Still picking the brain of this Laruelle character, and others are helping me understand him better because they tend to be free of all the jargon he uses which seems so superfluous a lot of the time. We’ve all heard of interdisciplinarity – who’d have thought there was a science behind it?
This work calls “generic” a type of sciences or knowledges [connaissances] sufficiently neutral and devoid of particularity in order to be added to others more determined and co-operate with them, transforming them without destroying them or denying their scientific nature.
A cognitive technology for preventing totalitarianism?
It’s science’s ruse too
reciprocity is philosophy’s ruse, best means of subjecting science.
The question is how do we prevent one discipline from cloning itself basically. Even in the “field of knowledges” it seems like such a power-struggle. They tend to simply avoid each other for this reason, thus we get the proverbial echo chambers (whoops bad word to use).
On the other side of this, this is why I say that his supposed “non-standard” philosophy is very much in the tradition of liberté, égalité, fraternité. Ideals so sacred that we’ve adopted them across the ocean and thus can’t even put Laruelle into question over them. Speaking of pluralism…
So reactionaries can clearly appropriate this thought of his. He’s writing against the Mathematical-Maoism of his time and we have something similar here.
This is an acute point
Generic is not opposed to the philosophical term for term, but freed from it by the minimal evil it does to it. It is added onto knowledges
That’s how the disciplines look at each other too – something evil about the others. You know I’m not wrong. “You’re not me, you’re not good because you’re not me.” That’s really pessimistically realistic- Interdisciplinarity is kind of being evil to each other in a way. It’s ideally for the good of the other though. It’s interpreted as evil at first because it’s not the same as you. How are the different disciplines going to learn from each other and build on each other without enduring this “evil”?
We sorely do need this in our culture
the project of a generic science-thought as such destined to add science and philosophy to one another without denying them or limiting them reciprocally
Reminds me of Slezkine’s notion of “service nomads” – he’s proposing a type of science that goes between the disciplines. Or at least that’s my initial interpretation of him so far. That IS something we need. Think of that Philosophy of Poetry book from yesterday. Someone from an English department said that it seems arrogant and cantankerous. That’s a good way to encapsulate the “vibe” of a discipline being put into question by another discipline. “Excuse me?” We need to do that though, they can’t just exist apart, that’s just immature. “Atoms”, cliques in the academy. Just like anywhere, even if they’re the smartest people. Just shows you that Laruelle is one of the smartest to formulate this project. This is the kind of thing philosophers are supposed to be doing, and most of the professional ones prefer to play it safe. “Avoid hostility.” He just had enough with the gulagger Badiou I guess.
This CAN be suspicious though
Generic knowledge, as additional factor = X, “transforms” knowledges without being affected by them.
That’s decidedly not reciprocal. What people in our culture would call chauvinistic. I’m personally not opposed to this though. That other one I quoted early about Laruelle seems to be correct that he’s vying for a type of aristocracy just like Badiou. Just the question of whether those “service nomads” are going to be servants of the state themselves.
This is a noble goal though even if there is a high chance of corruption
rigorously founding the human sciences
Basically doing the Socratic method on scientists to get them out of their specialized bubble. Everyone could use that, it’s just the matter of “minimizing evil” i.e. not being so obnoxious about it, and that’s an art itself. It’s impossible to not be irritating though because that’s part of the process. People are happy with their unreflective beliefs. We should hold scientists at least to a higher standard. “Should? What’s that mean, that’s a moral claim. Morality doesn’t exist from the standpoint of science.” Exactly the kind of thing you have to question them about. Do we want our scientists promulgating a worldview like that? Many of them do!
This is a cool way to say it
Generic because of its neutrality can intervene in several sciences or philosophies without unsettling them as sciences (except in their pre-epistemological positivity which prepares them to be seized by the All).
Euphemistic for “egodeath”. There is something sneaky-seeming about this “neutrality” here. Disguised imperialism. Like I said, we do need something like that- might have to be sneaky. There’s nothing “neutral” about causing people to be seized by the All.
People have their talents in the various disciplines and philosophy isn’t able to be itself in a sense because ideally it’s supposed to oversee the disciplines. When it’s forced to be “just another discipline” then the rest of the disciplines are not overseen, and this is not good, because they lapse into dogmatism which philosophy is the elixir to. Good luck trying to convince them of any of this post, despite that fact. Laruelle seems to be developing a rhetoric that attempts to convince them, and that’s pretty brilliant if you ask me. “I thought you said you were neutral? Now I’m having a mid-life crisis.” LSD rather than DMT. I mean, why though? “Because people like to have their normal life, that’s why.”
He refers to it as the “emancipation” of a given discipline. Yes, that is what the annoying Socratic method can do, if it is allowed. As I’ve tried to demonstrate many times now, even the “professional Socratics” of our culture need this method used on them too. And Laruelle seems to agree about the ones in France too.