Arche-Fossils and Apocalypse: Part 1

Part 1: The Arche-Fossil

Martin Hagglund's effort to systematize certain aspects of Derrida's thought - those aspects he considers to be fundamental - was fortuitously timed. While Radical Atheism is primarily a polemic against religious, ethical and political readings of Derrida, it may also function as a dialogue partner with the work of Quentin Meillassoux in his popular After Finitude. Given that they overlap thematically so extensively, and that their conclusions are so diametrically opposed, a side by side comparison of the two works seems an inevitable and (hopefully) fruitful task.

Their implacable opposition is evident in the first chapters of their respective books. In After Finitude, Meillassoux develops a theory of what he calls the arche-fossil, The arche-fossil is the material support for statements about a time which existed before givenness; we can date events that took place before there was any manifestation vis a vis consciousness.

This ability forms an aporia at the heart of what Meillassoux refers to as correlationism: the idea that, in order to be, one must be a correlate. Correlationist philosophies hold that secondary - and even primary - qualities only exist as a relation between two terms, e.g., beings and being. For correlationism, it is impossible to step outside the correlation in order to view the two terms independently.

It is Meillassoux's argument that the arche-fossil demands that we do exactly this: subtract one term in order to view the other term as it is in-itself. How does this work? Everyone agrees that the solar system formed X number of years ago; but the correlationist adds the codicil ". . . for humans." This codicil is added on the belief that in order for the arche-fossil to be given, it must be given to a correlate (e.g., consciousness). For the correlationist, the arche-fossil is merely a lacuna within givenness; equivalent to events concerning distant, unobserved stars, or merely a vase falling in an empty room.

Meillassoux insists that the codicil evacuates the ancestral statement of all its sense. It must be allowed to stand as a literal statement, without any deeper meaning. To insist on the deeper meaning, to go beyond the literal and claim that, while it is a lacuna within givenness, it remains within givenness, is to destroy the literal sense. If we say that the ancestral statement is valid only for humans, this is equivalent to saying the ancestral event could not have taken place as stated: it could not have taken place in a time before givenness. The literal sense of the statement is thereby discarded.

The ancestral statement is not a statement about an absence within givenness; rather, it is a statement about an absence of givenness. In other words, if the statement "the solar system formed X number of years ago" is not taken literally, it has no sense at all.

The upshot of the argument is that science is capable of making statements about a single term of the correlation, and is utterly indifferent to the relation itself. Science is capable of thinking a time before the existence of the relation, and by implication, it is also capable of making statements about a time after the existence of the relation. These dia-chronic statements, because they subtract one term from the correlation, are capable of making (mathematical) statements about the remaining term as it is in-itself.

Up next, part 2: Apocalypse.