Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 19:06:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: "ROBERT C. THOMAS" <theory-AT-sfsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Non-Philosophy


Thanks a lot John. Your post, as well as private e-mails from others, have
clarified Laruelle's position for me in relation to Deleuze and
Foucault's. In fact, there is the following comment on Laruelle in _What
is Philosophy?_: English Trans. 220 N. 5.
	"Francois Laruelle is engaged in one of the most interesting
undertakings of contemporary philosophy. He invokes a One-All that he
qualifies as 'nonphilosophical' and, oddly, as 'scientific,' on which the
'philosophical decision' takes root. This One-All seems to be close to
Spinoza. Francois Laruelle, _Philosophie et non-philosophie_ (Liege:
Mardaga, 1989)"

	Finally, I'm not saying this to be rude or judgemental (and I
really appreciate your clear and articulate synopsis), but when people
describe others as "weird" and "most people in France think X is off his
head" it makes the person in question sound more interesting to me.
Afterall, there was a time in the U.S. (in the not too distant past) when
the exact same things were being said about Deleuze and Guattari. I think
UCLA is one of the few libraries in the U.S. that carries PLI. I will find
a way to acess the article and if this makes its way into a footnote in my
thesis (which I'm sure it will), I will definitely give you and everyone
else who responded a plug. Just goes to show how out of touch I am with
the French literature. BTW: does anyone happen to know when the English
translation of Jean-Clet Martin's _Variations_ is scheduled to actually
appear. Thanks again.

	Robert

> Inna Runova Semetsky <irs5-AT-columbia.edu> wrote:
> 
> >John, bruce mcclure mentioned to me that this guy francois is
> > pretty esoteric. It doesn't look so though from his views as you
> >described them. Perhaps trancsendence has been equated with esoterism,
> >what do you think? As you understand i haven't yet read him so cannot
> >judge.
> 
> Bruce is probably talking about the links to gnosticism. It is difficult to
> know what to make of this, particularly as apparently he cannot get his book
> on gnosticism published. My remarks on non-philosophy were only intended to
> outline where he is coming from. I am not competent to say where he's going
> or how he thinks he is going to get there. It is really only when you hear
> the mechanics of what he is doing that you realise how extreme this stuff
> really is. It should be noted that most people in France think Laruelle is
> off his head.
> 
> Regards
> 
> John
>