Laruelle’s Method, In Spirit

My encouragements to people to fashion buddhofictions using non-philosophical maneuvers have largely fallen on hard-of-hearing ears. Part of the problem is that people feel intimidated by Laruelle. Understood!

So, for yet another round of encouragement, I present the following conversation from the podcast Machinic Unconscious Happy Hour. On the face of it, it may not seem to have any relevance to the task. But at around 16:07, the guest, Stephen Zepke, offers some criticisms of Laruelle’s work. His comments, in turn, stimulate Taylor Adkins to offer a defense of Laruelle. As I listened, it occurred to me that Adkins’s response is nothing short of a clear, concise, altogether excellent introduction to the basic spirit of Laruelle’s methodology. Both the criticism and the response are delicious examples of what might be served up at the Great Feast of Knowledge.

Adkins is a preeminent translator of Laruelle. For instance, see his 2013 Univocal translation of Philosophy and Non-Philosophy. (Here’s a review.)

Thanks to John Connally.

2 responses to “Laruelle’s Method, In Spirit”

  1. Mark Avatar

    For those who are interested in mathematics and a formal understanding of biology you can’t go past Relational Biology and the work of Aloisius Louis. I’ve come to see Laruelle as a valuable part of a cycle through non-dual and dual perspetives. It is this cycling that seems to be missed by those lost in one or the other. For example, if you are scientifically trained and have not invested in learning from the humanities to a point where you apply this in your science, or if you are trained in the humanities and have not invested in learning from the hard sciences to a point where this transforms your practices, then tha first cycle seems unlikely to occur. Most of the people I see talking about Laruelle are stuck somewhere, usually hoping that someone else will apply their “insights”. I think you can engage with categories informed by a non-foundational perspective – these become tools rather than beliefs.

  2. Mark Avatar

    I suspect that exploring the real beyond language (and mathematics is just another language), at this junction of history leads to artificial intelligence as the place to do that work. Unfortunately there are very few (who?) practitioners engaged with a deep understanding of non-philoosphy and AI. The recent excitement around chatGPT is an opportunity for those with little technical background to engage and perhaps get excited about realizing something new rather than using something new. Not easy.

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: