In their complete notion, men or humans are existing-subject-Strangers, determined-in-the-last-instance by the Real or the One as Ego-in-Ego. Ego-man, contrary to the philosophical Ego, is foreclosed to the subject, but the latter, insofar as it presupposes it, effectuates its uni-versality for the World.
Non-philosophy is like a negative universal thought which can be effectuated, for example, in the language of a science-of-men rather than sciences-of-man. Determined-in-the-last-instance according to the Ego-in-Ego, radically non-anthropoid, it manifests the essence of the existing-subject-Stranger essentially from the force (of) thought. But the latter is a general and even universal matrix and must be modulated by the a prioris of a unified theory of philosophy and sociology, psychology, psychoanalysis, ethnology, etc. It is a question of making equivalent in the disciplines of the human sciences a thought whose content-in-human and content-in-science are assured without demanding the exclusion of philosophy pure and simple. The civil war between philosophy and the human sciences can only find its peace treaty outside itself and in a different conception of man. Non-philosophy is a rigorous heresy: it makes of man a being-Inseparate (from) self, and thus Separated-without-separation from the World. In other words, for one of the first times it has become possible to definer man in a “formal” way without formalism; to constitute him as an axiomatic rather than philosophical object. Man is precisely the Real foreclosed to philosophy. The latter can only imagine what is alone the “existent” and “non-existent” which can be set into axioms and which only tolerates—so great is its autonomy—axioms. Where there is man, the thesis and principle are excluded. Where there is the human, thought must be axiomatized and renounce its sufficiency.
Internal form of non-philosophical thought as unified theory of philosophy and a particular region. Democracy is not here an object of thought or reflection but the essence of knowledges produced by the force (of) thought or in-the-last-instance by the vision-in-One which assures against all spirit of hierarchy the transcendental equality of unified terms. Non-philosophy is a transcendental theory of human multitudes in a manner through which humans of-the-last-instance are em-bodied [en-corps], but it takes for material philosophical inequality in general and in particular the ego-xenological Difference typical of philosophy.
The philosophers’ political thought mimics human struggles and thus can only explain them. The problem of a philosophy of democracy no longer makes rigorous human sense. A mode of non-hierarchized and non-anarchic democracy presupposes a unilateral duality: I…am (and not “is”), thus I am an Other, a democratic multitude, a Stranger. The Stranger is not the Other encountered in the space of the World or as Infinite, but myself in-the-last-instance. This is the transcendental organon of the World and the absolute condition of democracy.
The Stranger “makes” the void; it transcendentally anesthetizes all types of conditioning (psychological, sociological). The void is also fully positive, as identity of universal law, which is itself in the flesh. The content of this void is precisely a transcendental multitude, a non-autopositional democracy. Completely understood, democracy, which neither acts on the logo-logical center nor on the margins or inequalities, destabilizes and utilizes authoritarian autopositions henceforth made secondary. The theoretico-pragmatic human-in-the-last-instance is substituted for the violence of the democratic State and its philosophical expression.
Science according to the One-as-man exposing the unifying effects of the vision-in-One to the variety of philosophical, anthropological, sociological, psychoanalytic, etc. matrices of the description of man. The science of men or human multitudes must explain, in a unified theory of the Stranger, the “sciences of man.”
The vision-in-One is cause or real essence in-the-last-instance of the existing-subject-Stranger. Conversely, one can symbolize or name the One by man or at least by the real essence of man or Ego-real (Ego-in-Ego). It is not man in general who is submitted to the Real (philosophy, psychoanalysis), it is the subject which is appointed but in-the-last-instance to man-as-One. The secret of the non-philosophical, non-Platonic One is the same secret as man as Ego—this is the being-foreclosed to the World. Man is the non-sufficient radical, neither absolute nor a deficiency of the absolute. This is because man himself can determine, in a radical but not sufficient manner, a transcendental science for him but only as subject-Stranger, not as immanent Ego or given-without-givenness. The only real and rigorous science is not a theory of the Ego-One but justifiably a theory of the subject such as the Stranger. This thesis invalidates, if not philosophy and the human sciences, at least their pretentions over so-called “man,” their belief in “man,” their anthropo-logical faith. Since the subject-Stranger exists radically by right and is not numerically multiple, non-philosophy gives rise, in accordance with the material of the human sciences and anthropology, to a “science of men” rather than to the “sciences of man”: it exhibits the anthropo-logical identity (of) difference which sustains them and gives it as an “object” to the subject-Stranger.
Usage of mysticism in accordance with the instance of radical immanence, of the One-in-One, itself called “the” mystical. The mystical, although foreclosed to thought, is the negative universal condition of man as Stranger.
