New Translation: Laruelle’s “My Parmenides”

Laruelle, Francois. “Mon Parmenide.” La Decision philosophique 7 (1989): 105-114.

On the argument: The One is One because it is One rather than because it is or is Other.

Non-Parmenidian Axioms

1. If the One (etc.), the One is the real identity that founds a transcendental rather than logical axiomatic.

2. If the One (…), and if Parmenides says the One that is, the transcendental axiomatic is non-Parmenidean.

3. If the One (…), and if man is the One itself, the Soul is the only non-Parmenidian identity.

4. If the One (…), axioms are specific effects that form the content of the Soul.

5. If the One (…), the Soul loves axioms.

6. If the One (…), the axiom is made for man, not man for the axioms.

7. If the One (…), Being, the Existent, the Other, Unity, and all the words of language form the alphabet of the transcendental axiomatic.

8. If the One (…), and if man is the only non-Parmenidian identity, the systems that axiomatize the Existent, Being, the Other, Unity, and all the words of language are the content of the Soul.

9. If the One (…), contraries can been rendered identical in the last instance of the One or are consistent.

10. If the One (…), axioms are consistent as affects in-One.

11. If the One (…), the transcendental consistency of axioms is neither their logical consistency nor their philosophical consistency of contraries under the rule of their identity.

12. If the One (…), then the statements: “The One is/and Being,” “the One is/and the Existent,” “the One is/and Unity” are philosophical axioms: transcendent, non-consistent, and illusory.

13. If the One (…), then the statements: “the One is” and “the One is not” are philosophical axioms: transcendent, non-consistent, and illusory.

14. If the One (…), then the statement: “man is an axiom for man” is a philosophical statement: transcendent, non-consistent, illusory.

15. If the One (…), non-Parmenidianism is identically non-Heracliteanism to the close difference of Parmenides and Heraclitus which is contingent.

16. If the One (…), the consistency of axioms is identically their solitude.

17. If the One (…), and if the real axiomatic bears upon every language, axiom is oracle.

A – If the One that is One because it is One rather than because it is or is Other is nevertheless understood as One that is Being or determined by being or even by the Other, what is more reasonably the One that is One because it is One rather than because it is Being or Other?

Abbreviations of writing: we shall write if the One is Being, then what is the One that is One? More simply: If Being (meaning: if the One understood as Being) is X, Y, Z, etc., then what is the One (meaning: what is nothing but One)?

If Being is an ongoing fulguration, the One is the eye of the storm.

If Being is the poem spoken by man, the One is man consecrated for the poem.

If Being is the torsion that elongates time, the One is the untwisted where time is changed forevermore.

If Being is the reason of the strongest [la raison du plus fort], the One is all the more reason [à plus forte raison].

If Being is the folding of the flesh, the One is simplicity made-flesh.

If Being is a rainfall, the One is the silence after the rain.

If Being is the domination over the existent, the One is the Dominated freer than any existent.

If Being is the passing [la traversée] of things, the One is the Traversed on this side of things.

If Being is affected as it affects itself, the One is the Affected that has never been touched by itself or another thing.

If Being is that upon which we touch, the One is the untouchable Touched by us.

If Being is attribute for a subject, the One is the Attributed itself as subject.

If Being is the cutting of the image, the One is the Cut that has never been an image.

If Being is the repression of the One, the One is the Repressed that precedes the repression.

If Being is the affect of death, the One is the emotion that renders us immortal.

If Being is the Thing, the One is the Soul that precedes the Thing.

If Being is the difference between Being and things, the One is the indifference of the One to Being.

If Being is the eye that is and is not the flesh, the One is the vision that precedes the eye.

If Being sees all things as though in a mirror, the One sees the One and Being without mirrors.

If Being is convertible with the One, the One is only with inconvertibility itself.

If Being is overman, the One is man condemned to the human.

If Being is cinema, the One is a snapshot [arrêt-sur-image].

If Being is logos, the One is logos-in-stasis [arrêt-sur-logos].

If Being is neighborhood, the One is solitude before the neighborhood.

B – I

If the One that is One because it is One rather than because it is or is Other determines the existent in the last instance, what happens to the existent?

We shall summarize: if the One…

We shall sometimes specify the reserve or cause of the “last instance” by summarizing for the economy of writing.

