eraa2017 LARUELLE AND DELEUZE: from sfference to multiplicity -ONscenes LARUELLE AND DELEUZE: from difference to multiplicity Archives (iswww.onscenes.com/philosophy/laruelle-and-deleuze-from-difference-to- multiplicity) by Terence Blake hpi onscenes com/phlosap weductonspa) CONTEXT saceetenare hits onsceres com/phlosap veductonspat) We are living through avery interesting period in the realm of Continental Pilosophs, containing aspects of continuing progress and of intelectual regression. The regression proclaims itself to be a decisive progress beyond the merely negative and critical philosophies ofthe recent pas. Yet the philosophies of hie onsceres com/phlosop Deleuze, Foucault, Derrida and Lyotard cannot be surmmed up in the image of pure critique. Thee critical fener) —__~ hntpxtwww onscenes.convphlosophylarvall-and-delouze-from-aference-t-multpicty ane8i23r2017 LARUELLE AND DELEUZE: trom difference to muliplicty - ONscenes = encountered did not leave us in a powerless void of negativity and paralysis. Beyond the critique ofthe new o i mania foe racalaetioni Uissolution of the dogmatic residues contained in even the most innovative philosophies they had “ACeELENATE MANIFESTO ‘Sgures of transcendence and ontotheology they gave concrete sketches of how fo see the world in terms of avery different sort of ontology based on immanence a diachronic ontolog This diachronic ontology is Tae BOC ONON WASH ursued today by such diverse figures as Bernard Stigler, Bruno Latour, and Prancois Laruelle ml iu ls nt tin onacones comiphilorop rmmentnstehersurgg20) ‘The recent promotion of philosophical sucessors to this constellation of thinkers of immanence, such Badiow and Zizck, as not led to any real progress bul to labour of travestying the past (one has only to lok st fais DELFLZ and Zek’s ORGANS WITHOCT BODIES) and to 8 rts to sich ntcial_fgytumonnaranoniehnon deadends a Lacanan psychoanalys. Bul even these contemporary regressive philosophers rem in Gialogue, however one-sided and unjust, wth thei stro predecessors, and strive to confront them at [ — xan wan aronen the level of conceptual rchnes that characterised thes work. The next stp inthe regression was to keep ho:ew onscenes comiphilorop tip the general aura of having “gone beyond” the older supposedly negative thinkers but to radically =) Simplify the conceptual level, presenting easy summary presentations of the new tought while conveniently forgetting the conceptual paths followed. Ths has been the principle contribution of Graham KENZIE WARK A HACKER M Harman's object-oriented ontology and ofthe related mosement of Speculative Realism, hapten onscanes com/phlosop sStcaton! Bott: Mehdi Belhaj Kacemn anu Alexander Galloway agree that i is Baiow’s philsophy that expresses in is MCKENZIE WARK A WACKER purest and most general form the new paradigm that artculmates explicitly what is elsewhere just bithely hoxoy onscanes con/phlosap presupposed as a form of thought too evident to even be aware of. They indicate thal the ext step in —__—_—_ consolidating the regression that Badiou's philosophy, however Innovative, does not initiate but rather KENZIE WARK: A HACKER registers and legitimates, corresponds to the far less ambitious productions of the object-oriented hia onscenes com/phlosop Itornstion ontologists 1 say far less “ambitious” in the sense of conceptual ambition, because their ambition is of dllferent ord paltcised tone of the Continentals has been discreetly dissolved to leave a more demagogic packaging for hp:tienwonscenes com/ohlosop the stale ideas that Tarman’s 00 trumpets ambitiously as the new construction required after so much a critique, OOOISR. promulgates a dumbed down de-marxised version of the set-theoretic universe explicated by Bao They are the marketised version of the Badiou-Zizek constellation, and so the extremely KENZIE WARK: FRANCO-OHE MARK FISHER. DICIEASTANEDE hie onscenes com/phlosop shh [tis normal that in this context Prangois Laruelle’s philosophy is at last coming