If all the philosophical concepts of mysticism or the mystical are polarized by transcendence supposedly the object of immanence experience, non-philosophy reduces the mystical to designate immanence alone, but having become to itself its own phenomenal given or even the Real. “Mysticism” is a possible nomination of the essence of the Real or the vision-in-One. The reduction of transcendence, of its ecstatic essence and its religious modalities, rightly understood only suspends the mystical or mysticism, excepting the phenomenon which is the mystical experience, its reality, and the act deploying its uni-versality into the heart of thought. Real or mystical identity thus “precedes” mystical identification, as it determines-in-the-last-instance the usage of discourse and language, without for all that giving place to the aporias of an undecidability or an ineffability of “negative theology.” On the contrary, because it is now radically immanent and without ex-stasis, but not without uni-versality, mystical experience is the content in the real of a new non-theological usage of language. In the latter, the logos ceases being itself denied in the name of the immanence of a transcendence, thus of an antinomic reciprocation which implies the autonomy of the logos with itself. It is suspended by a force (of) thought which no doubt possesses a grasp on language but which, on its side and through its real essence, is not grasped by the latter. Because the mystical thus understood is only an immanent cause through its essence, and consequently in radical heteronomy to the logos, the non-philosophical usage of language does not end in a negative henology, the negation or suspension of the logos no longer belonging to the essence of the real cause or the mystical since it still belongs to the religious relation to a superessential.
Whereas philosophy calls “mysticism” the real, which it touches upon or approaches in a transcendence, or even beyond, but without being able to penetrate it, being satisfied by an intuition or representation which it denies, non-philosophy takes its departure in the same Real as mystical given-without-givenness and endeavors, on this universal yet insufficient basis, to transform our relation to philosophy, to science, to art—to mysticism itself from which it liberates non-philosophical and non-religious a prioris. From this perspective, it is not a question of a secularization—still rational and transcendent—of an extraordinary experience, but of the possibility of rendering the usage of an exceptional or superhuman experience to every “ordinary man” which was supposed to be refused to him. Philosophy is this organon, this a priori form which, giving us the World, forecloses the mystical experience which intrinsically constitutes humans and which is a question of rediscovering, not in its reality which has never abandoned us, but on the mode of thought and by the non-philosophical force of the latter. The mystical is the real essence of the Stranger and that which turns it, that which uni-verts it towards the World.
Effectuation of non-philosophy in the ethical- or philosophical-world, this term does not designate the negation of ethics but its universalization according-to-the-One as well as its exclusive subordination to man; this is the theory and use of ethics adequate to the essence of man as radical immanence or radical evil.
Non-ethics recovers this last and double determination of ethics and transforms it. It is identically presented as a theory or a science and as a pragmatic bearing on philosophical and regional (sociological, biological, etc.) doctrines of morality or practice—on the ethical-world.
It demonstrates that the relations of philosophy and ethics are ethico-philosophical mixtures, i.e. aporetic. On the one hand, these mixtures subordinate ethics to philosophy as “superior ethics” which is partially excluded from communal moral legislation and implies an exception through hierarchy; or it is subordinated to a religious affect of radical transcendence which implies exception by election. The ethico-philosophical is equivocal, the ethico-religious anti-democratic. On the other hand, these mixtures prevent ethics from positing a truly unconditioned imperative since that of philosophy and that of the transcendent-religious are still more unconditioned than that of ethics. Finally, they partially subordinate man to ethics, philosophy and the Law. The implication of philosophical ethics in particular is that the Law is made circularly by and for man, thus reciprocally that man is made by and for the Law. This idealism and this voluntarism culminate in the “moral vision of the world” (Kant and Fichte) where the being of man is reabsorbed in the obedience to the commandment or better in the project of freedom.
