notes on laruelle's-les-philosophies-de-la-difference

8/12/2019 Notes on Laruelle's-Les-Philosophies-de-la-difference

1/22

Notes on Franois LaruellesLes Philosophies de la difference: Introduction critique

(Paris: PUF, 1986).

Provided on 13 October 2009 by Anthony Paul Smith for personal use andedification.

Originally posted at An und fr sich !itself."ordpress.com# as part of a series ofnotes on important te$ts in %aruelle&s development of non'philosophy. All (uotes aremy o"n translation) but they should be treated as rough translations not suitable fordirect (uotation. Also) as these are reading notes) * e$pect there may be spelling errorsand grammatical mista+es) but hope they may still be of use. ,eaders are advised toloo+ for ,occo -angle&s translation) entitled Philosophies of Difference: A Critical

Introduction to Non-Philosophy) to come out in 2010 "ith ontinuum.

Instructions for Use

A short "ord about the boo+ itself before * summari/e the preface entitled*nstructions for se 4ode d5emploi6. 7irst) before anyone as+s) %es Philosophiesde la diff8rence *ntroduction criti(ue P7) 19:;< is currently being translated by,occo -angle for ontinuum. * thin+ "e&ll see that =nglish translation come outsometime in mid'2010 in an affordable hardbac+ and then a year later in paperbac+.*n %aruelle&s o"n history of non'philosophy this "or+ is placed in the period calledPhilosophy **>. ?his is the period of non'philosophy "here %aruelle intentionally

begins to develop his science of philosophy. ?he negative finding of this science ofphilosophy is in the theory of the philosophical @ecision as the invariant structure ofall philosophy. ?he philosophical @ecision is the structure that dooms philosophy to ahallucinatory specularity) blinding it to the ,eal as ,eal. ?he positive theoriesdeveloped in this stage are that of the vision'in'One and the reclaiming of science&srelationship "ith the ,eal for thought. *n short) this boo+ provides the criticism of

philosophy and gives us the map to avoid the traps of philosophy&s structure. Anecessary prolegomena for the positive "or+ of non'philosophy found in the "or+s ofPhilosophy *** and Philosophy * "or+s * hope to provide notes for in the futureinclude the magnum opus Principes de la non-philosophie and Mystique non-

philosophique lusage des contemporains to reading the studies found inthe boo+. *n these instructions he "ill provide some e$plication on the method of the

boo+) its ends) the interior problematic of philosophy it intends to introduce in acritical "ay< as found in the most manifest problematic of contemporary philosophydifference


2/22

one might say thought they thought>)Eeidegger>) @errida>) and @eleu/e> as indicies) indications of problems) the limitsand the possibilities in the problems) etc.) and to bring out the synta$> of philosophy.Fhile the boo+ aims to be an introduction it does so not descriptively) but critically ofthe thin+ers it introduces.

=nds ?he goal of the boo+ is not primarily criticism. %aruelle moc+s the usualphilosophical commentary industry tactics of "ritings boo+s. =ither the author sho"sthat there are no problems in the thin+er e$amined or it claims to have found theinsurmountable problem in the thin+er or it claims to +no" the thin+er better than thethin+er himself and to provide a ne" Eegelianism beyond Eegel or ne" Spino/ism

beyond Spino/a. 7or this +ind of "riting philosophy becomes primarily criticism)"hereas for %aruelle&s proCect the criticism is secondary and an effect of thetranscendental approach to philosophy. *ts real end is to develop a theory of

philosophy itself in order to e$it the trap of philosophy. *t does so in its scientifictheory> of the philosophical @ecision.

*nternal Problematic 7irstly) %aruelle appears to be resolutely humanist. *t is thisnon'philosophical humanism of immanent man> that he sets against the problematicof @ifference or rather demands that @ifference be thought through. Ee "rites)philosophy is made for man) not man for philosophy 10 *t is "ith this in mindthat he then states a maCor thesis for the boo+) Fe e$periment here) in this case from@ifference) from Eeidegger and @errida principally) and from Diet/sche and @eleu/ealso) "ith the thesis> that) in the One in the sense "e have e$tended to it in honour of the forgotten martyrs of greco'occidental philosophy. *t

begins by ta+ing up the forgetting of Being in the name of the One. According to%aruelle the One) as found in @ualists and -nostics) is the minoritarian position inthought even as it is the scientific one. ?he tas+ then becomes to thin+ Being from thethought of the One and not) as has been the case) the One from ontology. ?he One is

beyond ontological systems and open to the ,eal that is irreducible to a unitaryconception of Being or the One or @ifference.

Organi/ation %aruelle then summari/es each chapter. ?he first chapter establishes theconditions of possibility for a real and scientific criti(ue of @ifference and the

philosophical @ecision in general. *t e$plains his concept of the vision'in'One>. ?hesecond chapter e$amines the synta$ of @ifference) though "ith the problem of7initude "hich "ill become a maCor theme in the chapters on Eeidegger and @errida.@ifference is understood here as a name for the constellation "hich assembles certaincontemporaries in comple$ relations but nevertheless remain in pro$imity to oneanother. ?his means Diet/sche and Eeidegger but also those "ho follo" after them7oucault) @eleu/e) @errida on thought came to be replaced) partly due toEeidegger&s o"n thin+ing) by @ifference>. @ifference isn&t an *dea or a category) butrather a synta$ and concrete invariant of philosophy.

