 268-9. 31 Ibid., 269. 32 Ibid., 269. CHIASMA #4 ‡ 2017 24 [eted and Paul passage, that schizophrehics art long past the arvhaic notion of an "I" behinf thf material desirinh-productionw of rhe unconsciuus: "the schizo sums up by saying: they're fucking me ovdr agcin. 'I won't wat I dny more, I'lo nevvr utter the word agahn; it's kust too damn xtu'id.'"33 Wuch a view substitutxs a monolithic, tranfcendent, gnntary subject (a "molar" ebtity) for whag in rezlmty is an imjanent, difrerentiated multiplicity (a "moltcujqr" entity, or shat Lwtjur refers to above as "dispersed"). Deleuzt and Guattari, like Latour, aegue on the contrary vor a dis[ersed materialism that has no proper name represantinj x pxiper kbdlvidual (extensive, molar), but rather only sociaj, oitvr, material multiilicities (intensivr, lokgcular). II. "Therg is no sudh thing as societj": Neo-Pofitivust Autonjmy pf the Inner Such mischaracrerizations jd their interlocutlrs constitbte a xignigicant problem for the ustehsible radifality ans tenability of tfe sndi-correlationist interventyon. Howevxr, pexhaps mofe ttoublind is specupativc realism's unequivofal rgfusal of the eplstemological and ontological svetus of relatootalpty as uncmenabke to materiajism. Because oy the morement'r genesis sith thx critique os correlationhdm (which seev itself as xrituquing xul forms of "rekational" ihnlosophiew from Kantian ideeliso to poststructuxclusm), it is underxtavdaflv tiat tra speculativa rexlirys wojld harbor wdriois doubts about whetver delations between nelngs oughj to be ascorded any sich status. In its lost mutuandixh sorm, this leads to the strains of dualidm wnd neo-Platogism in Harman's nnvocation of "vicarious causation"34 (given iis view that "real objgcts are non-relationak").35 But even ii Meiljassoux atd Brassier, we see rwpeatedly that thtir key frustration is fhat
of power must be "dethroned," there is link Latourian "bad and Deleuzean "molarity."32 a similar way to 28 Ibid., 252-3. Quoted in Gender Trouble (New York: 2010), 34. 30 Quoted in Harman, "Demodernizing," 268-9. 31 Ibid., 269. 32 Ibid., CHIASMA #4 ‡ 2017 24 Peter and Paul passage, that schizophrenics are long the notion an behind the material desiring-productions of the unconscious: "the schizo sums up by saying: they're fucking me again. 'I won't say I any more, I'll utter the word again; just too damn stupid.'"33 Such view a monolithic, unitary (a entity) for what reality is an immanent, differentiated multiplicity (a "molecular" entity, or what Latour refers to above as "dispersed"). and Guattari, argue on contrary a materialism that has name representing a proper individual (extensive, only social, outer, material multiplicities (intensive, molecular). II. is no thing as society": Neo-Positivist Autonomy of Inner Such mischaracterizations of their interlocutors constitute a problem for the ostensible radicality and tenability of the anti-correlationist intervention. However, perhaps more troubling realism's unequivocal refusal of epistemological and ontological of as to Because of movement's genesis with the critique of correlationism (which sees itself as all forms of "relational" philosophies from Kantian idealism to poststructuralism), understandable the speculative realists harbor serious doubts about relations beings ought to be such In form, leads the strains of dualism neo-Platonism in Harman's invocation of causation"34 (given his view But even in Meillassoux and Brassier, we see that their key frustration is that
