SCIENCE FICTION ET TETRALOGOS DE FRANCOIS LARUELLE: concepts partagés

Nous pouvons trouver de nombreux parallèles entre les principes du programme de recherche métaphysique que François Laruelle développe dans TETRALOGOS et la science-fiction en tant que genre. Une liste de termes et de concepts pouvant être utilisés pour discuter les deux inclut:

amplitude, inventivité, méga-texte, estrangement cognitif, construction du monde, aliens, futuralité, néologismes, langage transformé, SF dure, espace opéra, cosmicité, univers, extraterrestres, voyage cosmique, suspension volontaire de l’incrédulité, sens de l’émerveillement, temps quantique , agon de la dystopie et de l’utopie, destin humain, mondes multiples, generic subjectivation, anthropos .

Pour plus de détails voir ma contribution à la session du séminaire MAMUPHI consacrée au TETRALOGOS de Laruelle.

 

Publicités
Publié dans Uncategorized | Laisser un commentaire

FRANCOIS LARUELLE ET LA SCIENCE FICTION RADICAL: texte complet

Ce texte comporte une présentation de TETRALOGOS, le nouveau (2019) livre de François Laruelle, suivi par un examen de sa formule pour une « science-fiction générale » et une proposition pour rendre cette formule plus générique.

Abstract:

(1) considérations générales concernant l’amplitude et l’inventivité du programme de recherche laruelléen. (2) présentation statique du livre, de sa structure et de ses thèmes. (3) présentation dynamique du livre, de ses mouvements, de son drame conceptuel, et de son rapport avec quelques traits définitoires du genre de la science-fiction. (4) les trois critères que Laruelle propose en vue d’une formule permettant la refondation du genre de la science-fiction (5) la mise à l’épreuve de ses hypothèses par l’examen de quelques exemples potentiellement falsifiants. (6) une proposition pour une formule étendue de la SF non-standard (7) on conclut sur le concept d’un adieu inventif fait aux philosophes qui ont été nos éducateurs.

Lien academia.edu:

https://www.academia.edu/40542684/LARUELLE_ET_LA_SCIENCE_FICTION

Scribd:

Publié dans Uncategorized | 1 commentaire

SCIENCE FICTION AND FRANCOIS LARUELLE’S TETRALOGOS: shared concepts

We can find many parallels between François Laruelle’s metaphysical research program as developed in TETRALOGOS and science fiction as a genre. A list of terms and concepts that can be used to discuss both include:

amplitude, inventivity, mega-text, cognitive estrangement, world-building, futurality, neologisms, transformed language, hard SF, space opera, cosmicity, Universe, aliens, cosmic voyage, the willing suspension of disbelief, the sense of wonder, quantum time, the agon of dystopia and utopia, human destiny, multiple worlds, generic subjectivation, anthropos.

For details see the English translation of my presentation at the session of the seminar MAMUPHI devoted to Laruelle’s TETRALOGOS.

Publié dans Uncategorized | Laisser un commentaire

LARUELLE AND RADICAL SCIENCE FICTION: full English text

Text available here:

LARUELLE AND SCIENCE FICTION

Also here:

https://www.academia.edu/40542890/LARUELLE_AND_RADICAL_SCIENCE_FICTION

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336304335_LARUELLE_AND_RADICAL_SCIENCE_FICTION

 

Publié dans Uncategorized | 2 commentaires

LARUELLE AND SCIENCE FICTION: inventive farewell

7) Conclusion

François Laruelle, like all of us, has been influenced by the thinkers he has read and met, by the discussions he has had, by their power of inspiration, and by the disappointment that remains once the infatuation has ceased. Philosophy is a love story, and the affects it makes us live through can be some of the most intense and important in our lives. Saying goodbye to our educators is not a simple matter and it can not be accomplished once and for all. Laruelle, as we see in this book, is still saying goodbye to some of his elders, like Gilles Deleuze and Michel Henry, and to settle his accounts with some others, like Alain Badiou.

This problem resonates with me today, since I am experiencing a similar process of saying goodbye (or not) to Deleuze (my greatest influence) for a projected change in trajectory, and perhaps already begun.

My analyses of François Laruelle’s book TETRALOGOS are conducted from this point of view. As I have explained several times on my blog, the last book of the collaboration of Deleuze and Guattari, WHAT IS PHILOSOPHY?, is a brilliant work, but fundamentally flawed.

When I read The IMMANENCE OF TRUTH of Badiou last year, some of my misgivings crystallized. Deleuze and Guattari’s WHAT IS PHILOSOPHY? constantly speak of « the absolute », « the outside » and the « infinite », but their thought of the infinite remains too poetic and intuitive, and therefore cannot resist fully relativism.