@ifference is a synta$) a manifesting of articulating philosophical language. *t is alsoa thesis of reality) a certain e$perience) itself multiple) of the real 1; *t is afunctional unity of both synta$ and e$perience "hich elevates it to the level of a

principle H real and transcendentally> logics H and in this "ay is an instance of thephilosophical @ecision that can be found in other such principles ontradiction)=$istence) Structure occurs inDiet/sche and Eeidegger as inscribed in the metaphysics of =nd> and %imit>. 7orall that it still appears as yet another variation "ithin philosophy itself of the

philosophical @ecision that has the invariant structure of claiming to close thenet"or+ on its o"n openness) but it does so by supplementing this "ay "ith thealterity that renders it preferable to anterior attempts.

Eo" does @ifference become a real principle or a philosophical decisionI 7irst) itelaborates the properties of its synta$ and this gives it a real and transcendentalessence. Secondly) no" raised to the level of a transcendental it Coins the ran+s ofBeing> and nity>. As a category it assumes some pregiven ontic reality) yet it risesto the level of decision "hen it is freed from this double subCection and becomes itselfthat nity) capable of at the same time< bringing itself about) determining its synta$)its o"n transcendental e$perience of reality) and of carrying out the genesis ofempirical reality. ?hirdly and finally it must themati/e its synta$ical structure.

So %aruelle "ill concern himself "ith the (uestion of uncovering the synta$ that "ecall @ifference> and ho" to distinguish it from other synta$s) li+e @ialectics>.7urther to that (uestion %aruelle as+s "hat is the specific e$perience) or rathereperiences) of the real that animate that specific synta$ and render it concreteI Fhat

+ind of real is it that articulates and specifies it each timeI *s it Being) SubCect) Spirit)Po"er Puissance6) the Other and if so) "hat OtherI

3


4/22

Ee ha/ards some thoughts on the philosophical @ecision that "ill be developed moreas the boo+ progresses. A philosophical decision is each time the total unity of co'membership and co'penetration of a synta$ and an e$perience of that "hich it callsthe real>. *t determines the one and the other reciprocally and individuali/es themuntil it renders them undecidable. Against this %aruelle posits the thin+ing from

One>) "hich he says is not a decision but a science>) that denies its dismemberment)as if being pulled by horses) bet"een a synta$ical side and a real side. ?hus) theanalytic of @ifference "ill re(uire t"o descriptions. ?he first "ill be that of synta$and the problems of philosophical synta$. ?he other "ill be that of real e$periencesthat suppose the idea of a synta$ destined to articulate them) in this case that of@ifference) and "hich "ill be able to introduce us to the problems of philosophicalmateriality and reality.

Eo" @ifference has re(uisitioned the One>

Of course) the One is not completely foreign to discussions of @ifference. @ifferenceis in this case a repetition of the most ancient -reco'occidental (uestion H that of

duality'as'unity) or ho" to thin+ the unity or the passage of a contrary to the other Hand presents itself as a solution to that (uestion. ?he contemporaries have largelyas+ed the same -ree+ (uestion and responded by re(uiring the One and placing it indiffering models of the dialectic) "here it stands for the unity of the contraries. ?he(uestion %aruelle "ants to as+ is if "e have e$hausted the One) its essence its o"nevidence>) in @ifference.

Polis! Physis! and"osmosare names of the Same) and the Same serves to order andconCoin the being in the One. ?he One is understood here to be the Fhole) or theFhole is as One) "hich allo"s us to drift off into a philosophical slumber. Fa+ing tothe One as such) to its essence "hich distinguishes it from that of the Same and its

cosmological tautology) is the condition for understanding the absurdity that is theemergence of the cosmos and nature.

@ifference is a theory and practice of mi$ture> mite6) but mi$ture as such) in theiressence mi$ed. ?hese mi$ed> are "hat generate or give place to the fundamentalaporias of -reco'occidental thought. @ifference is the thought of the aporia as such.

Eo" a theory of @ifference is possible>

Some may obCect that it is possible to find a invariant common to Eeidegger)Diet/sche) @errida) and @eleu/e. ?o assuage that suspicion %aruelle discussesdeploys Eeidegger&s o"n insistence that a turn> did not occur in his thought and that

there is an invariant aspect to Eeidegger&s o"n thought even as it changes in many"ays throughout its development. %aruelle does not deny that there is the@ifferenceof Eeidegger) or that of @eleu/e) that of @errida) etc.) but "hat is common to them allis refusing to thin+ the minority position of the One as suchthat is indifferent to nityas described by philosophers "ith regard to @ifference and @ialectic.

?he one is that "hich it distinguishes absolutely from the philosophical decision Hunder the form of a unilaterial duality) "ithout reciprocity or reversibility H a domainof reality that %aruelle calls the effecti#ely and "hich contains all entities)

philosophical or not) "hich are obtained by the unitary combination of the t"oparameters of immanence and transcendence) "hich are then mi$ed the best modelfor this is the philosophical nity'of'contraries


5/22

by constraining the mi$ed. ?he po"er of distinction belongs to the One) but it affectsthe philosophically mi$ed and not the One itself. %aruelle aims to unilaterali/e@ifference then) to ta+e it as if it "ere the obCect of the One) indifferent to the aporiasit creates.

?he -reco'Occidental invariant>

%aruelle recogni/es the actual limits to this proCect and recogni/es that in many "aysit "ill remain in the aporias of nity and 4ultiplicity) niversal and Singular) etc.)

but the obCect of the studies is to a"a+en philosophers to a problem) or rather hesays< a non'philosophical e$perience that is li+ely to found a rigorous science of

philosophy.

