why Brassier is both right and wrong
After re-reading some of Nihil Unbound, I began to ask myself if perhaps Brassier may be mistaken concerning he notion of a "dead" form of Being which can, one day in the distant future, take on a finalized state "at the close of the universe," what is called "Being with zero degree" (a main thesis of his book).
When it comes to some of Brassier's more critical comments concerning the majority of the "speculative realist" blogosphere I think he is generally correct. But I think he might be incorrect on the topic of Being with zero degree as a final state or ultimate end in death of sorts.
In fact, Peirce even speaks of the "logic" of zero Being as a creative state, not a cold and dead one that admits of no furtherance ontologically or cosmologically (see CP IV and V). And, along with Whitehead, if there are cosmic epochs, then wouldn't it be too "optimistic" to try to claim that our physical universe is the one that happens to get the honor of getting darkened out of existence forever with no others to arise from it? In short, does the death of the universe presuppose and absolute end?