DE-NOETISATION AND THE MARKETISED ACADEMY

There is no right or wrong place to be. Jean-François Lyotard was an academic, but he was a-typical. He affirmed that he was at war with the institutions of his own mind. Lyotard refused easy partitions, he wanted to be a “good” conductor of intensities, in whatever context. This is a good maxim for an ethics of individuation.

I do not call to leave academia, or to depreciate it. Like Lyotard I call to de-institutionalise oneself. The problem is not the universityy, but academic arrogance and the refusal of real discussion, a marketised selection on the basis of money, status, power and an ethics of cronyism. Many academics work hard to make the university an open society, including in their own practices and relations to others.

Bernard Stiegler is true to Lyotard’s inspiration when he calls for a “surrealist cosmology” and for a practice of noetisation based on waking dreams and their exosomatisation (in the last class of his 2016 seminar on “transvaluing Nietzsche”). This call resonates with China Miéville’s recent novel THE LAST DAYS OF NEW PARIS (review here).

Stiegler tells us that Nietzsche is a pharmakon, reading him can individuate or empoison you. This is true of any philosopher, Stiegler included. One form that this empoisoning can take is the reduction of thought to conformity with de-noetised stereotypes. What Stiegler calls de-noetisation corresponds to my notion of “concept-blindness“. De-noetisation well describes the concept-blindness of OOO.and to the self-cloning practiced by proponents of Laruelle’s non-philosophy.

Stiegler’s neganthropic hermeneutics attempts to avoid such de-noetised self-cloning and concept-blindness by means of individuating interpretations:

“An interpretation is always a bifurcation emerging from the pre-individual potential that is a work”

Note: this and subsequent quotes translated from Bernard Stiegler’s seminar, July 2016.

“When I read a book, for example, the book I am reading is for me a pre-individual field with a potential, from which – in which – by my interpretation I will make bifurcations emerge”.

In his pursuit of bifurcative, as against repetitive, thinking Stiegler calls for a “speculative cosmology” that we can project as “the improbable possibility of the neganthropocene”. A difference between Stiegler’s sensitivity to ambiguity and Laruelle’s monovalent project is that for Stiegler hybris in its excessive dimension is a pharmakon that can produce either negentropy or entropy. For Laruelle this ambiguity is lost: philosophy’s negentropic hybris (one meaning of the French word “suffisance”) is treated as synonymous with its entropic sufficiency (second meaning of “suffisance”).

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to DE-NOETISATION AND THE MARKETISED ACADEMY

  1. landzek says:

    Love it. I wonder though if there’s a kind of self cloning of L’s concept of self cloning? I’m wondering if you were talking about adherents of L’s proposed non-philosophical philosophy, more than you are talking about Al’s actual non-philosophy. Because I get a different sense of this cloning that he talks about then it seems you are referring to in this blog.

    Like

  2. Carl Looper says:

    I’m only just learning the word “hybris”. From what I’ve gathered it means “wilful bond breaking” (to quote a google result). In Deleuze we might note such wilful bond breaking, but not without a reciprocal action in which the debonded components are “rebounded”, not with their originally bonded counterparts, but with other equally debonded components, in what he has called a “disjunctive synthesis”. A good example in physics would be forcing together the same poles of two magnets. Left on their own the magnets would seek to bond with each other through their opposite poles (north bonds to south, and vice versa). But in a disjunctive synthesis we can break this natural bond and force the north pole of one magnet to connect with the north pole of another magnet. Or the south pole of one with the south pole of the other. To do so means overcoming the magnets natural resistance to such a connection. It requires creativity to do so.

    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