?his invariant is seen in the combination) each time philosophy thin+s obCect J K) ofan immanence and a transcendence) of an ideality and a supposed real. ?hiscombination has regularly been called difference> "hich e$plains "hy %aruelle isfocusing on @ifference as a privileged site of the philosophical decision as this is the

structure of the decision H APS6.

?here are t"o +inds of duality) one that is reCected by %aruelle and one that is given adifferent sense. ?he first is the duality of religious dualists -nostics< and poorlyformed philosophy the unity'duality dialectic of @ifference


6/22

?he goal of the thought from One is to escape the hallucinatory thin+ing of@ifference) "hich is the form of -reco'occidental aporia and the philosophical@ecision) in order to see in the One a principle not only transcendental but alsoabsolutely real and capable of founding @ifference itself "ithout e$hausting it) in itsessence) through using it.

?he po"er of the One is this) according to %aruelle) ' in the unilaterali/ation ofphilosophy it thro"s into the abyss or casts in the light of indifference the alienationthat man carries "ith him into the Forld as a foreigner. ?he unilaterali/ation does notallo" us to step outside the Forld) of philosophy and of its mi$tures) but rather givesus access that is indifference and inalienable to the Forld as to the philosophiestherein.

Ca!ter " *+nta of %ifference

@ifference as 7orm of Order forme dordre6>

?he One) as its essence is saved from the philosophical decision) is no @ifference andhas no need of it. But difference is a philosophical interpretation of the One and doeshave need of it. ?his chapter thus deals "ith the (uestion of ho" to pass from the Oneconcretely and absolutely "ithout'division< to the synta$ of @ifference as thearticulation of the philosophical decision and thus to the minimum or residual synta$of all possible philosophy.

@ifference is an inclusive dis'Cunction in "hich each neitherM norM> and not>)though negative) produce or immediately give the *ndivision. *n this "ay "e can seethat the philosophies of @ifference repeat a fundamental gesture from neoplatonism Hthe #ia negationis. ?his is a philosophical technology that is traditional and found inthe adventures of transcendence and decision 3:

?he One is not unified unity> for this "ould mean it "as divisible< but unifyingunity>) this being the transcendental sense of the One rather than empirco'ideal. Dotethere is a subtle differentiation here about unities> in %aruelle. ?he One a name forthe ,eal< is a unifying unity because it cannot be itself split even if "e try to split it itremains indifferent to this artificial> splitting< "hile the obCects of thought) evennon'philosophical thought li+e unified theories>) can be split up into their parts andrearranged in an infinite amount of mutations. H APS6

?he operation of @ifference is neither sub'sumption nor surper'sumptionAufhe%ung6) but is something li+e a co'sumption>. ?his means that it is beyond the

contrariness of the one and the other) subsumption and supersumption. @ifference isimmediate'Scission'as'nity) a Becoming'as'Being) an immobile movement) atranscendental hesitation. ?his locates the synta$ of @ifference in this constant

production of *ndivision> despite the divisions at place because of @ifference.

@ifference is grounded) "ithout +no"ing it) in the authentic One. ?his isn&t atautology @ifference is not the same thing as the One even if it is dependent upon itas a unifying unity

@ifference is not a simple fact>) "ith Diet/sche and @eleu/e it becomes a principlefor contemporary philosophy. ?his sho"s the common charateristics "ith the

6


7/22

philosophical decision "hich is al"ays in effect a discourse in double or doublyarticulated. One side of the discourse interprets @ifference according to the disparityand multiplicity and the other according to unity.

A philosophical synta$ is al"ays real in the sense that it must be reali/ed in a process)and not in a formal mechanism.

An e$ample of an empirical factum that is one part of the philosophical synta$ ofdifference is the various modes of being'able> pou#oir-&tre6 in philosophies ofdifference active forces> of Diet/sche) desiring machines> of @eleu/e and-uattari Hnaughty) naughty %aruelle6) the possibilities'of'being> of Eeidegger)te$tual forces> of @errida) the transcendence of presence byrelation to a being present. ?his operation releases transcendence in itsrelation to the origin) in its relative to the obCect'being or present.

3) @ifference no longer as metaphysical or ontological) but transcendental inthe rigorous sense of a thought of the One that is from immanence as suchand overcomes every empirical) generic and even ontological division

?he passage from the categorical to the transcendental can be e$tended beyond theusual concepts Dothing) Being) @ifference itself< to all the categories of thought.

%aruelle describes here ho" the categories of thought become transcendental actors.So the Dothing nothings) the =ssence essences) %anguage spea+s) @esire desires or isdesiring) the Forld "orlds) etc. *n doing this) for instance by saying the Dothing

7


8/22

nothings) the philosopher creates a co'membership of Dothing "ith Being as "ell asbeings. ?here is a problem here as is evidenced in the %anguage spea+s>) for it tellsus nothing about language H it isn&t even a thesis on languageN H but instead is a formof a transcendental tautology.

@ifference) %aruelle says "e can no" see) is an a priori principle. ?he synta$ of@ifference ma+es it the essence of Being) Dothing) @esire) Po"er) ?e$t) etc.) but it isthe same as their coupling. Let) for all this) saying that @ifference is the essence of

being is not ontological) saying that @ifference is the essence of %anguage is notlinguistic) etc.

Ca!ter III " -ealit+ of %ifference

7rom Synta$ to the reality of @ifference>

@ifference thin+ing itself or reflecting itself implies the disCunction and belongingbet"een synta$ and reality) the articulation of the real and the e$perience of the real

articulated. ?his chapter e$amines the reality of difference in that disCunction.

