I am trying to set up the possibility of a dialogue between the thought of the “3Ls” Laruelle, Latour, and StiegLer, on the basis of a shared configuration of thought: pluralism, the radicalisation or extension of phenomenology, and the critique of synchronic ontology.
Latour’s new book AN INQUIRY INTO MODES OF EXISTENCE is meant to be in some way “phenomenological” in its descriptions of the modes of existence, and I find many points of comparison and of controversy between Latour and Stiegler. The philosophical dialogue is rendered more difficult by Latour’s practice of hiding his philosophical sources, of which he has many in common with Stiegler. Stiegler calls for re-reading the immediate past, whereas Latour is trying to rewrite it into unreadability or insignificance.
A fourth shared theme is the rejection of scientism. This is clear in Latour’s pluralism of modes, where many sorts of beings are acknowledged and scientific beings are consigned to just one mode of existence amongs a plurality. Stiegler has rejected scientism explicitly too, calling his own thought an organology:
“when one says that organology is a pharmacology, then one poses that organology is indeterministic i.e. that organology is not a technical determinism and so is irreducible to any scientific discipline whatever. It cannot be biocentric, it cannot be neurocentric, it cannot be technocentric, it cannot be ecocentric, it is decentered and excentric”.
Laruelle has distanced himself from the scientism of his earlier work. Talking about his evolution from Philosophy II to Philosophy III:
“If I is intra-philosophical and II marks the discovery of the non-philosophical to the benefit of science, III frees itself from the authority of science, i.e. in reality from any philosophical spirit of hierarchy, and takes as its object the whole of philosophical sufficiency” (PRINCIPES DE LA NON-PHILOSOPHIE, 1996, p40, my translation).