into its own. It could not fully succeed while the work of Deleuze and Dervida were in progress, as his eritiques of that work were An HER THE WEIRD ANE only half-true, based on giving it an ultimately uncharitable reading as remaining within the norms of hepsi onscones comiphlorop sulfiient philosophy; but other readings are possible. Laruelle pursued over the decades his unwavering Beyendthecunbeieh_ commitment to immanenee, and this project shines forth now against the background of the regression {hat Badiou-Zizek-Meilassoux and the OOOxians represent. tn all my commentaries on Laruelle’s non- standard philosophy Ido not ertique or denigrate but only propose concepts to iluminate his path and to aumcnacmncomisioopiag suuest ways out of the inevitable immpasses it encounters on its way to immanence, Nor am I external to Laruelle’s project (rather 1 am a fellow traveller on the path of pluralism). That's the whole point of quan oabiou -eaprausu re discussing his work reeves co/ahiloenstn/caialirn | do not scorn Laruelle’s own conceptual ereations when I say that sometimes they amount to impasses um samo awsome when viewed in the light of his later evolution, Creations can often lead to impasses that atively inspire new creations there is no shame in thal Laruelle has never ceased advancing, nor have I] thank Laruelle sn/phlosophyimmasate-iot) for his work ad read it with great passion. | try to give a useful perspective on that cork, to situate it sithin the context of French philosophy of the comiphilosophyltertiat last 50 years, lam trying to articulate my own sense of recent philosophical history, as Iam dis-satisted by uch that has been ssritten about it (particularly by the object-oriented ontologists, the speculative realists, and the .new” realist) I fel that whatever the polemics I engage in, this isa postive tsk, and 1 Pa. orscones.com/pilosophyis am pursuing a useful objective in doing so. I write without the sanction of Lavuelle or ofthe hari of Laruelle scholars and partisans who diseuss his work in English, Nor have {ad any’ meaningful dialogue MAIN BADION IGTS ANDTHE vith the mal groopoftranstors who are busy making his work avaliable tothe Anglophone worl. This ESpdgtasere contiooy /htip://www.onscenes.comphilosophy/laruelle-and-deleuze-from-difference-to-rmultiplicity 228i23r2017 LARUELLE AND DELEUZE: trom difference to muliplicty - ONscenes solitude is not necessarily handicap, as | express a singular point of vie, ovsing lite or nothing to the currently recognised ,authorties* on this subject. Larulle is no one's property, or non-philosophy means -ARMEN AVANESSIAN AND SUE nothing at all Hov)wwwanscanescom/shiloe (ON NON-LARUELLIAN NON-PHILOSOPHY i oe rom a pluralist point of view, there is no intellectual center ofthe world, and so there are many important ‘ways of philosophising. We can uve this sort of decentred plu of various philosophical positions. Badiou, for example, falls to convince us fully because despite his ism asa criterion for evaluating the worth “hnuonscaes sion avowed theory of multiples his own practice is not always pluralist. telling example fs his relation to [ARMEN AVANESSIAN AND SUH psychoanalysis and his inability to plurals the unconscious. For Badiou Pars isthe center, so Lacan isthe ho: onacones com/phlosop center forthe theory ofthe psyche. Ihe manages to “correct” Lacan a litle, he has made, in his own eyes, a \world-histoical contribution, Using this decentred pluralism asa pragmatic eriterion {think tht Laruelle "ARMEN AVANESSIAN AND SUMP is far more satisfying intellectually than Badiou. His book on Badiou (ANTT-BADIOL) leaves no doubt about hin onacanes con/phlosop that, However the erterion of pluralism leds us to conclude that Laruelle's thought must be generalised and de-centered even further, One superiority of Laruell’s path of thought has been his eapacity to ‘ALoeRr caMuS -THE REBEL criticise is own ideas and to progeess beyond them. soxcomfshlooahylthereel) Badiou has never truly criticised