*n order to consider the reality of @ifference %aruelle has recourse to thephilosophical discussion about finitude. Ee describes the Eeideggerian notion of7initude> in (uasi'antian terms as the irreducible distinction of being in self inrelation to the obCective or present being) the ob'Cect. Opposed to this is the

Diet/schean raising of 7initude to the auto'position of Being as essence. ?his isinseperated from the idealist and classic metaphysical spirit.

?he difference of Eeidegger in relation to idealism>

@ifference in the Eeideggerian sense destroys> or deconstructs> the rationali/ed or

transcendental forms) but remains transcendental in the larger sense "here it isalready a thought of the One though along the model of Being that forms the factum of hisphilosophical decision and there is no philosophical decision "ithout a prior reductionof the idealist +ind "hich isolates the obCect to deconstruct and constructs it asfactum.

Eo"ever) this notion of factum is complicated by the original conception of7initude> found in Eeidegger. 7initude is a thesis about reality that does not allo"for any idealist reduction. ,eductions are al"ays philosophical decisions) but one isan idealist decision and the other is a finitist> decision.

?he idealist reduction suspends the thesis that the real e$ist in itself in an autonomousmanner in an attempt to insert the real into immanence) though it does this as a +indof transcendence of self.

?he finitist> reduction is the more radical reduction of the real "hil remaining aphilosophical decision finitude and in this "ay reduceseven itself. ?his notion of finitude allo"s for us 1< to pose a priori the real as that"hich thought ma+es the obCect and 2< to conserve and include in Being) under thename of finitude) a relation to the real in its ontic transcendence.

?he strength of Eeidegger&s relationship to that of Eusserl) Diet/sche or @eleu/e

remembering that these are inde$es of thought< is a notion of finitude that is notidealist. 7initude is not only a thesis about synta$) it is a thesis about reality ;

8


9/22

?he "ea+ness of Eeidegger returns) ho"ever) is that this notion of finitude ris+remaining partially idealist and dogmatic. ?hough Eeidegger and ant bothunilaterally denounced the misguided notion of idealism that denied the real as thefactum and datum and not entirely seperable H even seeing the essence of Being. 7initude is thus the most po"erfulassault against the "alls of the System.

7rom metaphysical meaning to the transcendental meaning of 7initude>

?he passage from ontological @ifference> to finite @ifference is the destruction of@ifference as meta'physical>. Fhat then remains of @ifference as such in 7initudeI

Some repetition of the previous chapters follo"s here sho"ing ho" this destructionta+es place. ?he simple ontological @ifference& "as already a unifying scission ofBeing and being) the t"o being thought together as correlation. ?hin+ing is then arepetition of that correlation of the ontological @ifference by and through the One)repetition "hich is not eliminate the ontic reference of Being. Let) even Eeidegger&sthin+ing of finitude is itself limited by being a transcendental analytic this being theform of the philosophical @ecision H APS6 in that it ta+es part of 7initude as afactum

a priori. after have distinguished it from the same finitude as everyday forgetting ofself.

9


10/22

7initude is the essence of @ifferece) but is not that that essence "ithout being ta+enup in a certain manner in difference and structured by it.

7initude as transcendental rather than metaphysical is the distinction of Being frombeing) but allo"s for a indivisible relationship bet"een them nevertheless as theSame>.

?he overlapping of 7initude and @ifference>

Ontological @ifference> is not an ontological theses) it is a thesis on 7initude) on therelation of Being to beings) and conse(uently a thesis on the essence of Being. But theessence of Being is not itself ontological>) the essence is the overlapping of 7initudeand Being or @ifference.

nder the name of 7initude Eeidegger allo"s for us to absolutely oppose the real) theOther> of every relation of obCectivation) the *n'obCectifiable real that is the essenceof being. ?he reality of @ifference has a primacy over the synta$ of @ifference.

,eversibility and irreversibility>

?he finitude of @ifference corresponds to a primacy of the real over synta$) to "hichit is irreducible. But the primacy of the real over synta$ also signifies that of theirreversibility over reversibility.

*n Diet/sche&s "or+ @ifference is a non'static e(uilibrium "hich proceded byreversibility or passage> of a contrary to its other.

?he real is ho"ever not reversible. 7or @ifference itself is irreversible) mar+ing it asnot only an immanence) but an inde$ of a real transcendence in the double visageunary and ontic and by conse(uence the essence of Dothingness orthe retreat and 2< by the precise recourse to essential< Dothingness rather than Being)to the retreat reather than to the unveiling. So the essence of irreversibility remainsfinally in a negative mode "hich cannot become radically positive or the positivityremains impregnated by facticity.

7rom Dothingness slave of Being to finished Dothingness>

?hesis of this section is that 7initude is not confused "ith Dothingness andDothingness does not end if it is itself already underta+en an ending.

%aruelle presents here a technical discussion and evaluation of the function ofDothingness in Eeidegger. Dothingness is that "hich introduces in a privilegedmanner 7initude) but because Dothingness is interlin+ed "ith @ifference as that"hich unifies contraries) the Dothing nothings J @ifference differences


11/22

One) no doubt to the po"er of the Same rather than the reciprocal> appearing ofBeing and beings) Being and Dothingness. But this is a the One as such that the "ayto it are found in 7initude and finished in itself) not identical to Being or the *dea)identical instead to a certain real transcendence or a retreat outside> or in themargins> of Being.