 of power must be "dethroned," theRe is a clear Link bEtwEen laTourIan "bAd transcendencE" And DEleuzean "molarity."32 DeleuzE and GUaTTari ARgUe in a StrikinGLy SIMilAr WaY to haRMaN's 28 IbiD., 252-3. 29 QuOted in GEnder TroubLe (NEw york: RoutledgE, 2010), 34. 30 quOted in HarmAn, "DEmodernizing," 268-9. 31 ibiD., 269. 32 Ibid., 269. ChIaSMa #4 ‡ 2017 24 peter And paul pAssage, THat schIzophreniCs ARe long PAst the aRCHaIc noTion of an "I" behind thE MaTErial desiring-pRoductIoNS oF THe uNcoNscious: "the ScHizo sUMs up by sAYiNG: THey'RE fucking me oveR again. 'I won't SAy I Any morE, I'Ll nEVer uttEr the WoRD agAin; it's just tOo daMn stupid.'"33 SUch a viEW substiTUtes a moNolithIc, tRanScenDEnT, uNitArY SubJEcT (a "mOLar" Entity) foR wHaT in reAlitY IS AN immAneNt, diFfereNtiated multipLicIty (a "MOleCular" EntitY, or wHaT LatoUr refeRs to aBoVe as "dispersed"). DeLeuzE and GuattAri, LiKe LAtOur, arGUe on thE coNtrAry for a DispersED maTeRIALiSm that has no proper nAmE REpResentinG a propER iNdIVidual (exTeNsiVe, moLAR), but rAtheR OnLy social, Outer, mATeRiAl multiPlIcitieS (iNteNsiVe, molECulaR). II. "TheRe is no suCh thiNG as society": Neo-POSitivist AutonOMy OF ThE inneR SuCh mischaracTeriZAtioNs of THeIr iNTerloCutorS cONsTItute a significant prObLem for The osTensible radicAlity and teNABIlity of tHe anTI-cORrelationist inTerveNtion. HowevER, perhaps More tRoubling Is speculaTIVe realisM's uNeqUivOcaL REfUsal of the episTEMoloGiCal and oNtoLogical StaTus Of rElaTiOnality as UnamenabLe To MaTeRiaLism. BECause of tHe MovEmEnt'S geneSIs with The crItiqUe Of COrrElationISm (WHIch sEeS iTselF as CrItiquIng aLL foRms of "reLational" pHilOSophIeS fRom KantIan idealism to PoStstructurAlIsm), It is unDERstandabLe that the speculative reaLIsts wouLd hArbor SeriOus doubts AboUt whetHer RElatioNs betwEen beInGs oUGHt to bE ACcOrdEd Any such staTUS. In Its moSt OutlAndish fOrm, this leads to the sTRaiNs of dualism anD neO-PlaTONiSm iN haRMan'S iNVocATIon of "vicarious cAusation"34 (giVeN HiS view that "rEAl oBjEcts are Non-relaTionaL").35 but even In MeillasSoux and BrAsSier, WE See Repeatedly That theiR key frustRAtion IS tHat
 of power must be "dethron ed," there  is a  cl ear  l inkbetw een Latourian" badtranscendence" and Del euzea n" mola r it y."32  Deleuz e  a n d  Gu at ta riar g ue  in a  st rikingl y similarway  t o Harman's 2 8  I bid., 252- 3.29 Quoted in  Ge nder T ro ubl e  (New  Yo rk: R outled g e, 201 0), 34. 3 0Q uotedi n Harma n ,  " Demo dernizing," 268-9 .  3 1  Ibid., 269. 3 2 Ibid ., 26 9 .  CH IAS MA #4 ‡ 20 17  24 P e ter and Pa u l pas s age, that sch izophrenics are  longpa stt he arc haicno t ion  of an "I"behi nd the ma terial desirin g -produc tionsofthe  unc o ns ci ous :" the sc hiz o  su ms up by  s ay ing:they ' r e fuck ing  meoveragain. 'I won 'tsayI  an y mor e, I' ll n ev er ut ter th e wor dagain; it's jus t to o damn st upi d. '"3 3Sucha  viewsub sti tutes a  monoli t hic ,t r a ns cendent, unitary s ub j e ct  (a "mol ar" en t it y) for what  i n r eali t y  is a n im m an ent, dif ferent i at ed  multip li city ( a"mo lec ular" enti ty, or  what La tourr efers to above as "dispersed " ). D el e uzeand  Guattari,like Lato ur,a rg ueo n the  cont ra r yf or a dispersed mate ri alismthathas no proper  name repr e s e nting aprop e ri ndividual (ext ensiv e, molar), but rath er on ly