his lacanism and his maoism, and his “communist hypothesis™ has jut SPECULATING FREEDOM: ADDIE aulded epicyeles on epieyetes to an uninterrupted process of se that some form of auto~ {Justification where it should be obsious waco comiphoxap silique fs necessary. Badio has never relly broken with standard philosophy nor Pere) ___ ‘maintaining the magisterial position in philosophy and regarding the “matheme™ as the paradigm of knowledge. n contrast, Laruelle has analysed and critiqued his own former philosophism and ‘with seientis Larulle has evolved overtime, bul coming as he does from the Eeole Normale Supérieure, like Badiou, be has taken long time to free himself from the limitations of his formative context and intellectual epoch, Ben OUMER THE KUneARITIE hitenmonscanescom/phlossp Deleuve and Feyerahend have both declared that the academic philosopher is @ ~bureaueral of thought" and Laruelle agrees So he has had to fight hard against this bureaucratic sie of his intelletual character The non-pbilosopher is not a bureaueral but a heretic and gnostic, Le. he sees the shadow and the ‘DAVID RODEN - BARK POSTHUR "unconscious side in all things, including in himsel. From this point of view Baeliou represents a regression hepsi onscanes com/phloeep ‘oan older model ofthe totalising philosopher, but Laruelle is tying to be something else temple) There was a very interesting analysis of the notion of critique” in France in the wake of May 1968. Creative philosophers like Delewze, Gusta, Lyotard, Derrida, and Youcault analysed the critical position itself, revealing the limits ofits negativity Le. its founding itself on notions of lack and negation and againstness, teyctremsnscmescom/phlcenp and of its “derivatsity” ie. ils basie dependence on the problematies of those it eritleised, Marxist INTERVIEW WITH WHAM S BU diteetics, Lacanian analysis, Althusserism, deconstruction, were found to be fimdamentally awed salgns$ustmbO7 AgOe. Okay approaches. The alternative th mata eebaaatatett emerged was in each case a pluralism (of intensities, language games, force relations, assemblages, epistemes, disposiifs, modes of existence, processes of sujectivation There ‘WILUAM 5. BURROUGHS, AUCH was no attempt to eliminate negativity and critique, (his would have been too evident a pragmatic hssiwnw onscones com/philosop contradiction in those lon lst times before 000 replaced argument with impudent blu and hypocritical daha went gue) denial ofthe obvious) but only to dissipate its primacy. hs /onew onscenes comiphlorop aruelle went through along phase of apparent “ertique”in his Philosophy 1 phase, but only & naive reader or blinded by Lacanism could fal to see the Nietzschean and Heideggerian positive terrain that underies these investigations, Laruelle himself came to criticise this phase, not because of its supposed negativity, ‘WILUAM 5. BURROUGHS: CLTTH ‘but because ofits tendentious positisty This positivity was stl ited to the confines of the denegation of hvtonewonscanes con/phlorop immanence constitutive of philosophy. Larielle came to call this conformist conception of positivity u “sulllciey, and began to think outside of its confines. Laruell’s name, during the decade of his “maw unsouens-cur Philosophy I, for the non-philosophical positivity beyond critique was “science Later, he eame to see that haan onscenes con/ohlso snother ruse of pilosphical sufcieney and he broke with what a hitp:twww.onscenes.comphilosophy/larull-and.