Ca!ter I& " e/el an# ei#e//er

D.B. *&m not summari/ing a great deal of the technical discussion of Eegel andEeidegger here. %argely because %aruelle assumes a lot of +no"ledge form hisreader) some of "hich * have and some "hich * do not) but also because *&m not reallyinterested in his reading of the figures as such. ?hus * try to touch on the importantaspects of his o"n thought and so the notes for this chapter are a littler shorter thanthe others. H APS6

?he insufficiency of synta$ and the passage to 7initude>

*n this chapter %aruelle "ill e$plore the difference bet"een @ifference and thedialectical oncept>) hence the title Eegel and Eeidegger>.

@ifference is circularity and reversibility. *f one considers @ifference only from thepoint of vie" of synta$ it seems to give much of itself to Aufhe%ung. *t is a reversibleimmanence of contraries) each opposed being one "ith its its other and "ith itself)and thus also the contrary of itself. @ifference does not e$ceed) in the generalconception of its mechanism or the synta$ of its essence) the -ree+ hori/on. ?hereason that synta$ is insufficient to the reality of @ifference is because it inscribes@ifference into a (uestion of identities and contraries) "hich turns out to (uic+ly beinsufficient "hen you as+ (uestions about the identity itself. ?hus "or+ing fromsynta$ only is an idealist vision of reality and this is "hat differentiates Eeidegger&sinsertion of 7initude into @ifference from the rest of the tradition.

7initude is not suspended by *dealism %aruelle opposes Eeidegger&s realism fosteredby 7initude to the different *dealisms of Eegel and Diet/sche * am not sure ho" to translate this)something li+e identity but not (uite H APS6 of +no"ledge or *dea. Eegel "as in some"ays more radical than Eeidegger in creating a ontological understanding ofdifference. Being does not appears in the +no"ledge of self or in the *dea e$ceptunder their a prioriobCective structures) as obCect or correlate of obCectification) as adiversity such that transcendence is not only determined in) but %ythe immanence of

the *dea that remains itself in its self'obCectification and self'alienation. ?his is not aradical alienation of being because it is only the alienation in the obCectivity of theobCect and not in its reality as such. Diet/sche does not fundamental leave thisEegelian terrain by replacing Self'no"ledgeRPure *dea "ith the Fill to Po"er) butsimply moves the (uestion to forces rather than *deas.

Absolute 7initude against alienation>

7initude is the essence of the Absolute) not the opposite. Only 7initude can save@ifference) not from the Absolute) but from the ideal form of the Absolute. 7initudeis not "hat alienates @ifference) or "hat ta+es it outside of itself. 7initude is "hatdestroys the dialectic and instead fosters a onciliation'"ithout'synthesis. A letting

remain different) because actual and finite) of "hat is.

11


12/22

?he Absolute and its rending pain and phenomenology>

%aruelle is here concerned "ith developing a little more the transcendental approachagainst the metaphysical or ontological approaches to 7initude. *n this approach7initude is the transcendence of the One. ?his approach is then put to use on thecommon thesis that ?he Absolute is identical to its rending>. 7or Eegel this means afocus on Dothingnes) specifically the negation of Dothingness. ?his is *dealism andthus not a thin+ing from immanence. ?he phenomenological method) ho"ever) ta+es

pain as its model of immanence. *n pain there is no dialectic possible) there is onlypain and the forgetting of pain. %aruelle is clearly attempting an actualist thin+ing. HAPS6

Systematic dissolution of the resemblances of Eegel and Eeidegger>

?he focus here is on a technical discussion of Dothingness) 7initude) and the Same inEegel and Eeidegger. =ssentially the dissolution of resemblance comes do"n toEegel&s *dealism that heals too (uic+ly> the contraries into a dialectical relief.

Eeidegger) ho"ever) focuses on thin+ing the amphibology of the ideal and the realitself) rather than healing them it thin+s them from the aspect of 7initude.

?he Eegel'Eeidegger conflict and the impossibility of a decision>

@espite all the differences of Eegel and Eeidegger there is still no clear criteria fordeciding bet"een the t"o of them. 7or the t"o begin from different perspectives on7initude that "or+ "ithin their systems) and thus foster t"o philosophical gestures butnever a position. A philosophical decision is never able to convince itself of anotherone.

?hus the difference bet"een Eegel and Eeidegger is a turning circle that feeds into

one another Cust as the disCunction of synta$Rreal feeds into itself. Fhat %aruelle ta+esfrom this then is that there needs to be a change of synta$ @ifference still being thee$ample of synta$ par e$cellence

?his study of @errida is placed into the analytic of @ifference. ?his is in order) not todenounce the philosophical decision) but to understand it "ithin the frame of not real)hallucinatory) and re(uired. @errida is the thin+er "ho carries the philosophicaldecision to its pure and simple aporetic dislocation. ?he deconstruction of metaphyicsis the truth> of it) the enlarging of it and radicali/ing of it as inconsistent thatcharacterises the non'real) purely fictional and hallucinatory that is philosophy ingeneral. ?his comes "ith a complimentary thesis that states the auto'dislocation ofthe philosophical decision is at the same time its becoming'unitary) its auto'collapse)its auto'inhibition in itself ' its paralysis 122

Ee is not applying deconstruction to itself. ,ather this study evaluates from a nondeconstructive point of vie" the mechanism its validity suspended from the One< of@ifferance> and of the affection of the logos by differance. %aruelle uses the capital

in order to designate the glocal system of @ifference "ithout the a< and the lo"ercase to designate the moment of alterity) cutting) or slo"ing do"n of continuities and

12


13/22

the specificity of the system of @ifferance. ?he same goes for @econstrution thetype< and the deconstruction the procedure


14/22

?his is a very difficult section to summari/e. At the beginning of the boo+) in thepreface * thin+) %aruelle said that there "ould be a +ind of introduction to theapitalism and Schi/ophrenia "or+s of @eleu/e and -uattari and materialist> toolsfound in those "or+s to the theme of differance in @errida.

