NOETIC DREAMING (Stiegler) vs UNILATERALISM (Laruelle): dogmas of non-philosophy

François Laruelle’s thought is fundamentally schizoid: it is torn between his negativistic non-philosophy and a positivistic, purportedly “non-standard”, philosophy. It is torn also between stipulation and supplementation, between the dogmatic stipulation of what he is unable to prove and the necessary supplementation of his negativistic non-philosophical perspective with diverse positive grafts, unfortunately resulting in a new set of sutures (of the sort that non-philosophy was supposed to free us from).

One of these dogmatic stipulations is what could be called the “uniqueness hypothesis”. Laruelle’s non-philosophical uniqueness hypothesis is the implicit claim that there is only one non-philosopher among all his contemporaries (Laruelle himself) and that all the others (Deleuze, Derrida, Foucault, Badiou) are stuck inside the principle of sufficient philosophy. I do not find that the uniqueness hypothesis is demonstrated in Laruelle’s texts, nor is it even a plausible idea.

A second dogma is that of “unilaterality”, the idea of an irreversible determination in the last instance of thought by the Real. This dogma had its sense in Laruelle’s negativistic phase, which continues even now in “superposition” with his non-standard phase. But Laruelle himself argues in the First Introduction to his NON-STANDARD PHILOSOPHY that superposition can be just as much productive of monistic confinement, or Hell, as of pluralist freedom, or Heaven (for details see my analytic summary of this text).

A more satisfying, “non-standard”, account of our relation to the real can be found in Bernard Stiegler’s latest work, especially his “DANS LA DISRUPTION Comment ne pas devenir fou?” (IN DISRUPTION How not to go mad, May 2016). In this book, Stiegler argues that noetic dreaming involves the irrealisation of the real and its transformation by means of the inscription or actualisation of our dreams.

Instead of imposing a block notion of unilateralism to combat the equally block notion of “correlationism”, Stiegler proposes a dual or duo-lateral rhythm of irrealisation/realisation, with the constant danger of “de-realisation”, which would correspond to living and thinking within the correlation, taking our dreams for reality instead of inscribing them in the real.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to NOETIC DREAMING (Stiegler) vs UNILATERALISM (Laruelle): dogmas of non-philosophy

  1. Ariosto Raggo says:

    Interesting, I am getting a similar sense of Laruelle as I try to understand him more which is complicated because he is telling me that his Real, Human-in-person is hermetically sealed or foreclosed to any kind of philosophical consciousness or knowledge of any kind. While not being a transcendence or being the the uplifting subtraction of a real immanence it is separated from knowledge as nonknowledge. For this “reason” children and people with mad passions can understand it better than normalized academics and their internal construction of thinking through which they take this or that position on some topic. For Laruelle the Real doesn’t even have a place so it is u-topic and is nowhere and looks like nothing so neither can metaphors or the imagination approach it. Yet he turns to imagery from science and begins to describe his positive reading of the real as a wavelike quantum supersposition. How is this not the construction of an image and so involves the imagination and so the processing by the understanding and therefore an operation of consciousness? I get that the Real is some sort of unconsciousness and that as Jung might put it is approached through an “introversion of libido” understood as the suspension of the position taking of philosophical consciousness in Laruelle’s way of thinking and gets us deeper in it but… big but, this process instead of simply being separated from consciousness changes its quality and gives us a chance to reorganize for ourselves in an independent manner of going on with analysis rather than relying on the analyst as a master who is supposed to know. This seems more like the process that experimental experience is teaching. The descent into the Real grabs contents or images that we can be creative with and use for dreaming of a elsewhere that is nowhere which involving some anxiety because it tends towards the sublime and so probably requires refrains or transitional objects which is maybe what Stiegler would say in his oblects-relation approach and then there is the other approach to unconscious content where there is the comforting domestication of the understanding that is not creative or doesn’t dream.

    Liked by 2 people

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