CLONING THE REAL vs CLONING THE TRANSCENDENTAL

For François Laruelle “philosophy” is the name for the self-sufficient and self-satisfied thought based on the primacy given to its own transcendental organisation of concepts over and above the real. “Science” is the name for the primacy given to the real. It is to be noted that this is no absolute exclusive opposition, but a question of the asymmetric and unequal composition of real and transcendental determinations in a  path of thinking.

Contrary to what some Laruellians may say the criterion of demarcation between science is neither absolute (there is no science without transcendental components) nor one of degree (one cannot maintain that science has “fewer” transcendental components, reducing them to a supposed “minimum”). This “asymmetric and unequal” character is what Laruelle calls “uni-laterality”, its non-opppositional nature, concerning primacy rather than some hypothetical pure state of separation, is what he calls “in-the-last-instance”.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to CLONING THE REAL vs CLONING THE TRANSCENDENTAL

  1. landzek says:

    Nicely put. It sounds similar to what I am playing with: descrption v ‘meaning of meaning’. Thouggh I qualify ‘transcendental’ and ‘real’ along different lines.

    Like

  2. Adrian says:

    When I first glimpsed your post, Terence, I thought it said “Clowning the Real”, which might be a good descriptor for OOO !!!

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Matthias Mauderer says:

    Dear Terence Blake,

    in the text above you describe Laruelle’s uni-laterality as non-oppositional rather than a radical state of seperation.

    What then does the rejection of methodological uni-laterality you describe in your latest post
    ROCCO GANGLE’S “DIAGRAMMATIC IMMANENCE” (1): a democracy of diagrams) mean in this context?

    How can Laruelle’s concept be used without walking into the trap of creating a radical rupture of everything which has been thought before? Or should uni-laterality be rejected per se?

    Like

    • terenceblake says:

      I think that uni-laterality properly belongs to Laruelle’s non-philosophy phase, and that it is a mistake for him to continue it into his non-standard philosophy phase. So I think that “uni-laterality” should be rejected as a dogmatic principle, but that it can be maintained as one possible heuristic guiding principle for some local analyses (although this is not my choice). Recently, some of Laruelle’s followers have been describing his position as “empirical” (I do not think this is so). If this is the case then uni-laterality cannot be a dogma, but only a regional empirical hypothesis.

      Liked by 1 person

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s