Something that is probably useful to know about Laruelle’s books
It is genuinely a corpus, a body of work that is progressively constructed, rather than a series of interrelated but largely independent texts
A couple of his main works were only translated less than a decade ago. He has five main periods and those are two from his second and third. No wonder he’s so confusing sometimes. He’s the cloudperson par excellence that I know of, so that’s why I find this important. Those French, they’re not the same as us “pragmatists”.
Here’s one person’s advice at least – I drew from this text a few times
No, the French aren’t perfect. They still have something I never see in the Anglosphere. While you’ll probably find some out-of-the-way profs who teach him somewhere in the US, I doubt they’ll be showing you how he can be used for “Antiversity” purposes. So this is a way we can try to aufheben these contemporary frenchies. “Hey, frenchy.” Because Laruelle seems to be the manifestation of spirit in history as Hegel calls it, whereas Badiou is more the one who gets the glamor. Is that a game that you like to play? To try to get the most up-to-date view of the highest science and possibly beyond? “That’s arrogant, philosophy isn’t that.” Okay make a philosophical argument (which is a redundancy) to prove it then, please. So this might be a project then. Now that politicking is next to useless, might as well. Or did Biden just declare war on Russia or something, I lose track. You’d probably still be in russiagate-consciousness without me you poor saps. Russians have generally aufheben‘d France in my opinion, in terms of political philosophy at least. So if you want to know whose side you’d want to root for, if there was a war, this is something significant you’d need to know.
While I know by now that it’s futile to point this out, if you believe yourself to have aufheben‘d ME, and you find that you’re suddenly on the side of the status quo, you probably need to wonder how you got there. This is an all-too-easy defense mechanism that prevents us from actually going through with a genuine turn of the dialectic. You’re just a bot of the mainstream that’s keeping us back. You must be a starry-eyed optimist to believe the status quo is right. That’s exactly what the bourgeoisie does- justifies the status quo.
In the neechen tradition we think of all philosophy as art. You can watch your favorite show, or your favorite soap opera, OR you can engage in this interactive “art” of trying to have a conversation with contemporary geniuses. What do you find entertaining? This is the best “show” ever in my opinion, and most don’t have the faculty to appreciate it. Read some of these people yourself, see what they have to say, and respond to them yourself. Maybe then I’d think you were a person who deserved to have a vote. I constantly see ways that Laruelle is “off” or is a “French object” – this is the real “news”. It’s not a fantasy of mine either, I can genuinely see how he is a biased person because of the milieu that he thought in. Let’s just say, Faurisson is nowhere to be seen in his work. This is an opportunity for us to take contemporary thinking to another level that the professionals are afraid of. I dunno, that’s just fun to me, others are more simplistic.
This is all a joke to me (and to anyone who understands frogs really)
Nietzsche is not there, that is Deleuze’s Nietzsche. There is no real multiplicity, all the “bad mean non french revolution stuff” in Nietzsche is not in Laruelle. We can still use “created concepts” of his in ways that he would not like, namely to route-around the history of philosophy which he is very adroit at. If I actually had friends this is the kind of stuff I would say, just chillin. And “of course” if philosophy is tweaked then there are implications for the arts and sciences too. So that’s why this is thrilling to me, to deign to deal with these French who I do truly despise in certain ways.