If the One (…), the existent is identical (to) the existent in the identity of the last instance (of) the One.

If the One (…), the existent says itself (of) the existent, of Being or (of) the Other, not of the One.

If the One (…), the existent, and not simply man, is ontological or says Being in the non-ontology of the last instance (of) the One.

If the One (…), the existent is the existent without being the existent-of-Being.

If the One (…), the existent is indifferently Being to the indifference (of) the One.

If the One (…), Being is given as an existent and the existent given as Being.

If the One (…), matter is ideal to the non-eidetic transparency (of) the One.

If the One (…), the existent is phenomenal to the phenomenon (of) the One.

If the One (…), the divers is through and through unity to the non-unity (of) the One.

If the One (…), the singular is identically universal singularity to the individu-a-lity (of) the One.

If the One (…), the object is affect (of) transcendence to the affect (of) the One.

If the One (…), the earth is flat like a superstructure to the simplicity (of) the One.

If the One (…), the star is theorem of the night to the night (of) the One.

If the One (…), the sensible is intelligible to the non-intelligible immanence (of) the One.

If the One (…), man is humanity to the human non-humanity (of) the One.

If the One (…), the given is givenness or given (of) the One.

If the One (…), the real is reality to the real (of) the One.

If the One (…), the local is identically universal to the non-place (of) the One.

If the One (…), retreat is offered to the non-disposition (of) the One.

If the One (…), reserve is given to the manifestation (of) the One.

If the One (…), the terrestrial is celestial to the non-rationality (of) the One.

If the One (…), the trace is figure to the non-figurality (of) the One.

If the One (…), intuition is intellectual to the non-intuitivity (of) the One.

If the One (…), metaphysics is a shoreless sea and the shoreless sea a metaphysics to the non-orientation (of) the One.

If the One (…), chaos is immediately signifiance to the non-signifiance (of) the One.

If the One (…), the received is receptacle to the non-receptive passivity (of) the One.

II – If the One that is One because it is One rather than because it is or is Other determines Being in the last instance, what happens to Being? (If the One that is One, etc.; or if the One is One, etc.).

If the One (…) is One rather than One-Two, Being is Two rather than Two-One.

If the One (…), Being is Being (of) the existent or dissolution of ontological Difference.

If the One (…), is the multiple, Being is the multiplicity identical to the multiple.

If the One (…),Being says itself after the One.

If the One (…) is nothing but One, the Two is nothing but Two.

If the One (…) is non-Parmenidean, Being is also non-Parmenidean.

If the One (…), Parmenides is nothing but Parmenides or is non-Parmenidean.

If the One (…),Being is representation as presentation.

If the One (…) is the One without being the One of Being, Being is nothing but Being without being the Being-of-the-existent or Being-of-Being.

If the One (…) Being is the unreflected reflection (of) the One.

If the One (…) Being is identical (to) itself or non-positional (of) itself, the Two is non-decisional (of) itself.

If the One (…),Being says itself in a non-thetic way (of) Being, not of the One or (of) the One.

If the One (…) is vision-in-One, Being is seen-in-One rather than in it.

If the One (…) is phenomenon, Being is the phenomenality identical to the phenomenon.

If the One (…) is ordinary, Being is the state-of-affairs.

If the One (…) is infrastructure, Being is superstructure.

If the One (…) is the Restrained of every restraint, Being is the restraint of the restrained and the dispersed.

If the One (…) is invisible in the flesh, Being is the visible that is invisible through and through.

If the One (…), Being is identically last instance (of) the One to the latter.

If the One (…), Being is identically the Other without being the Being of the Other.

If the One (…), Being and the Other say themselves (of) one another without contradiction.

If the One (…), it does not necessarily correspond to any Being or corresponds to an infinity of Beings in a contingent way.

If the One (…) is the Affected, Being is the affection identical (to) the affected.

If the One (…) does not anticipate Being, Being does not look back upon the One.

If the One (…) precedes Being without anticipating it, Being follows the One without following from it.

If the One (…) is the Said, Being is the Saying that has ceased re-saying the One and is identical (to the) Said.

If the One (…) is contained in itself, it exposes transcendence in-Universe or outside itself.

