Getting more abstract, looking at him in the context of those similar to him

This is important because we in the US are arguably not yet “postdeconstructive”. And it would be good to get there, even if not in the way of any of these thinkers.

This writer from the get-go blames Trump and Brexit on the relativism caused by “French” thinking. Au contraire! They are more a reaction to relativism, more “postdeconstructive”. Oh well, maybe this book will still be of use. Not many secondary texts on this lizard Laruelle.

One might even anticipate these more recent French thinkers being imported in the US eventually, so it would be good to get to know them before that happens. They have thinkers in France. Do they have those in the US? I’m not so sure… Thus there is a dynamic where one learns from the other. And I need not remind you of the ZOG superstructure of both countries.

Could be good, could be bad, could be oracular

in the wake of Derrida, each of these thinkers quite clearly affirms renewed forms of realism and materialism

If our epistemology shifted in this direction here it would be great

post-Continental naturalism accepts that knowledge has its origin in the real

Deconstruction isn’t the center of the state religion, it just might have that appearance. Really it’s only a weapon that it uses. “Deconstruction” in itself isn’t a bad thing. It’s appropriated very selectively is the problem, it’s only used to deconstruct what it wants, rather than everything. My style of deconstruction is more universal. To put it succinctly, mine isn’t an endnote on the Declaration of Human Rights, which is the way Derrida’s corpus can be seen.

It might be kind of strange to hear, that the US has an identifiable epistemology. It does, it has a way that it understands knowledge. Do you “know” how it does? It believes knowledge doesn’t exist. This is a way of defining relativism. French ideas have contributed to that epistemology. So since they’ve been simmering on them more than we have, maybe these more recent ones have a way to get us out of this. Do you “know” why? Because relativism is simultaneously moral relativism. It’s an epistemological grounding that justifies evil, a grounding of groundlessness. Look closely at the belief-system here, you will see that there is indeed a standard way that people “understand knowledge”.

Sometimes I feel guilty for going on and on about some of this stuff then I remember that people who know about some of these things tend to be academics and they can’t apply their understanding directly to the real world in certain ways without getting in trouble, so then I think “Someone has to…”

What’s important to know is that “pure deconstruction” is not practiced. There are earlier forms of it that don’t resemble the mainstream representation. So to speak, it’s not “first science”, because it’s “in the service of”.

These are some of the people with the most advanced understanding on the planet of the broadest things possible

This is “my” tradition”, and there are ways of doing “my” tradition that aren’t allowed. And these thinkers would very likely disavow any connection between me and them. Thus there is a limit to the idea that they think about “the broadest things possible”.

Reading something like this just makes me laugh

the radical immanence of the Real in Laruelle

You’re a domesticated schoolteacher, boy!

Do you want to know about “the state of philosophy today”? I think that’s pretty important. I have reverence for the sublimity of the digital revolution for this reason.

Anyway, some of these “cousins” of mine I still find extremely interesting. We’ve gotten a taste of “nonphilosophy” applied to photography and theology, among other disciplines, and it looks like a Laruellian has written a recent book on how it applies to digital media, which I might have to take a look at later.

It all goes back to early Land

the relation of mutual revulsion between the academy and a small defiant fragment of its outside… that has seized and learnt to manipulate the weaponry of philosophical strife [and] considers the voice of the university to be irremediably tainted by servility.

No academic reading this reviles me, do you? HAHAHA

Not many will understand how important it is to have this system of checks and balances, and the ones that otherwise might be able to are possibly too blinded by their “revulsion”. The happy few.

If you find these types to be a sort of cousin too here is a convenient subject-ordering

This all might be gradually making its way to the US, and he’s more of a standard prog than he believes himself to be, so… We need people who will know how to talk to his future clones.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: