Philosophy has its masses, they are humans in great number under the condition of psychological, political, and social servitude, and who must be taught, they are potential philosophers. They are exemplified for the best among them as subjects or models programmed by philosophy to teach the others and to elevate them to the practice and to the contemplation of concepts. The multiplicity of the subjected and the rarity of the model-subjects are distributed in hierarchies by the philosophical machine, double of the world, under the guard of the master-Philosopher who ceaselessly reprogrammes the machine and watches over its correct functioning (François Laruelle, LA PHILOSOPHIE NON-STANDARD, 149, my translation).

This is the state of standard philosophy, whether it be academic or “para-academic”. It is practiced by standardised experts, no matter how “wild and free” the long process of formatting and standardisation has seemed to them. This process of selection and standardisation knows nothing of what Laruelle calls “gnostic knowledge”, to distinguish it from expert competence in disciplinary domains. He declares that such gnostic knowledge is the attribute of the masses not as “amateurs” reduced to the state of passive lovers and consumers of the doxa, but as “the ignorant” who actively “seize philosophy and the sciences” (151), creating a generic science which is “intrinsically penetrated by philosophy, which in turn is intimately penetrated by science” (191). Not selection, but “superposition”.

Gnostic knowledge is spontaneously “revolutionary” … The immediate fusion by superposition of knowledge and of “simples”, of the subtilities of theory and of the vulgar of the lived, we know that this is the intimate adversary of States and Churches, but also of philosophical Systems and disciplinary Domains, of their specialists who fear above all this seizing of power, as they believe, by the ignorant” (151).

Expert philosophy fears the gnostic masses, those who are not mired in opinion but who practice the fusion of theory and the lived. The idea of the masses “seizing power” seems contradictory with Laruelle’s advocacy of weakness. But this is a problem of perspective. When Laruelle speaks from his own perspective, and thus from the perspective of the masses, he talks in terms of “seizing” or” taking hold of” (s’emparer de) theory. However, as the standard philosophers understand everything in terms of power and privilege, from their own perspective they see this taking theory into their own hands by the masses as a take over or seizing of power (prise de pouvoir).

Note: I am indebted to a discussion with Stephanie Hutchison for helping me get clear on the role of “power” in this analysis.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.


  1. ecopoiesis says:

    I ingenue in gnosis recall the invocation belling and masses of souls around radiant godhead. Friends and I started to make print t-shirts of non standard, stall quality design – of godhead – the drawing made by a friend looked absolutely unshakeable – the tranquility of ages plus the unmovable in moai-like face…a face directly. in that universe of mass glee an engineer would say no irresistable force. well, in that moment of gnostic production and conviviality there wasn’t….

    And always an encouraging note – keep at it Terry. It’s such a pleasure to read you and I’ve gone back to read over a name that came to me, Franz Brentano – who seems to be using Deleuzian term of immanence in a pre-phenomenological psychologistic sense, on first scan.

    cheers to you and your writing.


    • terenceblake says:

      Thanks for your comment and for your gnostic conviviality. Also for the encouragement, as I need it to go on. I must confess that I haven’t read Brentano, so good luck on your future scans.


  2. landzek says:

    I Absolutly love your view and analyses. Though I in my work see a ‘different ‘ breakdown of non philosophical effect , everyone of your posts is enlightening a helpful. I value your time and effort and it seems extensive readings of various authors.


  3. terenceblake says:

    Thanks, i am glad your perspective and breakdown is different. I read in fact very slowly, but I spend much time on these matters. I appreciate your analyses too.


  4. dmf says:

    given their general level of self-satisfaction I doubt they fear us, pity maybe


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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