semi-automatic waffle

Tuesday, 3 June 2025

Let’s outline a precise, philosophically grounded critique of Matthew Segall’s work, using the four approaches mentioned: internal consistency, genealogical integrity, rhetorical positioning, and political adequacy. These do not aim for a simple takedown, but a forceful engagement with the architecture of his thought on its own terrain.

A Tactical Critique of Matthew Segall’s Process Philosophy

1. Internal Inconsistency and Ambiguous Cosmological Scaling

Segall’s metaphysics relies heavily on panexperientialism and processual becoming, derived from Whitehead’s concept of actual occasions. But this framing often glosses over problems of differentiation and scale:

Problem of individuation: If every entity is an experiencing subject, how do we account for the emergence of stable patterns—organisms, societies, language—that seem to require something like boundaries, constraints, or even non-experience (e.g., sedimentation, habituation, repetition)?
Teleology without telos?: Segall resists mechanistic or computational teleology but replaces it with a vague aesthetic or spiritual pull toward coherence or beauty. But this substitute is rarely specified with rigor. What guides the creative advance of feeling? Is it beauty? God? Evolution? There's a sense of drift here—evocative, but possibly metaphysically incoherent.
Ambiguous ontology of potentiality: Inheriting Whitehead’s “eternal objects” and Schelling’s dynamic potencies, Segall at times conflates poetic metaphor with ontological commitment. The “etheric” becomes more than metaphor but less than mechanism—a hazy middle that demands further clarity.

2. Selective Genealogy and Misappropriation of Philosophical Lineages

Segall builds his system from figures like Schelling, Whitehead, and Bergson, but this synthesis risks cherry-picking compatibilities and ignoring contradictions:

Schelling and Whitehead are not fully reconcilable. Schelling’s absolute is generative but retains a dialectical negativity and theological structure that Whitehead’s actual occasions lack. To fuse them into a unified field theory risks erasing their differences.
Bergson’s duration and Whitehead’s concrescence might seem similar, but Bergson’s suspicion of spatialized thought conflicts with Whitehead’s geometric, even algebraic metaphysics. If Segall sees them as complementary, he owes us a clearer explanation of how their divergent temporalities and epistemologies reconcile.
His speculative metaphysics often claims a lineage through German Idealism, but it bypasses critical post-Kantian constraints (e.g., epistemic humility, transcendental grounding), instead reintroducing the absolute in a mystified or aestheticized form—effectively skipping over hard-won insights from Kant and poststructuralism alike.

3. Rhetorical “Both/And” Masking Strategic Exclusions

Segall positions his philosophy as integrative, relational, and “both/and,” but his actual arguments often rely on partisan oppositions:

Computationalism vs. Process: He dismisses computational theories of consciousness without seriously engaging the sophisticated, non-reductionist branches (e.g., integrated information theory, predictive processing à la Friston). This makes his critique seem reactive, not rigorous.
Analytic vs. Continental: He valorizes “synthetic philosophy” while caricaturing analytic traditions as sterile or spiritually vacuous. But figures like Thomas Nagel, Galen Strawson, or even Sellars might be unexpected allies—philosophically closer to Segall than he admits.
Substance metaphysics as straw man: Many contemporary philosophers no longer defend Cartesian or atomistic substance ontologies, yet Segall often fights this outdated foil to elevate his own position.

This rhetorical pattern—inclusive in language, exclusive in practice—should be scrutinized for its performative contradiction.

4. Political and Ethical Insufficiency

Segall’s metaphysics gestures toward a new cosmopolitics, a more relational and ecological ethic—but it remains too spiritualized and disembodied to engage material power:

What happens to violence? His universe is saturated with meaning, experience, and interconnection. But where is trauma, domination, exploitation? How are they metabolized in a cosmos of becoming? There’s a risk of aestheticizing suffering or treating oppression as merely “disconnection.”
Mystical cosmology and liberal pluralism: Segall’s vision tends toward a soft spiritual universalism—every being has value, all things are related—which may flatten political antagonism. There’s little room for asymmetry, resistance, or the “irreducible other.”
Neglect of mediation and institutional forms: His work often leaps from metaphysical claims to cultural implications, skipping over how those ideas are institutionally realized or blocked. There’s minimal engagement with history, law, ideology, or political economy—the infrastructures of being.

Conclusion: Repossessing the Process

Segall’s work invites us to reimagine the cosmos as living, aesthetic, and interdependent. But his metaphysics often outpaces its own architecture. A rigorous critique would not simply reject his system but return it to itself—to its own promises, inconsistencies, and refusals. In this sense, the most tactical critique is not to storm the palace from outside, but to walk its halls with its own keys and find the empty rooms.

GPT