The Future of SR/OOO?Galloway’s controversy Encore

I have only to say the following in light of Laruelle’s provocative non-standard philosophy:

Knowledge started with the Heraclitean maxim that “nature loves to hide herself” to which Laruelle, our ambivalent guide here, responds by stating the obvious: “Because it (physis) is foreclosed to thought, the Real or Man loves to open itself.” The Real is Man herself. Her generic character is already present for acknowledgement in the ancients but was obscured by historical denials of the questionable status of Man (the illusion of anthropocentrism) vis-a-vis the unilateralizing power of the One. The knowledge of this genericity in the last instance is raised to its idempotent character, its capacity to remain unchanged even when already needlessly multiplied in terms of diverse multiplication of the powers of Man, from the objectifier of stone to the subject that replaces the position of God who is dead, a subject who is hailed as the subject for Truth, who has so much interest in Truth. But as Laruelle wonderfully puts it, this subject-in-subject, the Man-in-Man has the property of genericity, “the property of being able to communicate truth or rather the True-without-truth that does not want it.”

2 thoughts on “The Future of SR/OOO?Galloway’s controversy Encore”

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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