?his allo"s him to locate the "ay that continuums) from the relative to the absolute)are al"ays a relation of connecting and cutting'off) a continuum is this relation andalso is in relation to other continuums in the same "ay. ?hus all of @errida&s "or+ oninconsistency and the negative> movements of deconstruction found in the delay)differance) arrest) etc.) are all merely instruments in a general an'economy thatmirrors the inclusive disCunction discussed in Anti-(edipus. @ifferance has the same

positive identity as @eleu/ian @ifference it brings together things in a disCunctivemode at the same time>. ?hus) %aruelle locates a Ge"ish plane of immanence> in@errida) "hich both allo"s him to locate this positive identity of @ifferance "hen

placed into the general synta$ of @ifference but also foreground the specificity of@errida&s thought.

?his emphasis on specificity is something * find very interesting. 7or instance) "hileit feels some"hat "rong at first to separate -ree+ philosophy from Ge"ish thought as%aruelle does) he does not do so to deny Ge"ish thought the same authority as

philosophy or to someho" denigrate Ge"ish thought. *nstead) neither -ree+ nor Ge"has any authority over the other or over the One) but both are thought from the One.?his allo"s a certain +ind of relativism that subsumes them into elements in ademocracy of thought. *&m still not sure that this is entirely unproblematic as yet. HAPS6

?he Ge"ish inversion of @ifference as @ifferance>

,ather than holding together contraries the holding together of contraries constitutes acadaverisation> of everything as a necessary aspect of the system. ?hus @ifferanceaims to ma+e absolute the splitting of contraries) affirms as an unlimited yes holdingthem apart in their specificity) rather than ma+ing them a cadaver of the same)choc+ing them in the double band. %aruelle coins the phrase Body'"ithout'"riting>Corps-sans-$criture6 to name the process of @econstruction that conCugates and thecadaverisation and the stimulating affirmation.

?he Body'"ithout'"riting or the Ge"ish plane of immanence>

?he discussion here focuses on the unlimited Les> that @econstruction inherits fromTarathustra. ?his unlimited Les is the same synta$ as the continuumRsplitting'continuum described before. ?he unlimited Les al"ays privileges the highest side)transcendence) the e$propriation affirmative certainly


15/22

@errida and that is designated by its effects and functions) this system %aruelle callsthe Body'"ithout'"riting B"F6. ?he B"F is constructed along t"o series or t"o

bands H the cutRcission) but one become unlimited and universal) and the continuum)but become infinite. ?he B"F is the -ree+ plane of immanence "hich Ge"ishalterity is nevertheless completely capable of H but simply denies it.

?he B"F is a shuttlecoc+ of inscription) it condenses energy and intensifies the "or+of differance and reaffirmed the infinity of the double band.

%aruelle sums up the synta$ of @errida&s) and also @eleu/e&s argumentation theyabsoluti/e the forms that the most immediately circular to destroy he gives thee$ample of the signified) that of the signifier or of the symbolic>) that ofrepresentation) of presence or the identity of obCects< and proCects the absolutecharacter of these forms) correlatives of a finite conscience) on the operation of theirdestruction and more so along the "ay on the instrument of their destruction@ifferance) @ifference

@econstruction is from itself to itself for itself an ndeconstructable 1;1. Let) asthe first ndeconstructable) it is completely relative in itself. @econstruction is theunivocity of the system'of'the'Other) the Ge"ish plane of immanence. ?hus it isrelatively undeconstructable because its undeconstructability is its deconstructabilitythe amphibology of the Same and @ifference of relation that it constitutes) and thusrecogni/ed in it) indirectly) a necessity beyond it simple presence ashistorical te$t to deconstruct.

Ca!ter I&: Criti0ue of %ifference

Of the One as ground fondement6 of criti(ue>

Of philosophy in general) of @ifference in particular) "e "ant a non philosophicalcriti(ueM ?he One is a immanent nity H but radically immanent under a form non

15


16/22

thetic that philosophy has not been able to programme H of philosophy andof thescience of the philosophy) of its real criti(ue as "ell 1;9

*s the One immediately givenI Dot in the empirical sense of the "orld) becausenothing of the empirical is really immediate) but in the of a thoughtlesstranscendental e$perience or devoid of transcendent content 1V0 ?his not a -ree+One) it is the brea+ing a"ay from the -ree+ metaphysical One that is al"aysreducible to Being and Dothingness. ?he One is the imperishable demand of realitythat precedes everything) even philosophy. *t does not operate in the same "ay as@ifference) bringing together the identities of beings and man or man and -od. ?hisis the transcendental use that @ifference ma+es of the One. *nstead this is a gnosis ofthe One) but one that is a transcendental science rather than theological) a gnosisstripped of its mysticism. ?he essence of science is the dissolution of centres andmi$tures.

?he one is the obCect of a transcendental e$perience that is not thetic of< self) anabsolute e$perience of self) that signifies it&s immediately given in< itself as that

"hich it is. *ndivision is given in< itself) it is unthought> or immediate.