-delouze-fromaference-tmultplicty site this primacy accorded to science was yet8i23r2017 LARUELLE AND DELEUZE: trom difference to muliplicty - ONscenes he inset calls is “selentsn’ He now affirms that the now-philosophical pairing of philosophy and uRnoUGHSS WhG MACH science i ust one possible way of doing non-standard philosophy, and that other pairings, philosophy and religion, philosophy and photography. are equally possible bszcomiphlesophy/bareughescat A consequent philosophical pluralism fas its own internal dynamic that leads from pluralism as a tis onacones comiphilorop particular positon inside philosophy (eg, Paul Feyerabend's methodological pluralism), toa pluralising of ls philosophy itself as an ontological realm and a cognitive régime laying claim to completeness and universality (Feyerabend's evolution from Machian “way’of research to his later ontological pluralism, "NEW WORLD ORDURE: BURROL In both eases, the target of Feyerabend's critiques i is toalisation, the vision of “philosophy as a discourse hpwmonconesom/phosep redihe grotesque) that eovers everything... an all-encompassing synthetic view ofthe world and what i all means"), This i the source of the move of puting philosophy in relation to a non-philosophieal outside (nom Nove WEAR Now sur THe philosophical” not meaning a negation of philosophy but a wider practice, asin non-Euclidean geometries) pctweuonaceneacomiphioeop valevosanance Laruelle has written on this sort of non-philosophical move at length, but he cannot claim exclusive ownership (nor even chronologieal priority) of this idea, nor is he necessarily the best exemplar of the practice of such a non-philosophy. But at le his work is gesture inthe right direction, both explaining pnenokdeneseary No and exhibiting its necessity and desirability, Larulle's work is no exception and Laruelle can have the operator “non-” applied to himself with as muck justice as he applies it to the domain of philosophy. A SUD BREK. IS THERE AOS ron-laruelizn non-philosophy is a reasonable and desirable extension and revision of philosophical hisew onscenes coniphilosop recnposhuran-o56) phiraisn, Feyerabend and Deleuze are good examples of such a non-Larellian non-philosophy” SUAvo0 22EK- WELCOME TO ‘THE PRINCIPLE OF MINORITY huiwewonscenes con/phlosop Ideology) Im his preface to THE PRINCIPLE OF MINORETY, published in French in 2981, situates his thought in relation tothe philosophical context. He talks of working towards a possible encounter between pluralism, OACQUES RANGIERE - DISAGREE in danger of being conflated with relativism, and a thought of the Absolute, away from idealist entrapment Unwewowonscenes com/ehilosee in the relative and the constructed, Such an encounter would permit the extraction of a non-relativist JACQUES RANCIERE “POLITICS, “essence of Multiplicities The formula for this non-relatvist pluralism is the reconciling ofthe “thought of the multiple and of becoming, of dispersion and of dissemination” at work in the “contemporary hopes of balgin?s0SwSireDG7tAgOs d8utr an overflowing of Greco-Occidental Representation” with a “thought of the Absolute ... a thought of the One, but of the One without unity, beyond the Idea, the Logos, even of Being” This project, while quite logical and necessary in ils allempt at deepening and radicalising the poststructuralistresearch- programmes of the 70s, may seem very abstract. Yet Laruelle insists that its “methods, goals, and results Banta ts0SwSireDO7tAgOg D6uy DACQUES RANCIERE -AN INTELL are only apparently merely theoretical Not only iit suffused by “diverse emotions” but 5 vit ini an emotion, is alas bor from an encounter, the encounter beeen a spi= 141852161 Itself from beginning to end an emotion, ts alays born from. inter, the encounter beta te ttutr Aisappointment and an as yet unknotn demand that the emation encelops asa certainty higher than isl, sustaining and maintaining it". SACQUES RANCIERE -OF BRAIN hisew onscanes comiphlorop Tis disappointment is one of the strongest driving frees in non-philosophy, but it is bearable and frat lees by (Note: all translations from LE PRINCIPE DE MINORITE are nly by “lelting oneself be convinced by the Absolute, by allowing oneself to he seized and enchante not resisting the non-power of ths emotion DACQUES RANCIERE -AWHLL SE to: iaew nacanes comiphilorop ry own} iligen Laruelle’s THE PRINCIPLE OF MINORITY is the fist book in his Philosophy Il phase. It expresses a 36 BALLARD. TOWAROS THES! Aiseppointment in the philosophies of diference and Larucll's