François Laruelle delivered a workshop presentation followed by a public lecture last week in London. As some of you know I came to London to participate and to get some other Laruelle-related work done. Part of that, it turned out, was producing a translation of his public talk over the course of about five to six hours alongside of Marjorie Gracieuse and Nicola Rubczak. You can listen to a podcast of the lecture and download a pdf of the translation at Backdoor Broadcasting Company. If you haven’t come across this website before I would recommend bookmarking it, as Réne Wolf has created an amazing service there, recording and broadcasting pretty much every interesting talk and event in the London area.
As for the lecture itself, it bears the funny title “Why do philosophers need to use an ethics?” and develops some of what the ethical implications of his recent work in quantum theory. It’s actually rather polemical, though that polemic is mostly coded for those who have ears to hear it, and the upswing of the talk appears to be advocating something like an ethics that can produce ethics but can’t proscribe that ethics. It thinks from little events, rather than big objects.
I’ve crossposted this at An und für sich, but thought it would be of interest to readers of Speculative Heresy as well and a fitting first post here. Shamelessly I’d also like to direct your attention to some fundraising I am doing to help support my academic work. Please consider donating if you can.
François Laruelle has become an unstoppable writing force (or should that be force (of) writing?) in the past few years. After publishing his massive work Philosophie non-standard last year he went on to write three new works in the months that followed. All of which, I understand, are extensions of major themes found within Philosophie non-standard. These include a work with the title Théorie des victimes and another on messianicity with a working title of Une théologie gnostique. I think that Laruelle’s publisher wants to space out the release of these books so that they don’t flood the market and thereby lower demand for them, and I think this with some good information on this but without wanting to commit myself to the ultimate veracity of the claim. So of those three manuscripts the only work we have is his polemical work Anti-Badiou. Sur l’introduction du maoïsme dans la philosophie (which the very talented Robin Mackay of Urbanomic fame is translating into English for Continuum). This is a polemical book. One that Laruelle has himself described to me as often being “very violent”. While I’m looking forward to reading this book, for who deserves a good polemical attack more so than the little prince of contemporary polemical works, I am also a bit worried as polemics produce a lot of attention and often times distract from the more interesting aspects of a philosopher’s (or non-standard philosopher’s) work.