Reid over at Planomenology has an excellent– genuinely excellent —post up outlining the contours of Laruelle’s non-philosophical engagement with philosophy. Note how Reid outlines non-philosophical engagement with philosophy in the clearest of terms, drawing minimally on Laruelle’s own dense language. This is how it’s done. Hopefully Reid will write a similarly clear account of concepts such as One-without-unity, determination in the last instance (this one particularly irks me), how Laruelle arrives at a radically immanent one anterior to philosophical operation, etc.
February 21, 2009
February 21, 2009 at 2:29 am
Levi,
Thank you so much, you are really too generous. I’m doing the best I can with Laurelle, given the minimal amount of his work that is currently in English (and Taylor deserves kudos here for his remarkable pace of translation).
I have to admit, I have a thing for dense, difficult conceptual language – the more obscure and alienating the better. That’s not to say I like it because its obscure, of course, but this weird jouissance I find in such language certainly motivates me to keep engaging the material until I really understand what’s going on. That’s what kept me going in philosophy, from Heidegger, Deleuze, and Lacan through to Laurelle.
I’m certainly not one to knock clear writing, but I do think obscure language has its role. As someone who has studied Lacan, I assume you know what I mean, even if you don’t fully agree. My own original writing often vacillates between nearly solipsistic density, on the one hand, and (hopefully) clear, rigorous explication on the other. I even tend to find the bulk of the creative work takes place in the former, while the latter tends to clarify what went on in that creative work for people other than myself (and for me too, I suppose).
In any case, I will certainly continue to explicate Laurelle this way, because I think non-philosophy is a really important innovation in (or rather, for) philosophy. I don’t really think the obscure writing of Laurelle or Brassier detracts from this importance, nor do I think it is necessary. I just think it is part of the creative process, at least for some.
Again, thanks for the kind words. I have to admit, I wrote that post primarily to clarify my ‘reproaches’ to you (and I never really meant them as reproaches so much as indexes for my own approach to your truly inspiring ontological musings), because it seemed to me you were writing them off or misunderstanding them. I don’t really expect you to jump on the non-philosophical bandwagon, I just hoped to clarify what was going on in my head. So I’m glad you enjoyed the post, as it was implicitly addressed to you.