enchantment by “the Absolute as such’ horny onscanes comiphlorop Hao ‘This disappointment led him to 4 nin re sms pent bie trices — (enn Ferns oF ign attr nchpetafoaresfatavasrertianancns — Sets @ hitp:twww.onscenes.comiphilosophy/larull-and-delouze-fromaference-tmultplicty aia8i23r2017 LARUELLE AND DELEUZE: trom difference to muliplicty - ONscenes This renuneistion implied the sacrifice of those figures that had guided not just the work and the hopes of Te BALLARD RUSHING TOPAR his predecessors ané contemporaries but his ovm philosophical rescarch as well: hpxthenwonscenes cam/phlosop ‘ethen became necessary to sacrifice the ttelary gen, Netesche, Bergson, Heideger, eho were] perhaps too {ntelary not to abandon us atthe moment when we ould have wanted lo go beyond their horizon in their 26 SALARD WHY IMANT TOL haem onscenes com/phioeap company @, Syn Srscnmt tt newethoshont Ute —— QNSGEMES sis coud ke us ony so and winnie to ota, Somamom po RRS Ker Y) {8 our own resources, or rather to “the irrupton, into the deneral thematic, of the Absolute” (6), Thi RaaTeN NTE Tem/phlosop irruption ofa new element, the Absolute or the One withollfity to take the “step beyond” Being, not into at emptiness, but ino a “beyond filled hy the Principle of minority”. The philesophy of Difference could —— [se gaamas am SRR tive us only relative multiplicities, contained within the hypostases of Being, ofthe idea, and ofthe Stat. SS Laruelle’s disappointment told him it was useless to ‘continue to work on itn order to ge it to produce what it evidently i incapable of cing (0. ptr areenencomiplosn berating) Laruelle considers thatthe promise of this philosophy has not been kept. What was this promise? Te BALLARD THEEVENNOSE tteomonscanescom/phloaop fe “the promi of breaking up Rebreentaton hy elaborating concn of ecoming of dren, of miles beyond presence) far from breaking up Representation an taking the step beyond presence, and frecing the mules feganuenen condense trom hee lave lini, thepilosopy of Dilference was sts with suborinaing these malic tothe no so nn-resen essence of resenc and sins rearing the od ‘hem orcaneconphiepy tnene of reason apie) Laruelle looks atthe “new” philosophy of Difference and atthe hopes that it inspired, and ses it toe “so DeMALLARO CRASH (CHAPTE! ctw onscenes omiphosagt He Aiseppointing, so violent, so voluntarist and activist, as if incapable of keeping its promise” rapt concludes that i i not as new as it pretends: it contains the same old violence as the philosophy of Representation, the same false promises, the same enslavement of multiplicities, This “emotion” already DEBALARD- CRASH CHAPTEE contains within it the “step beyond’, as it involves not just disappointment and renunetation but wtcthwmonacenes somiphioasgt chapter) acceptance: Accepting the acknotsledgement that this part of contemporary thought had been betrayed i the search for — hon mulipiities by its excess of will and by the theoretical resources that it dispacedof or that had disposed of (7). oi) It seems thatthe very magnitude of our desire to go beyond the horizon of presence, and the very degree of our obsession were what held us back. We could not “break through” Representation by means of the resources provided by our tulelary figures nor by our own dedication and resolve, The Absolute isnot won {rough to by active and will negation, but i llained more passively and patiently, by letting go, allowing {EAN BAUCRILLARD .WiRTUALAL oneself tobe convinced, fetting oneself be enchanted, not resisting htm onscanes com/phlosop ven) Consenting at ast tothe One as to that which Keeps the multiplicities beyond Being itself as it Keeps the ‘minorities beyond the State (7). ho: isnw onscenes com/philorop olatone joer saudi) Thus THU: PRINCIPLE OF MINORITY (one could also translate this tite as THE MINORITY PRINCIPLE, on the analogy with the pleasure-priniple and the reality-principle) isa book which inaugurated a whole new SEAN BAUDRILLARD THE MENT phase in Laruele’s philosophical