Landzek has responded to my last post with a long meditation stemming from his own research, which draws on other sources and experiences than mine. I think however that we agree on two interrelated points
1) the contradiction between Laruelle’s quantum gnostic religion and his followers’ classically religious veneration of his thought.
It is clear that in the last instance Laruelle’s “Christ” is quantum thought, for Laruelle the Messiah is none other than his own philosophy. More generally Laruelle stipulates that non-standard philosophy (what I have been calling pluralism) is the Christ. In the last instance this plural “more generally” reduces to the singular one, as Laruelle’s writing vehiculates the uniqueness hypothesis, that there is only one non-philosopher and only one non-standard philosopher, Laruelle himself.
2) the contradiction between espousal of deconstruction and the betrayal of pluralism. Laruelle attemts to radicalise deconstruction by going one step further and deconstructing what remained undeconstructed within deconstruction (in his view) by making use of a model borrowed or extrapolated from quantum physics. His “quantum deconstruction” in its own terms can not and should not be exclusive of other radicalised deconstructions, for example Badiou’s mathematical deconstructions borrowing and extrapolating from set theory and category theory. Incoherently Laruelle practices precisely this sort of unilateral exclusion as his book ANTI-BADIOU amply demonstrates. His attitude toward Deleuze and Guattari’s schizoanalytic deconstruction of Lacanianism is another example.
Landzek does not mention “immanence” explicitly in his response but I think that we agree here too:
3) Laruelle exhibits a real deficit of immanence. He claims scientific status in virtue of his unique appropriation of immanence. Yet his critique of his contemporary rivals is laid out in terms of a transcendent structure of sufficiency. Laruelle seems absolutely incapable of immanent critique, or even of recognising the real role of immanence in philosophers such as Deleuze and Badiou.
We are forced in view of Laruelle’s claims to scientific status and his inability to respect his own criteria to conclude that Laruellean non-philosophy is pseudo-science.