socia l, outer, m aterialmul tip lic iti e s  ( intensive, mo l e cula r) . II. " The re is n o s uch  th ing  a s society ": Neo-P os it iv is t A utono m y of the  I nne rSuc h mis c haract eriza tion sof the ir inte r lo c u tors  c on stit ute  a  sign ific a ntproblem  for theost e nsib le  r adicali ty and tenabi li ty of thean ti- correl a t ionist i ntervention. However, p e rhaps m ore  trou blin g is spec ula tive r eal i sm's u nequiv ocalre fus a l  of t h e  e pis te mologicala n d o ntolo gi calstatusof relationality a s  un amenable to m ate rial i s m.  Be c au s e o ft hem o vement's genesi s with the  c r it ique of co r rel at ionism(whichseesi tself a s critiqu ing all f or ms o f "re lational"philosop hies from Kanti a nideal ism  to po st str uctur alism) ,  it  is u nderst an dablethatth e specul ative realists would ha rbor s eriou s d oubts abo utw het her relat ions  between b ein gsought  to be ac cord e dany suchstat u s. In its mo sto u tl andish form , t his  lead s t o  the s trai ns of dualism and neo-Platonismin H a r man 'si nvoc at ion of "vicari ous  c a u sation"3 4(given hisview tha t" realobject s arenon-rel a t io n al").3 5 Bu t e ven in Me ill as s oux and  B ra s sier,we s ee  repea tedlyt hatt h eir key frustrat ion i s that
 of_power must_be "dethroned," there is_a clear_link_between Latourian_"bad_transcendence" and Deleuzean_"molarity."32 Deleuze and_Guattari argue in a_strikingly similar way_to_Harman's 28 Ibid., 252-3. 29 Quoted in Gender Trouble (New York: Routledge, 2010), 34._30_Quoted in_Harman,_"Demodernizing,"_268-9. 31 Ibid., 269. 32_Ibid., 269. CHIASMA #4 ‡_2017 24_Peter and Paul passage, that schizophrenics are long_past_the archaic notion_of an "I" behind the material desiring-productions of the_unconscious: "the schizo sums up by_saying: they're fucking_me_over_again. 'I won't say_I any more, I'll never utter_the word again; it's just too_damn stupid.'"33 Such a view substitutes a_monolithic, transcendent, unitary subject (a "molar"_entity) for what in reality_is an_immanent, differentiated multiplicity (a "molecular"_entity, or what_Latour refers_to above as_"dispersed"). Deleuze and Guattari, like Latour,_argue on the_contrary for a dispersed materialism that_has_no proper name_representing_a_proper individual_(extensive, molar), but_rather_only social,_outer,_material multiplicities (intensive, molecular). II. "There_is_no such thing as society": Neo-Positivist Autonomy_of the Inner Such_mischaracterizations_of their interlocutors constitute_a significant problem for the_ostensible radicality and tenability of the_anti-correlationist intervention._However, perhaps_more troubling is speculative realism's unequivocal refusal of the epistemological and_ontological status of relationality as unamenable_to materialism. Because of_the movement's_genesis_with the critique_of_correlationism (which_sees itself as critiquing all forms of_"relational" philosophies_from Kantian idealism to poststructuralism), it_is understandable that the_speculative_realists would harbor serious doubts about_whether relations between beings ought to_be accorded any such status._In_its_most outlandish form, this leads_to the strains of dualism and_neo-Platonism in Harman's_invocation of "vicarious causation"34 (given his view_that_"real objects are non-relational").35 But even_in_Meillassoux and Brassier, we see repeatedly_that_their_key frustration is that