practice, We are very lucky to have such a text as Laruelle is earefl atthe stork sonar) a hitp:twww.onscenes.comiphilosophy/larull-and-delouze-fromaference-tmultplicty sina utset to specify the “emotion” that presided over the rupture not only with the philosophies of his contemporaries, but also with his own previous thought. The book came out in 1981, and the immediately8i23r2017 LARUELLE AND DELEUZE: trom difference to muliplicty - ONscenes preceding book, BEYOND THE POWER PRINCIPLE, was published 6 years before, in 10s. He came to call Sean BALORIARD THE WEL this neve stage in his philosophical development "PHILOSOPHY I. Measured in terms of his published hpxthenwonsceres cam/phlosop ‘books, his Philosophy Il extended over petiod of a4 years from THE PRINCIPLE OF MINORITY (18) to the Jrevijeanbeudhilard) book tha inaugurated new phase (PHILOSOPHY Il) in his thought, THEORY OF STRANGERS, published con Gi SE in.o95. The lst book in iy Pippo th pieasenas THOR Ob KNEES fngahged n your dono cove stg ™ polos hrs lca abv vison ‘The emotion described by Laruelle, what Deleuze would call a philosophical affect, is a composite of Aisoppointment with the “contemporary problematic of bilferenee’ whose hopes he shared in what he will retroactively call his Philosophy I, and of being convinced, setzed, enchanted and overwhelmed, by the [tpn onscones.com/ptilosop “Absolute™ Larulle combines both intellectual and affective predieates in thedescription of ths emotion: conviction and enchantment, “breaking up Representation” and *irruption of the Absolute born from HORVATH MARK AND LOVASZ A heen anscenes com/phlosop the encounter ofa disappointment and of an as yet unknown demand! (. cepa conti ngerausoraarhalinluhan) ‘We have seen that this quasi-relisious language of the Absolute corresponds lo a concept of “the One MaRsiaus MCLUNAN - MONEY ‘without Unity This concept comes ftom the conviction that the philosophy of Difference has come to a ho ienwonscenes con/phlosep eal end, that thas given all hat ts capabl of giving, and that this sol enough. Muliplictes remain imprisoned in the philosophies of Difference, and so remain merely relative, This is what Laruelle cre roveAATaNn one “continuous multiplicities”, whi he declares to be “identical tothe modern concept of Difference” (0) He hcp: oneanesconiphiorop distinguishes this relative concept, the “contemporary, Grecocontemporary concept of multiplicities’, from the CHE FOUCAULT. GOVERN ho: nw onscones comiphlorop dispersive unary Multiplicites or Minorities hich are the absolute concept or the essence of multiplicities (6), et) an encounter, both intellectual and emotional, But also This abscae concept of maples tbr m : http:/wew-onscenes.com/philosop trom sa of"mmedit experience ie BADIOU, DELEUZE, LARUELLE AND THE MULTIPLE, HEL FOUCAWAT-THE SUSIE hp: ooew onscenes com/phlorop wor cha uc). belewue'’s fundamental problem is most certainly not to liberate the multiple but to submit thinking toa renewed concept of the One... We ean therefore first state that one must carefully identiff-a metaphysis of MICHEL FOUCAUIT- PASSION the One inthe work of Deleuze” (Badiou, DELEUZE sown onscenes com/philorop fricsefoussul Badiou's DELEUZE, THE CLAMOR OF BEING was published in French in 1997. He isolates what he calls “metaphysics of the One* in Deleuze’s work, without referencing, and scemingly being unaware of hxrsnw onscenes coniphilosop Laruelle’s eritiqne ofthe philosophies of itference, begun in 198tin his THE PRINCIPLE OF MINORITY. As ee dnl focesehy we have seen, Laruele advances a similar critique to that elaborated by Badiou, diagnosing a continued adhesion to a metaphysics of the One as being the source of Delenze's supposed failure to break through NICK LAND - CATHFORALISM | Representation Laruelle’s solution is to produce a new concept of the One that is not bound by Badiou's opposition {GUY BEBORD - SEPARATION PEt between “liberating the multiple" or “submitting to a renewed concept of the One’ His