LARUELLE vs LATOUR: who is the non-philosopher?

https://storify.com/TerenceBlake/laruelle-vs-latour-who-is-the-non-philosopher

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to LARUELLE vs LATOUR: who is the non-philosopher?

  1. landzek says:

    It is becoming my experience that what ever is posted on the Internet becomes an kind of ‘automatic common propriety’, perhaps kind of similar to the problem the music industry encountered starting about 20 years ago. Of course it is a standard curtesy to give credit to originating authors but I am beginning to see that while obligatory, it is not mechanically nor ethically required. It is the nature of this type of media, I suspect, that Information is fluid, and in this fluidity often misses (deliberately or not) the site for the sake of the presentation of information. The impetus I think, oddly enough, comes from the struggle and competition for ideal identity, To assert oneself as an originator of an idea.

    Perhaps we are witnessing a type of transitional phase that is revealing the determinative nature of existence, in that what occurs is ideas seems to end up associated with people by a sort of strange rhythm that defies the aggregate of individual assertions and plays for ideal notice.
    One presently can only wonder: For, I have encountered a return on notions also; indirect but seemingly obviously stemming from my originating idea. Yet I would have no way of proving or finding the route by which my idea was usurped into discourses of other already theoretically and or socially affluent, already established in the skills required of our modern age for a kind of ‘web dexterity’, if you will, by people who are taking advantage of the brisk and fluid pace of our modern media.

    …I think I’m gonna make a post of this reply.

    Bye: did you see the post that I reposted about ‘offline libraries’? Seems appropriate here.

    Liked by 1 person

    • terenceblake says:

      Yes, I publish to contribute to the collective thinking around certain themes, and I claim no great originality as to the underlying ideas, which can be found in Feyerabend and Deleuze, in Mach and Nietzsche, etc. But certain inflections are my own. It seems derisory to claim proprietorship for an “inflection”, yet I would like my contribution to the conversation to be acknowledged.

      Liked by 1 person

      • landzek says:

        Where I often want to give things away, a young friend of mine said she’d gladly pay and that I deserve to get paid for them. Why should I worry whether I get credit for anything if I am merely contributing to the common effort? And if this is so, and origination is not an issue, why need I refer to any author, since what is being versed is already a part of knowledge, just taking different forms? Why do some get credit and others are supposed to fight and defer to those already named of stature?

        Like

      • terenceblake says:

        I am ok with immerging my ego in the commons, but not if that means allowing another’s ego to remain separate and to gain false credence.

        Like

      • landzek says:

        Sounds quite Buddhist. I struggle with what is egoistic and what is not. How might I even act without asserting my existential validity?

        Like

      • landzek says:

        This last statement of yours is almost Laruellian, yet while admitting Badiou’s fence riding. It seems like the same issue I have trouble with. Lol. But Laruelle I think ‘commons’ is a reverse move than that seems indicated of your statement here.

        Like

      • landzek says:

        I wonder if the Internet communism is not a false picture, a vaneer for feudalistic exploitation of capital. Merely another way for transcendent ally inspired agents to maintain power. ??👽👹

        Like

  2. Pingback: LARUELLE vs LATOUR: who is the non-philosopher? | Constructive Undoing

  3. landzek says:

    ..besides that comment. Again: I can’t stop praising your analyses. This one is so spot on. But I would say that it is easier to include Laruelle’s within Amie than it is vice versa( but you put it so much more eloquently). Larualle’s already includes Amie in a kind of ‘invisible’ or ‘prior’ accounting: Hard to find or locate the opening.

    Like

  4. terenceblake says:

    I was saying the same thing as you did here: “Why should I worry whether I get credit for anything if I am merely contributing to the common effort?”, but adding that renouncing credit for me should not amount to letting it be unjustly attributed to another. A no-credit system for all concerned is more desirable than an asymmetrical capitalisation of credit by a small few.

    Like

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