On the contrary, non-philosophy posits that man is the immanent cause of ethics or that it determines it in-the-last-instance by excluding the relations of metaphysical causality between it and ethics. The essence of man as radical solitude—also called “radical evil” of the being-foreclosed—is not directly this cause. It acts as this cause when it takes not the form of the will, but of the existing-subject-Stranger, of the force (of) thought whose ethical modality is here not the Law but the force (of) law. The force (of) law does not derive the existing Law, but designates the element of height or alterity so that it is at least susceptible of being received in-One and brought to the subject-Stranger. In other words, this non-ethical subject—for the ethical-world—is deprived of auto-positionality which would make its essence, for example, into the Law as form of the ought (Kant) or into the Project (Fichte), and which still exists under a residual form only inhibited by the radical transcendence of the Face or the Other (Levinas). Radical evil, the subject-Stranger, and the force (of) law are the major concepts of non-ethics, for they determine the theoretical and practical usage of ethics. Non-ethics or ethics-according-to-the-Stranger does not claim to create new morals (cf. Kant) or to be satisfied with giving the rigorous formula of existing morals, but invents/discovers the formula of a new use of existing morals and ethics. This formula being determined by the real essence of man alone, non-ethics is the limitation of the inhuman Law and ethics on behalf of man, who is no longer defined as being reasonable, i.e. ultimately as philosopher, but as “ordinary man” or Stranger. More positively, it universalizes ethics from the point of view of experience precisely because it deprives them of their philosophical pretention to define the essence of man. By definition it refuses entering into the philosophical circularity of the ethical-world, it more reasonably refuses entering into the contemporary marketplace of ethics. One thing alone is good—i.e. human and only human, in the World or above all outside the World, i.e. for the World—which is the force (of) law exercised by the Stranger. But it is only good because one thing alone is determinant of the usage of the World, and that is radical evil, the solitude of being-foreclosed or separated.
Ensemble of the modes of approach and non-philosophical formulations of duality and which constitutes the subject-Stranger as a uni-sex subject.
Like Enjoying through and through, thus without the other-world of jouissance, the One is (non-)erotic, since it has nothing to do with contraries and never participates in any logico-real mixture. This Enjoying, without the subject-object of aesthetics or the desiring ethical subject, separates the One from every telos of given difference, in-One or outside it, a telos still called love, because in non-philosophy every difference is instead dualytic.
The vision-in-One certainly does not ignore the horizon of the Two and the Multiple. But far from being extracted from the Multiple in a subtractive way, in a manner in which it would fundamentally appear sexuated under the effect of this deduction and which, according to Badiou’s powerful proposition, love would always be heterosexual, non-produced from a rupture, non-femininity is to self only sex-without-sexuation, or sexual-without-sexuality. This is why it appears as Enjoying and determines-in-the-last-instance “sexual difference,” cloning from the latter a non-eroticism which is not the negation of Eros but the constitution of each human into a uni-sex subject. In this sense, every non-erotic subject is sex-Stranger or sexually-existing-Stranger. Uni-sex is not the marketable indifference of the sexes but sex insofar as it makes each subject a Stranger.
Said of the application, under several forms, of the non-philosophical process to aesthetic matter itself. Either—first distinction—from theoretical non-philosophy (first science) alone, or in the complete rigor of non-philosophy intrinsically modified, in an aesthetic sense, to “logico-aesthetic” material. Or—second distinction—from its application to aesthetic discourse or directly to the artistic matter itself, to “art” (under the condition of the addition of axioms relative to the autonomy of art and irreducible to those of the vision-in-One).
The usage of non-aesthetics instead should be found in the specificity of the activity of the “non,” indeed in a specifically artistic concept if not of the Real at least of the “force (of) creation.” The latter is radically distinguished from the Bachelardian type of generalization of a philosophy of the “non,” even understood in its domains other than the epistemological. It is universal according-to-the-One-in-the-last-instance. Nonetheless, the extension of the “philosophy of the non” to domains other than the epistemological on the grounds of a non-Bachelardian philosophy itself is already a sort of basic approximation of non-philosophy, in which it would nevertheless lack this primacy of identity inherent to non-philosophy. We will indicate three principle directions:
At the limit, any artistic act can be combined with any act of thought, without any limit, such is the first axiomatic constant. It is necessary, from this point of view, to rethink the concept presently used by the “avant-garde” in a non-historical context, since all linearity as well as circularity of history is excluded.
A second constant of axiomatic creativity rests on the fact that combinations can be made, combinations of particular non-aesthetics, according to a principle of generalized relativity, and which form together like fractal-islands of thought on art, which can touch upon the works themselves, at best by constituting an equivalent poetics. Different particular non-aesthetics can then spring up, stretched out and combined, so as to describe the most diverse works, ancient, traditional, recent or futuristic. This is an activity to which no limits can be fixed. The reorganization of fractal-islands of non-aesthetic making could then design continents under internal homothety with the constitutive unities. On this terrain, one could see increasingly dense non-aesthetics appear as continental regroupings of scattered islands.
But, third constant, everything must be able to be erased and return to the non-system of-the-last-instance. This constant protects non-aesthetics from congealing into a system of sufficiency, again returning to a philosophical illusion.
Non-philosophical pragmatics is at the base of this unlimited aesthetic production. Some of these theoretical non-aesthetic islands have appeared, like, for example, the non-philosophical a priori of “non-Euclidean perspectives.”