solution is to thw anscenes com/philotogt rected). propose and explore the consequences of a renewed concept of the One, & concept thal would nol be metaphysical, one elaborated with the explicit goal of liberating the multiple. In the preface to THE PRINCIPLE OF MINORITY Laruelle declares that this is goal isthe driving intellectual andl emotional force Dehind his concept of “the One without un : tttremanscanescom/phlceap y Jeanna This concept of mulipicities without diference is reiterated and expounded more cleanly in the next book Ur DEBORD - SOCIETY OF HE that Laruelle published, A BIOGRAPIIY OF TIIE ORDINARY MAN. This eame out in 1985, and its the second a hmmomemenconiphtcee sheespecack ‘book in what Laruelle began to call his Philosophy I ts a more systematic work than the PRINCIPLE OF MINORITY, and is waltten in the form of a “manual” containing a series of 140 concise "theorems", each cov brbone REVOLUTION ANI accompanied by a more lenglhy commentary. The Gist theorem is sanecenestomiphlosap hitp:twww.onscenes.comiphilosophy/larull-and-delouze-fromaference-tmultplicty arta8i23r2017 LARUELLE AND DELEUZE: trom difference to muliplicty - ONscenes ‘here are to sources, to paths of minoritary experience and thought. Minorities as “ference: implanted on the oof be State anders nena. nd miners hich areal eat difeeeeinidaals commences Fi Assuch or ath qual, ‘rnars me” aha comes ong hal of diferenee and he precede he sent vos State TERENCE AND REPETITION and LOGIC OF SENSE Deleuze too let hipimmanscenes com/phlosop see) Its important to note that after his D drop the problematic of difference, to turn to developing a theory and practice of fre Laruelle’s concept ofthe One without unity isa far more adequate description of Delewze’s postion than Badiou's reading of it as embodying a metaphysics of the One as opposed to problematic of non-unitary ‘multiplicities. Delewze’s LETTER TO A SEVERE CRITIC 197) contains a very useful description, that i also an auto-ertique, of the impasse thet a representational philosophy of difference Teads to, and of the consequent need to break with the mere representation of difference in favour of a performative pu wimonsanas con/nhtorop enunciation and enactment of free mulipliiies. In general, whenever Laruclle refers to Deleuze as retice) entangled in the prineiple of philosophical suficieney he has in mind the Deleuze of DIFFERENCE AND REPETITION, and simply ignores Deleuze's subsequent ertique of his position, There is an uneanny ,out of smilies. teem onseenes com/shloso ime” eect, tat can be seen again in Larus PKILOSOPHIFS OF DIFFERENCE, published in 18s, ftwmmontcraconiphoxop Delewe’s pasage from the system of iference to the practice of muliplcts thanks to his encounter with Gute sinply pase over in silence. When Larue responds to Deleuze aed Gustars anal af GEOACES eAANLE THE PEA his workin ther inal olaboraton WHAT IS PHILOSOPHY. plished in 99, reat its ook ofthe tron onscenss comiphilorop same type a DIFEERENCE AND REPETITION, However, WHAT IS PHILOSOPHY is not Just a work by neal eergeorge baile) Deleuze, as Laruelle’s response,*A Reply to Deleuze” seems to imply. It was written in collaboration with CGuattari, a non-philosopher, sho Deleuze explicitly honours for taking him outside philosophy: Laruelle CEORCES BATAIE THE PSYC hsieewonscanes con/philorop -ives a one-sided “philosophical” reading of the book and comes to the predictable conclusion that itis still a philosophy, Le. “philosophy” in his sense, which has next to nothing to do with Deleuze and Cuattar's sense as expounded inthe book Laruelle is purportedly replying to, (CEORCES BATANLE-THE ABYE hovaonw onscenes con/philorop Jr georges betel He does not rebut their extique of the seientism of his non-philosophy. nor to thelr argument that .non= philosophy” isnot the invention of Laruelle, nor isi limited to hs writings. Later, in 195, in PRINCIPLES. accepts this eitcism, admit that during his Philosophy It phase trom heotwnnvonsaresconhosop 198 to 