Live-blogging Laruelle’s TETRALOGOS (4): Characters, Acts, and Sutures

Laruelle rejects standard or sufficient ontology, a strong ontology that poses a « One-of-Sufficiency », admiring itself in a philosophical mirror of sufficiency. Non-philosophy proposes not to abolish philosophy but to depose it, remove its authority, take it outside of its specular closure, and give it a new amplitude as philo-fiction.

TETRALOGOS embodies one variant of this philo-fiction, a philo-opera or « opera-fiction ». This exteriority without separation allows non-philosophy to describe philosophy itself as a naive unconscious form of philo-fiction. As such its « scenario » can be described as comprising a number of conceptual characters and of conceptual acts.

This reversal of perspective, describing philosophy from the perspective of non-standard non-philosophy means replacing the « One-of-Sufficiency » by the « One-of-idempotence ».


There are four « conceptual characters » (or conceptual personae): « forced » philosophy or « Reminscience » (sometimes written « Remini-scIence »), the generic, the quantic, and the « forced » subject or generic messiah.

In short: the noetic, the generic, the quantic, the messianic.


For Laruelle inside standard philosophy there are « two sorts of acts called dominant »: philosophical acts and scientific acts, incompletely separated, « sutured ». The other acts are subordinate, comprising.

« artistic, political, technological, religious, and even non-quantic or para-scientific acts ».

Laruelle states that there is a « hierarchy » of acts in three degrees:

the « transcendental authority of philosophy »

the « necessity and universality of science »

the contingent and subjected disciplines » (the rest).

Laruelle preserves Badiou’s notion of « suture », but critics Badiou himself for maintaining a « residue of suture ».

1) At the explicit level, Badiou de-sutures philosophy from each of the four conditions (art, science, love, politics), but keeps it sutured to the ensemble of the four (excluding other conditions), with science as dominant condition.

2) At the implicit level, Badiou remains sutured with science to set theory.

Laruelle himself would seem to be subject to these critiques, as he maintains science as dominant condition (external suture), and maintains science as sutured to one of its parts, quantum physics (internal suture).


Cet article a été publié dans Uncategorized. Ajoutez ce permalien à vos favoris.

4 commentaires pour Live-blogging Laruelle’s TETRALOGOS (4): Characters, Acts, and Sutures

  1. carlklemaier dit :

    Are you familiar  with Christopher hauke book on jung and the postmodern?Sent via the Samsung Galaxy, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone


  2. landzek dit :

    Where L fails is by assuming that he can use discourse to mark out an exclusive territory that is not exclusive. It seems to me that this is basically your critique of Laurelle. For the question that seems to stamp everyone when it comes to Laural for the question that seems to stamp everyone when it comes to Him is how does he exclude himself from the condition that he describes? If, on one hand, he is allowed to be seen to exclude himself, then people call him “religious”. Where as if he is not allowed to exclude himself then people call him “contradictory”.

    The obvious answer seems to me to be both , meaning that his position is non-exclusionary and thereby remains non-contradictory in its presentation because it includes both situations:

    What is incorrect about his approach is that he presumes to be able to overcome the situation somehow, as if thinking and logic and discourse and all this kind of stuff can be overcome through an act of thinking logic and discourse etc.

    I think that’s where he fails.

    And ironically that’s where Graham Harmon takes off: At the exact point where L remains committed to his project and this removed himself from all possibility of critique or comment by the simple fact of remaining true to his philosophy, his statements or proposals. By the simple act the rest of philosophy basically becomes impotent. And it is from this impotency, which we generally associate with phenomenalism, that Graham Harmon this is justified in taking his position that philosophy then looks over and goes hey Graham Harmon can’t do that because he’s just doing what all these other philosophers are doing, on one hand, and then also Graham Harmon cannot do that, or the speculative realist types cannot do that because they haven’t explained how we get outside of the phenomenal correlation.

    The reason why I think Gram Harmon has the more significant offer for us is because the other speculative realist just contain themselves in the same type of Laruellian “Stubborn space”,speaking out of one side of their mouth while denying that what is spoken out of the other side has any credence.

    Graham Harmon has the strong position because he simply says there is no solving the situation, there is no philosophical manner to get outside of what we have come to in philosophy as evidenced by what L as defined.

    And by admitting the ultimate failure of the central phenomenal thinker Graham Harmon just set it aside and says OK so now we’re gonna talk about objects.


  3. Ping : Live-blogging Laruelle’s TETRALOGOS (4): Characters, Acts, and Sutures – The Philosophical Hack

Votre commentaire

Entrez vos coordonnées ci-dessous ou cliquez sur une icône pour vous connecter:


Vous commentez à l’aide de votre compte Déconnexion /  Changer )

Photo Google

Vous commentez à l’aide de votre compte Google. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Image Twitter

Vous commentez à l’aide de votre compte Twitter. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Photo Facebook

Vous commentez à l’aide de votre compte Facebook. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Connexion à %s