In all my commentaries on Laruelle I show no scorn but only propose concepts, nor am I external to his project (rather I am a fellow traveller on the path of pluralism). That’s the whole point.
I do not scorn Laruelle’s conceptual creations when I say that they amount to impasses when viewed in the light of his later evolution. Creations can lead to impasses that actively inspire new creations, there is no shame in that. Laruelle has never ceased advancing, nor have I.I thank Laruelle for his work, and read it with great passion.
I give context to that work, and if one looks at my blog I have given a lot of context, and many people have thanked me for that too. I am trying to articulate my own sense of recent philosophical history, as I am dis-satisfied by much that is said about it. I feel that whatever the polemics I engage in, this is a positive task, and I am pursuing a useful task in doing so.Laruelle is no one’s property, or non-philosophy means nothing at all.