Reading of Laruelle’s TETRALOGOS further consolidated this problem for me. My general impression of the process of saying farewell to Deleuze and to others, lived and recorded in this book by Laruelle, is that by showing his own movement of thought, he provides us with a series of concepts and perspectives useful for revisioning Deleuze, or any other philosopher, and for highlighting the limits of their thought.

It is this attempt by Laruelle to isolate, identify, and analyse certain problems and limitations in the thought of his predecessors, to go beyond that, which I hope I have demonstrated in my reading of TETRALOGOS.

In following this process, everyone can be one of the protagonists in his own cosmic epic. We would be like the dolphins at the end of another space opera, THE RIDER’S GUIDE OF THE GALAXY, leaving Earth, and its inhabitants, to its demolition, with this final message to humans: good bye, and thanks for all the fish!

We could take flight leaving Deleuze, or Badiou, (or any other philosopher educator of our understanding, even Laruelle) behind us saying: « Farewell and thank you for all the concepts ».

I hope you will do the same with this text.

Publié dans Uncategorized | Laisser un commentaire

LARUELLE ET SCIENCE FICTION: Conclusion – adieux inventifs

7) Conclusion

François Laruelle, comme nous tous, a été influencé par les penseurs qu’il a lus, par les discussions qu’il a eues, par leur puissance d’inspiration et par la déception qui reste une fois que l’infatuation a cessé. La philosophie, c’est une histoire d’amour, et les affects qu’elle nous fait vivre peuvent être parmi les plus intenses et les plus importants de notre vie. Dire adieu à nos éducateurs n’est pas une affaire simple et ce ne peut pas être accompli une fois pour toutes. Laruelle, on le voit dans ce livre est toujours en train de dire adieu à quelques aînés, comme Gilles Deleuze et Michel Henry, et de régler ses comptes avec quelques autres, comme Alain Badiou.

Ce problème résonne avec moi, aujourd’hui, puisque je suis en train de vivre un processus similaire consistant à dire au revoir (ou non) à Deleuze (ma plus grande influence) en vue d’un changement de trajectoire projeté, et peut-être timidement entamé.

Mes analyses de TETRALOGOS par François Laruelle sont conduites de ce point de vue. Comme je l’ai expliqué à plusieurs reprises sur mon blog, le dernier livre de la collaboration de Deleuze et Guattari, QU’EST-CE QUE LA PHILOSOPHIE ? (1991), est un travail brillant, mais fondamentalement déficient.

Quand j’ai lu L’IMMANENCE DES VÉRITÉS de Badiou l’année dernière, certaines de mes réticences se sont cristallisées. En QU’EST-CE QUE LA PHILOSOPHIE ? Deleuze et Guattari parlent sans cesse de « l’absolu », de « l’extérieur » et de « l’infini », mais leur pensée de l’infini reste trop poétique et intuitive, et ne peut donc pas résister totalement au relativisme.

La lecture de TETRALOGOS de Laruelle a encore consolidé ce problème pour moi. Mon impression générale quant au processus d’adieu à Deleuze, vécu et enregistré ici par Laruelle, c’est qu’en montrant son propre mouvement de pensée dans ce livre, il nous fournit une série de concepts et de perspectives utiles pour revisionner Deleuze, ou tout autre philosophe, et pour mettre en évidence les limites de leur pensée.

C’est cette tentative de Laruelle d’isoler, d’identifier, et d’analyser certains problèmes et limitations dans la pensée de ses prédécesseurs, pour aller au-delà, que j’espère avoir mise en évidence dans ma lecture de TETRALOGOS.

À suivre ce processus, chacun peut être l’un des protagonistes dans sa propre épopée cosmique. Nous serions comme les dauphins à la fin d’un autre opéra d’espace LE GUIDE DU ROUTARD DE LA GALAXIE, laissant la Terre à sa démolition, avec ce message pour les humains : adieu, et merci pour tous les poissons !

Nous pourrions prendre notre envol en laissant Deleuze, ou Badiou, (ou tout autre philosophe formateur de notre compréhension, même Laruelle) derrière nous en disant : « Adieu et merci pour tous les concepts ».

J’espère que vous ferez la même chose avec ce texte.

Publié dans Uncategorized | 2 commentaires

LARUELLE AND SCIENCE FICTION (6): heuristic criteria

The investigation of François Laruelle’s metaphysical research programme as developed in TETRALOGOS has led us to find many parallels with science fiction as a genre. Our list of terms and concepts used by both has expanded to include:

amplitude, inventiveness, mega-text, cognitive estrangement, futurality, world-building, neologism, transformed language, hard science fiction, space opera, cosmicity, Universe, cosmic voyage, willing suspension of disbelief, sense of wonder, quantum time, aliens, dystopia and utopia, human destiny, multiple worlds.

