I have now been banned from the “official” François Laruelle page. John Ó Maoilearca, the new administrator, has banned me from a page that he has taken over, but that he did not create.
This is an important point. Sick of the asinine publicity that dominated on the François Laruelle page, with no critical discussion, I created my own page in honour of Laruelle’s thought, with room for critical discussion: FRANÇOIS LARUELLE QUANTUM FICTION.
John Ó Maoilearca came on to that page, and told me “create your own space” of expression, little realising that this is precisely what I had done. When I pointed out his egregious error (namely that I had in fact created this page, and that he had no business ordering me off it) he replied:
“You’re right – I’ll remove that last comment and then myself, from this page. I am only one of the administrators of the other pages, BTW. I’m not sure what this page is for, in your mind, Terence, but the definite impression – to myself and others – is that you scatter caustic, condescending remarks and generalisations at other researchers and their work on Laruelle in a way that closes down debate. It was bound to try people’s patience – if you can’t see why, then perhaps it is simply personal/cultural incommensurability. FB – no less than Twitter – is not the forum for sustained, serious and balanced critique. We have books and journals for that – that you and anyone else can publish with if you try (there is no elite conspiring to keep you out of the conversation – only those who don’t like to converse with people who are constantly discourteous in return)”.
Now JOM has banned me from the François Laruelle page.
Some comments in response:
1) No reply is given to the arguments articulated in my blog post (https://terenceblake.wordpress.com/…/laruelle-and-diachron…/)
2) JOM makes no excuse for his egregious error: not all that is about Laruelle on the internet is controlled by himself and his friends
3) JOM claims that I “close down debate”. He has shown himself incapable of debate, anywhere, in any form.
4) JOM talks of facebook as an inadequate “forum for sustained, serious and balanced critique”, as if that were my sole means of expression. JOM wilfully ignores that I maintain a long-lasting blog, devoted to sustained, serious, and balanced critique, whereas all he posts on facebook is naive uncritical publicity.
5) Laruelle critiques the “principle of philosophical sufficiency”, where “sufficiency” also means self-contentment and condescension. How can JÓM claim to do non-philosophy, when he is incapable of abandoning the transcendence and condescending style of the university professor?
Such is the “democracy of thought”, as practised by one of the leading Anglophone Laruelleans.