light & enchantment
Abandoned answer to an interview question:
I mean, clearly, immanence has always had huge issues for me. From the early 80s everything addresses it. Light could be described almost entirely as being a kind of back & forth reveling in those issues. But enchantment has to have a secularity, a materiality. It doesn’t inform or inhabit the world: in some way it is the world. It’s algorithm & structure, a kind of physics, an expression of the constantly folding & acting rule-like structures that make everything moment to moment.
I usually give up on articulating this–except intuitively, via the discpline I know, which is “fantastic” fiction–out of embarrassment: I reel back from contemporary philosophy (increasingly, in fact, from all philosophy) with the feeling that it is too clever for me. My admiration has become doglike, & that’s not really good enough, is it ?