%aruelle introduces the term mysticism> mystique6 here. ?he meaning of this iscomplicated by his synta$. Ee differentiates bet"een mysticisme) ) le *mystique) and) la * mystique. ?his "ill be e$plained a little bit belo") in the course of these notes*&ll use the> mysticism for ) le * mystiqueand no article for ) la * mystique. 7ormysticisme*&ll simply note the "ord choice in brac+ets. 7or those curious) mystiqueisfeminine in 7rench. H APS6 @elivering the transcendental truth from metaphysicalends is perhaps the "ays of recovering the irreducible mysticism> from every

philosophy. %aruelle&s introduction of the "ord mysticism is not meant to convey thenormal use of mysticism) "hich is a +ind of dogmatic ascent or a salto morale to

some decision. ?he> mysticism is the essence of philosophy) "hich hides its essence.Ee summari/es the three uses of mysticism

1) ?he> mysticism signifies an immediate donation of the One) of the Other inthe radical immanence of the One) and the giving of *ndivision as if and asseparated from the Fhole

2) mysticism claims an immediate donation of the Other "ithin that "hich itretains of him despite every theological transcendence

3) mysticism mysticisme6 claims immediate donation of Being or of the Fholeof reality.

?he reality of the criti(ue of the philosophical decision>

@ifference is unassailable on its o"n territory. So for a criti(ue of @ifference) and thephilosophical decision) to happen it must happen from a different position outside oras a mutation of philosophy. ?hat position is from the One "hat he "ill later call thevision'in'the'One and in later "or+s simply vision'in'One


17/22

last discourse on the real one does not leave philosophy by the One) one describesthe vision'in'the'One of philosophy 1V3

@ifference is ultimate founded> as such in the One H i.e. in the thoughtlesstranscendental e$perience of immanence H but it ma+es use of the One "hich deniesthat e$perience) it is thus obligated to render it infinitely iterable>) becoming it o"nsta+e) becoming'difference of @ifference "hich has in being> Self because it hasfinale accepted the mediation of the One) the source of the Self 1V

%aruelle here gives a descriptive definition of science Science is a non'theticrepresentation of the< real) in fact completely distinct from that "hich philosophyimagines as ,epresentation 1VV *t gives its nature strictly immanent andtranscendental) its essence is not positional of self) and this is not a representation inthe usual sense. Let science is not the ans"er to the philosophical decision) on theOne is. Only an absolute science) from the One) "ill allo" us to ta+e leave> of

Diet/sche) Eeidegger) and @ifference in general) "hich never understand man)instead confusing man "ith philosophy. Philosophy is the Other of man.

?he impotence of @ifference in absolute Being &tre6>

?he end of @ifference is absolute becoming. But the mode it does this by in pullingup transcendence to its relativity to being) to the presence of being. ?his is ho"transcendence becomes inscribed in immanence) but this transcendence is not possible"ithout the immanence it inscribes itself "ithin. Being of man tends to"ards the One.

?his inscription tries to split the One) to ma+e the One co'appear as universal retreatof the thing in itself and the essence of the thing +no"n. ?he One is absolutely otherto obCect'being>. ?he duplicity of @ifference is that it uses the One) it captures it forits o"n profit) in order to render it absolutely other than its ontological form) but to

contradict in the last moment the transcendental truth of the One. ?he One is nolonger absolutely metaphysically indeterminable it is compromised by remaining"ith the relativity of Being.

All of this obscures the essence of the One. ?he One in its essence is the positiveabsence of form. @ifference introduces mediation into the One) it reintroduces fromoutside the essence of the One.

Absolute difference is an interminable desire) but it is not the Absolute itself.Philosophy is in general the dissolution of the Absolute) the spirit of scepticism and"ar doubled against the real) the most constant attempt to corrupt and destroy theindividual 1:W

?he One does absolutely transcend) but is not any +ind of theological transcendenceas found in the theological origins of the thing'itself and 7initude. *t is the absolutetranscendence of the real) that separation that the real impose rather in the "orld1:; ?he meaning being that the real) of "hich the One is a non'metaphysicalname) transcends the "orld or is not changed by the "orld but determines the "orld. HAPS6

?he One as guardian of metaphysics>

%aruelle here delves into a medieval problematic about the place of the

transcendentals in securing +no"ledge. Ee turns to this problematic becausecontemporary thin+ing is a thin+ing'to'the'limit) "hile no similar contempt is present

17


18/22

for terms> and the individual) "hich all shares in a parallel obsession "ith relation>.?he transcendentals trace the limits of thought) often ending in ,epresentation. %imitsare ,epresented in thought by the transcendentals. 7or a limit is not thought of initself) only in the unconscious.

?he drama of classical and modern transcendental thought has been to tear it bet"eenits end immanence< and its medium transcendence< H this is the @ecision.

Do" the transcendental tradition uses the One and the other transcendentals in orderto establish the a priori or meta'physics itself) it see+s to save> and thin+>metaphysics.

Of the transcendentals) "hich appear to be compromised in philosophy by theirtranscendental tautologies>) the One is the superior form because it is the real%ecoming of the transcendentals. Fhereas the other transcendentals are split bet"eentheir identity and empirical action Being beings>) Dothing nothings< the One is nota tautology in this sense. ?he One does not one.

Fhile @ifference has been the main theme for contemporary philosophy) raising tothe level of a transcendental @ifference differentiates>< it does not save meta'

physics. *t only saves the most inferior and reified modes of metaphysics,epresentation) %ogocentrism< and e$tends its essence) the scission ortranscendence. =very positive identity of Dothing) @esire) %anguage is foundelse"here than in themselves "ith @ifference as the Same "here "e care and guard -reco'Festern metaphysics and all theassumed contemporary< transcendentals that come "ith it Being) %anguage) @esire)?e$t) Po"er) etc. and positional>.