If the One (…) is the pure Suspended of any Suspense, Being is the suspended Suspense.

III – If the One that is One because it is One rather than because it is or is Other determines the Other in the last instance, what happens to the Other?

If the One (…), the Other says itself after the One.

If the One (…), the Other says itself (of) the Other or (of) Being and not of the One.

If the One (…), the Other is the Other man, flesh and blood of the Stranger.

If the One (…), the Other says itself (of) the Other without being Other-of-the-Other; the Stranger says itself (of) the Stranger without being Stranger-of-the-Stranger.

If the One (…), the Other is identical (to) the existent and (to) Being which follow the One.

If the One (…) is nothing but One, the Other is nothing but Other.

If the One (…), the Other is non-Judaic or more universal than the Judaic Other.

If the One (…), the Other is God without being divinity or height of God.

If the One (…), the Other is the Other man or the Stranger without being less man or overman.

If the One (…), the Other is the unconscious that is no longer a fold of consciousness.

If the One (…), the Other is transcendent-without-transcendence or transcendence-without-transcending.

If the One (…), the Other is the non-decisional decision (of) itself [non-self-decisional decision].

If the One (…), the Other is the face that stops being in-face [opposing].

If the One (…), the Other is vision-in-face or “in” the face and stops being in-face of [opposed to] the One.

If the One (…), the Other is beyond in that man has already seen the Other without taking a view upon the Other.

If the One (…), the Other is the Beyond given in flesh and blood.

If the One (…), the Other is the Beyond that is no longer Beyond-of-the-Beyond.

If the One (…), the Other is emptied of the form of the World and filled with the chaos that is the World “in-One.”

If the One (…) is night, the Other is the impossibility of the day identical (to the) day.

If the One (…), the Other is the order identical (to) chaos.

If the One (…), the Other is seen-in-One and the World seen-in-Other or in-Beyond.

If the One (…), the Other is identically every real alterity.

If the One (…), the Other is the infinite, finite like the One, and stops denying the finitude of the One.

If the One (…), the Other is the in-finite [en-fini] in which man sees the infinite of God.

If the One (…), the Other is in-One (of) the Other.

If the One (…), the Other is identically the fracture of the island and the simplicity of the continent.

If the One (…), the Other is the straightness of the spiral.

If the One (…), the Other is intimate certitude where catastrophe resides.

IV – If the One that is One because it is One rather than because it is or is Other determines Unity in the last instance, what happens to Unity?

If the One (…), Unity follows the One without following from it.

If the One (…), Unity is Unity for transcendence and not for immanence.

If the One (…), Unity is the subjectivity (-of-) transcendence.

If the One (…), Unity is non-synthetic and non-analytic (of) itself [non-self-synthetic/analytic].

If the One (…), Unity is nothing but Unity, or is Unity in flesh and blood.

If the One (…), the Unity that is nothing but Unity is identical (to the) Two that is nothing but Two.

If the One (…), Unity is also identical (to) the Existent, (to) Being, and (to) the Other which say themselves in an unreflected way (of) themselves.

If the One (…), the Unity (of) the existent, (of) Being, and (of) the Other is not their difference, but their non-reversible identity.

If the One (…), Unity stops giving rise to the Same.

If the One (…), the Unity (of the) ground and (of) form is neither equivalent as ground for form nor as form for ground; the same goes for other contraries.

If the One (…), the Unity (of) the lightning and (of) the cosmos is chaos and chora, but renders the lightning, the cosmos, and their broken unity contingent.

If the One (…), the Unity (of) Parmenides and (of) Heraclitus is non-Parmenidian and non-Heraclitean.

If the One (…), the undividable Unity of the temple ceases dividing itself between the Earth and the Heavens and renders them in-excess or absurd.

If the One (…), the Unity of the temple is non-positional (of) itself and knows neither the gravity of stones nor the lightness of the sky.

If the One (…), the Unity of the temple is manifested through and through more as the temple itself.

If the One (…), “there is Unity,” rather than “the One is.”

If the One (…), “Unity is not” rather than “the One is not” in the sense that, as non-thetic, it is not, and yet it is identically Being-in-One.

One thought on “New Translation: Laruelle’s “My Parmenides”

  1. Pingback: Laruelle Bibliography (English & French) | Linguistic Capital

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s