In this section we refine and extend our list.

6) Open, flexible and heuristic criteria

I will give five arguments for the loosening up of Laruelle’s formula

1) The examples we have just  discussed argue for an extension of Laruelle’s formula for non-standard SF, by adding one of his other criteria, the generic, to criterion #1, which requires the use of the hard sciences to be included in the infrastructure of the science fictional Universe. One way to include the generic at this physical level is to schematize it as general relativity or statistical mechanics and to incorporate it on an equal footing with quantum physics as it appears in the first version of criterion #1.

This first argument in favour of an extended formula for GSF (general science fiction) emerges from the empirical examination of the canon of science fiction, a wider canon that one might believe from the analyses of TETRALOGOS.

2) More generally, if the laws of physics that govern a SF universe may differ from those that apply in our own universe, then we should prioritize the generic over the quantum in criterion #1. We must distinguish the quantic as model of thought from the quantum as a law of physics in our world.

Strictly speaking, the important point is not the presence or absence of quantum as a positive science, but the introduction of the quantic as a model of generic thinking. This consideration explains why Laruelle should explicitly include the generic in his list of criteria for SF.

3) These additional examples (Greg Egan, Alastair Reynolds, Isaac Asimov) show that Laruelle should be more flexible in terms of his criteria. This is not a problem for his project. In fact, the ability to deploy a more open, flexible and extensive set of criteria is already available in his system. In the ascending movement of his cosmic epic, François Laruelle expands the new alliance between science and philosophy to bring it to the state of Reminiscience, a knowledge that includes both the generic and the quantum. It is this Reminiscience that has allowed us to propose a more developed formula for Laruellean SF.

4) A fifth problem comes from the particular version of the « quantic » requirement that Laruelle recommends. Whenever he speaks about the creators of quantum mechanics, he favours the interpretation given by one of the most classical quantum physicists, Max Planck (see also Laruelle’s article « Marx with Planck »), to the detriment of other possible interpretations. And he explicitly excludes Niels Bohr.

However, quantum mechanics is not an unambiguous thing, it comes from a wide range of dialogues and contradictory interpretations. Even today, its nature, interpretation and status are complex on the dialogical level. Is there a single « quantum » thought common to all these researchers? I do not think so. The « quantic » exists as a variable with a set of possible interpretations as argument.

5) Lastly, there is a danger of cognitive petrification in the formulation given of criterion #1. Laruelle endorses at the level of one of his general criteria (the quantic) the inclusion of a particular scientific theory (quantum mechanics) that could one day be replaced by a theory with a different structure, which amounts to making it both judge and party. We must not install as the foundation of science a theory that must be submitted to the same critical process as any other theory.

There exist many works of science fiction written by major authors which take a world-building framework based on a physics derived from another interpretation of quantum mechanics. A recent example would be RED MOON by Kim Stanley Robinson, which uses the pilot wave of David Bohm.

This rapid analysis of the criteria of Laruelle’s formula for a general science-fiction suggests that the first criterion (inclusion of quantum physics in the infrastructure of world-building) is too limited and restrictive, being much more specific (or less generic) than the other criteria. It should be broadened to include relativistic physics, other versions of quantum physics, and present or future alternatives. More generally the three criteria should be considered as optional rules, heuristics, and not as dogmas.

Criterion #1 (inclusion of the quantum) should not be treated as a necessity but as a heuristic recommendation for the inclusion of hard science not only as part of the surface furnishing, but as part of the infrastructure of the Universe of the novel (its world-building and its model of thought).

An interesting example of the interest of expanding criterion #1 is Yoon Ha Lee’s THE MACHINERIES OF EMPIRE trilogy. Its world-building is based on a technology that can produce non-standard or « exotic » effects, on the condition that everyone conforms to the same « calendar », calculated according to higher mathematics and given force by a series of painful feast days or « remembrances » recalling traumatic events and making use of torture and human sacrifice.

The first book in the series, NINEFOX GAMBIT, is the best, then the other two explore the innovatory physics less so as to concentrate on the characters. Lee explains that he could have done more with the maths, but that he found he had to choose between developing the speculative dimension and making the story accessible. To our loss, he oriented his writing towards accessibility.

Some people questioned its belonging to the genre of SF, seeing it as fantasy decked out as SF. I have argued that it is in fact SF, but that the hard science on which it is based is mathematics rather than the more usual physics.

Publié dans Uncategorized | Laisser un commentaire