1909 he had been still under the sway of scientist, and more generally ofthe principle of sufficient pecitigeorger sate) philosoph. OF NON-PHILOSOPIIY, Latuell hapuisrwonscenes con/phlosop ‘These considerations show why Laruelle, despite his considerable merits is systematically wrong when he hep assigns Deleuze to the realm of philosophical sufficieney (“representation in Deleuze’sterms). Despite is ‘deep an intense non-philosophical voyage Laruelle i incapable of reading Deleuze and Gualtar’s WHAT TRANGOISLARUELIE-ONTHEE Is PHILOSOPHY? in ter sd what the collaboration of Delesze and Guattari brought to oth of them, of the relation with the outside, because he bas not meas him onscenes con/phlosop ‘The article is taken from bosom onscanes com/phlosep Tipe Reroneca bie wordpren om 701 Sa FaanTassne alee TRHENCESLAKEWOROPRESECOM omrdilerencetomuliplcsy) how onscanes con/phlosap Photo: Richard Giblett [an 8 Wen onsconascom¥2Fohibeophy) 0 comments ave 2 message hp: isnw onscenes comiphilorop Jeceste) Goma Feu GUATTAR) EVERYBODY 0 Commrans Va onsconescom/phiosopy/eualearideleuzesrom-Sfrenceosrutiphciyommerts} tiny onscanes comiphlorop scale hntp:twww.onscenes.comiphilosophy/laruoll-and-delouze-fromaiference-to-nultplicty maeraa/a017 LARUELLE AND DELEUZE: from etference to muliplity -ONseenes hpi anacenes com/phlosop Leave a Reply. eequataroat2) Name aquired) hpi anscene icquatarcost3) mal (no pubis) 7 hptenmonscanescom/philosop febequstaroatd) hapten onscanes com/phi ustardecusion) Comments requied) caves com/philosophylacwhatsol tte onscanes com/phi cect) Nosy me on eon oat aa ttc ermsnscnescom/ohcane hexonw onscenes comiphilorop rdecregile celeureeabe per thelerparnt). eww dea aratnustragileselouze) essentmentailes leur how onscenes comiphlorop rodinhoceglesdelute) how onscanes com/philorop fectvon) @ hntpxtwww onscones.convphlosophylarvall-and-delouze-from-aference-to-multpicty sinaeraa/a017 LARUELLE AND DELEUZE: from etference to muliplity -ONseenes hfe onacanes com/ph oval il deere) ho: scones con/phlorop kane hp. onscenes com/phloso havin onscanes con/ohlosoe hegetrnmanscanes com/phi esiengilerdeleuseandelinguat, hii onscanes com/philosop les deleure-anetTeloeguatr hsxivomwonscenes con/phlosop recumonailan delouresnatie, tion onscenes coniphlosoe ge colour a flaequator) havin onscenes con/phlosop hpuiswonscenes com/phlosop hpuivoewonscenes com/phlosop ile celoure antag aor hapiwonanscenes com/phlosoe hntpxtwww onscones.convphlosophylarvall-and-delouze-from-aference-to-multpictyeraa/a017 LARUELLE AND DELEUZE: from etference to muliplity -ONseenes $:A92F2F wn onsca om8 tpisnw onacones comiphilorop hp: raew onscanes comiphilorop ey) hoon onscenes comiphilorop hoy onscanes con/phlosop ites oom enseanes com/shlon hp. onacenes com/phloso hauiwmw onscenes con/ptilosop ustarin heamoegaptal, i/o onscanes com/phloso hiram onscanes com/phlosap hex oony onscanes con/phlosop hte /enmonscenes cm/ sho frutipiey) hoxonwonscenes com/philorop h:roew onscanes comiphlorop hntpxtwww onscenes.convphlosophylarvall-and-delouze-from-aference-t-multpicty sorteeraa/a017 LARUELLE AND DELEUZE: from etference to muliplity -ONseenes bipsiwmmanscenes com/phlosop rencnshosaphers ttpstromanscmnencom/phloanp af hen eraser tepetremsnscmescom/phlcenp ere 2 en bergsor) hiniieonscanes com/phioeoe hvonmw onscanes con/phlorap item anscanes com/ohas how onsconcs com/philorop hp onacenes com/phlosop pce nonowth palo) him anscenes com/phlosop graghiea!-amnaipacl i on/phlosopy/pubicimage-paul hip mw onscenes com/phlosop rachine part paulviba) hem onscones com/philosop rachine part bpaulviba) sormaton-bumbva-corverss¥n) hapuisrwonacenes con/phlosop hntpxtwww onscenes.convphlosophylarvall-and-delouze-from-aference-t-multpicty ane8i23r2017 LARUELLE AND DELEUZE: trom difference to muliplicty - ONscenes Philosophy Proudly pomoreby Weebly (ntpeinmew neatly com/2utm_soureesintersluen, meciumsfeoerSutm campsigns2) hntp:twww.onscenes.comiphilosophy/laruoll-and-delouze-fromaiference-to-nultplicty rane