4 responses to “Laruelle’s Deconstruction & Non-philosophy”
I don’t know if its just me, but reading Laruelle is such an arduous task. I’m always backtracking, reading, rereading, triple reading, finding blisteringly wonderful nuggets emerging from the text only to find myself, an hour or so later, unable to articulate them. This of course makes me want to keep reading him, push through the labyrinthine ways his texts flow, but I have to wonder at the end of the day – is there anything there to grab onto, in non-philosophy’s core? Or is that a ridiculous question?
I would say, in one manner of speaking, you have only to ‘grab into’ your self, maybe perhaps Dasein. Because once that happens — if it ever can happen — then Laruelles texts begin to speak ‘as if from nowhere’ in the Event, arising from the void, the immanent transcendence, in unilateral duality.. Etc and all that. The point of the whole thing is to avoid making ‘another philosophical object’ out of it. For the ‘core’ is the ‘non-object’, or as again Heidegger may have put it, the Being-there as a work of art.
“The point of the whole thing is to avoid making ‘another philosophical object’ out of it. For the ‘core’ is the ‘non-object’” – yeah, I was recalcitrant to use the word “core” for that very reason, but you put it far better than I could have. Perhaps the loss of articulation is indicative of just this – moving back and forth from philosophy to communication and information theories brings a sort of muted unity of communication’s compulsion to always communicate more and in wider ways with philosophy’s own ambition. Being confronted with something incommunicable was surprising, ironic even given that I’ve spent the path few months writing on noncommunication (albeit from a Deleuzian register). Either way, I’ve really just begun going through him (just read a few essays and “Future Christ,” which I figured would have been a good supplement to Vaneigem’s book on heresy)… any recommendations on where to go next?
synthetic zerØ 
I don’t know if its just me, but reading Laruelle is such an arduous task. I’m always backtracking, reading, rereading, triple reading, finding blisteringly wonderful nuggets emerging from the text only to find myself, an hour or so later, unable to articulate them. This of course makes me want to keep reading him, push through the labyrinthine ways his texts flow, but I have to wonder at the end of the day – is there anything there to grab onto, in non-philosophy’s core? Or is that a ridiculous question?
I would say, in one manner of speaking, you have only to ‘grab into’ your self, maybe perhaps Dasein. Because once that happens — if it ever can happen — then Laruelles texts begin to speak ‘as if from nowhere’ in the Event, arising from the void, the immanent transcendence, in unilateral duality.. Etc and all that. The point of the whole thing is to avoid making ‘another philosophical object’ out of it. For the ‘core’ is the ‘non-object’, or as again Heidegger may have put it, the Being-there as a work of art.
“The point of the whole thing is to avoid making ‘another philosophical object’ out of it. For the ‘core’ is the ‘non-object’” – yeah, I was recalcitrant to use the word “core” for that very reason, but you put it far better than I could have. Perhaps the loss of articulation is indicative of just this – moving back and forth from philosophy to communication and information theories brings a sort of muted unity of communication’s compulsion to always communicate more and in wider ways with philosophy’s own ambition. Being confronted with something incommunicable was surprising, ironic even given that I’ve spent the path few months writing on noncommunication (albeit from a Deleuzian register). Either way, I’ve really just begun going through him (just read a few essays and “Future Christ,” which I figured would have been a good supplement to Vaneigem’s book on heresy)… any recommendations on where to go next?