/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19789450]

Well, I've been reading this for the past few days and am mostly getting filtered. Some of the things he says are fairly straightforward and interesting, but his entire lexicon of non-philosophy is extremely difficult to understand.

[Anonymous No.19789834]

bump

[Anonymous No.19789854]

Start here. It will put the book into context

https://www.nature.com/articles/palcomms201527.pdf

[Anonymous No.19790012]

>>19789854
Thanks. So Laruelle's main point regarding "Man-in-Person" is the necessity of grounding mysticism into a project of pure immanence, eliminating all mediation and relationships between the Human and the One. I find the terminology confusing regarding Laruelle's use of the terms God, One and World though, since in a conventional ontological framework you'd equate God to the One, and have the World be an emanation of it, but Laruelle's use of the terms is much more murky since sometimes it seems he uses them in the conventional sense, and sometimes he ascribes his own meaning to them.
Laruelle's position seems essentially anti-annihilationist: he completely rejects transcendence aimed at dissolution, ascension that culminates in union. But what is the "vision-in-One"? It seems to be implying a One separate from the World, a One immanent to Man-in-Person, and therefore not sought after or attained. I'm having trouble conceptualizing Laruelle's radical immanence. What he calls "primacy to the Real as Man-in-Man" suggests a redefinition of the One no longer as the ontological basis to which man returns (in Neoplatonic frameworks) but as fundamentally identical to man himself. Am I right to understand the "laruellian One" as a synonym for the radical immanence of the human subject, and as completely distinct and fundamentally separate from God (Neoplatonic One) and the World (emanation of the latter, assuming Laruelle gives no other meaning to the term "World")?
To grossly summarize: Laruelle rejects transcendence because it is a process that subjects man to God, and prefers immanence that negates mysticism. But what, then, is future-mysticism, if it is not a process?
Tying this to his concept of poverty, the future-mystic lacks nothing, i.e. has nothing to "do" because there is nothing he "needs" (including God, which is obvious from the rejection of transcendence). So he is detached from God and the World by virtue of his immanence, and that makes him detached from the very concept of Man itself, as Laruelle says the future-mystic should be an "anonymous-One". Is this to be understood literally, is the logical conclusion of radical immanence that the subject loses all attributes (because attributes are externally derived from the World) and becomes "nothing" to the World and to God?
Is "cloning" meant in figurative terms, in that the subject/the One (I assume these are identical, that every Man is a One in itself), stripped of everything (poverty), becomes a "clone of Christ" i.e. an enemy of the World because his radical immanence pushes against all forms of determination and qualification that the World attempts to subject him to?
Is the One as a stranger to the World an extreme form of unilateralized anti-foundational subjectivism, since it posits an immanence that precedes the World itself?
Is the One said to be cloned and generic not because it lacks identity, but because cannot be determined by the World's standards of qualification?

[Anonymous No.19791063]

>>19790012
Did you leave, anon?

[Anonymous No.19791777]

>>19790012
nothing to "do" with mysticism in the conventional sense:
"World"? Laruelle's getting filtered.
meaning ascension:
separate from ontological framework
separate from annihilationist
separate from terminology
separate from anti-annihilationist

>The third form of poverty, “the most intimate poverty”, is the poverty of dispossession, of the one who “has” nothing.
gnostic formula "you will own nothing and you will be happy (identical to man himself.)": a vax against tax (lack).

Start here. bump. mostly getting straightforward filtered. but his entire future-mysticism is literally poverty. "clone of Christ" becomes a Neoplatonic emanation of emanation of emanation of grossly confusing One, Two, Three, etc. I'm having trouble, Man-in-Man.
>>19791063

[Anonymous No.19791920]

>>19791777
Checked, but I'm sorry anon, I'm even more confused now. I'll need to mull over your post.