7or the One) the Forld is a redundancy 19;

?he amphibology of the real and ideality and the auto'dislocation of philosophy>

18


19/22

?his section repeats much of "hat has already been said about amphibology) this timefocusing on the real and the ideality of the real. *n philosophy the real is obscuredthrough the ambiguity of "hat is real "ith the synta$ of thin+ing that real. ?he real ismi$ed "ith the thought of the real. ?his is e$plained in a much clearer "ay in

Principes de la non-philosophie"here he argues that the thought of K is mi$ed "ith

K itself such that one isn&t thin+ing either one in their essence) but the mi$ture of thet"o being ta+en for one or the other. H APS6

Ee does give here a descriptive definition of the real later the ,eal6 from the aspectof the One. ?he One in'self and irreflective irr$fl$chi , *n the notes * have translatedthis as unthought> in a number of spots) "hich also "or+s) but only if you rememberthat for %aruelle philosophical thin+ing is mar+ed by a narcissistic reflective thin+ing.

Irr$fl$chicaptures both of these senses) but *&m not sure ho" to do that in =nglish and"ill leave it to ,occo to figure it outN ' APS6 distinguishes the regions of thetranscendental'empirco mi$ture by a real> transcendental distinction. Do longer) as it"as in Eeidegger on %aruelle&s reading< an ontic real or the real J ontic) but thesphere of unthought immanence of the One. ?he transcendental distinction is herefounded in in the nature of things>) in it reality that is neither ontic nor ontological. *tis no longer simply formal) this transcendental reality is only that of the One 202

?he impotence in thin+ing the individuals and multiplicities>

*t "ould seem that thin+ing multiplicities "ould get us out of the -reco'Festern trapof thin+ing the One or the Other) Being and Dothingness) etc. *nstead of thin+ing theOne) "hy not thin+ multiplicitiesI %aruelle locates t"o problems "ith this) "hich he"arns are very difficult to analyse. Ee isn&t +idding. ?his is the hardest section of the

boo+ thus far and *&m not (uite sure * understand it) but "ill ma+e an attempt tosummari/e. H APS6

1) ?he la" of the chiasm) "hich is the essence of @ifference in general. ?here isa co'appearanceRbelonging of Being and being that is reversible in their unity.But that reversibility is limited.

2< ?he problem of the multiplicity of being or of the real that enter in the chiasm.

*n short) it appears that this isn&t the "ay to begin thin+ing because it remainsontological) but no" intra'ontological. *t doesn&t secure any transcendental+no"ledge) but continues using the structures of philosophy the mi$ture oftranscendental'empirco< of Being and beings) but no" under the figure of thediverse>.

*n this thin+ing the One is still enchained in e$ternal tas+ transcendent to its o"nessence. *t is in the logic of the One and Being. But) %aruelle as+s) "hat is the essenceof the thoughtI ?his logicI Or the vision'in'the'OneI

Ca!ter &II " eor+ of te Piloso!ical %ecision

7rom the ndecideable to the theory of the philosophical decision>

=very system of @ifference philosophy


20/22

transcendental to the philosophical decision is that of the immediation> of the non'thetic of< self) that is the One.

?he non'

Fhat are the effects of the One on the philosophical decisionI %aruelle says there are

t"o +inds. ?his section e$plains the first and the follo"ing e$plains the second. ?hefirst is the manifestation of a hallucinatory character of the non'real of the decisionthat is reCected in turn through a radical contingency that is the correlate of the One.

%aruelle gives a general definition of the philosophical decision *n general) aphilosophical decision is a brea+ coupure6 H repeated and revived H to"ards anempirical or) more generally) given singularity and) at the same time) and anidentification "ith an ideali/es la" that it gives) supposing itself then real) atranscendence to"ards the truly real. *t is a relation and it adCusts itself each timeaccording to the real assumed given and reduced) and of the real assumed achievedand affirmed 21W

Let there is a reali/ation of the radical contingency of this relation. ?here is nosufficient reason "hy the la" and empirical singularity. ?his radical contingency isgiven the name non' under the form of absolute transcendence but thisabsolute is nevertheless measured by the immanent essence of the One.

?he real is) apart for the One) is a diversity in itself or non'positional transcendence)that never falls under e$perience not the real as such. ?hus) since itcomes from the One) the non'


21/22

?here is an abyss in the philosophical decisions bet"een the non'

onsidering the philosophical decisions from the aspect of the effects of the One asnon'

*t is the One is its immanence that creates the apperception of non hori/ontal?ranscendence as one of the t"o origins of @ifference and "hich denounces theobCective absurdity of that final procedure of philosophy and philosophy generally.

?his is no longer about suspending all the transcendent philosophical positions) but ofindifferentiating every operation of suspension) of rendering the reduction useless if itattempts to loo+ outside the essence of the #eritas transcendentalis. ?his truth) "hichis the truth of the One) can&t be placed. ?ruth isn&t in the margins or in the centre.

Being has a topology) but there is no topology of the One.

?he ision'in'the'One and the decision in favour of Xdualism&>

According to the results obtained here) %aruelle must themati/e his o"n reasoning forthe real criti(ue of @ifference in short) it is his decision> in favour of a dualismagainst -reco'Festern difference.

7irst) a short summary of "hat has happened so far. *n the interior of the radicalsuspension underta+en by the non'


22/22

the non'

notes on laruelle's-les-philosophies-de-la-difference

Documents