laruelle- the generic as predicate

7/25/2019 Laruelle- the Generic as Predicate

1/34

16

The Generic as Predicate and Constant: Non-Philosophy and andConstant: Non-Philosophy and Materialism

Franois Laruelle translated by Taylor d!ins

"#$N %& "$ 'P$( &F T#$ )G$N$*+C,

"hat sort o. .ate is reser/ed .or the monta0es hich e recei/e .romthe tradition hich distribute !noled0e &ne o. these classicalmonta0es is called )0eneric, but 0ains importance2 i. not in a con.useday2 in relation to the traditional epistemolo0i- cal distributions o.!noled0e2 althou0h it remains 3uite indeterminate despite its con-

tinuous ascent4 The 0eneric has to or three sources that e proposeto uni.y .rom the inside in a science-thou0ht4 The 5rst is philosophicaland ell !non but orn out or dried up the second is epistemolo0icaland sociolo0ical2 .ull o. promises but still not elucidated the third that0i/es rise to a philosophy o. the 5rst order 78adiou9 is math- ematicalbut too narro and technical to be usable .or our proect here4

The philosophical source is Feuerbach,s )0eneric man, hich brea!sith the )philosophy, hose proper name is #e0el2 symbol o. theidealist absolute system4 8ut Feuerbach more idely situates himsel. ina tradition hich is not simply #e0elian or pre-Mar;ist4 +t be0ins at

least 7ith and a.ter Luther9 ith #amann 7a0ainst (ant92 aced in the continuum o. the )history o.philosophy,2 ere ac- companied by a tradition o. re/olt crushin0 thetradition o. the philosophers o. sys- tematic *eason4 s minoritarian orminor thin!ers2 they ha/e opened a ound in the

14 &ri0inally published in French in: Laruelle2 Franois2 Introduction auxsciences generiques2 $ditions Petra2 Paris2 ?@@A2 ch4 ? and B4


2/34

?D

?A The Generic as Predicate and Constant: Non-Philosophy andaterialism

Ean! o. )0rand rationalism, that re.uses to close up 7Michel #enry2 c.4his arx94 "hen it is a 3uestion o. brea!in0 ith philosophicalsuciency2 o. elaboratin0 a ne and more concrete uni/ersalism2 the0eneric is the .ront upon hich a certain e;perience o. )man, leads thestru00le a0ainst philosophical capture4 lthou0h this stru00le is still/ery )hu- manist, and coordinated by Feuerbach ith reli0ion ratherthan science=as e shall do by borroin0 .rom a part o. this tradition=2 it is ine/itable that e shall at least adopt it as symptom2 ust asnon-philosophy2 as e concei/e it2 alays does so as to bettertrans.orm the sense o. the latter and displace its re/olutionary bearin0.rom the )essence o. Christianity, to the essence o. science4 "e intend

to stitch up this ound opened by )man, in the Ean! o. philosophy butin such a ay that the 0eneric suture does not lea/e an indelible scarhich ould testi.y to a poorly practiced operation ith crude2 me-chanical instruments2 and hich is no nothin0 more than the a!e o.the identity that man2 at least hat e baptie as )Man-in-person, or)ordinary Man,2 lea/es behind in the "orld that the she tra/erses or thetremblin0 that she introduces ith her arri/al4 &b/iously it remains tobe shon that the 0eneric o. the sciences o. the .uture has somerelation ith their human destination 7ithout conse3uently bein0 the)human sciences, hich only ha/e man .or their destination due tocon.usion and appearances94

The second source o. the 0eneric is societal and epistemolo0ical it is aumble o. .ormulas and /arious lan0ua0e 0ames hich are said o. acertain usa0e o. the sciences on the one hand and manu.acturedproducts on the other4 s a stran0er to the primary approach to the5rst source2 it apparently has nothin0 philosophical about it andinstead bears itness to the most unbridled capitalistic economism4 +tis as con3uer- in02 turbulent2 and con.used as the philosophical seemsorn out and )tuc!ed aay, in its post-#e0elian museum4 +t is adecepti/e appearance4 +ts usa0e corresponds ith certain in/arianttraits and can 0i/e rise to a description4 These traits indicate that a so-

called )0eneric, science 719 has no callin0 to posit itsel. as 0lobal or.undamental2 as .oundational .or the other sciences as mathematicscan claim to2 or e/en as reducti/e o. other sciences li!e physics in thecase o. )physicalism, 7?9 that it is /alid .or the domain o. sin0ular orspeci5c obects .or hich it has been elaborated2 hile bein0 able tosupport !noled0es that remain local in another 79 and that it nolon0er .orms a ne synthesis or )hybrid, ith another science2 acombination to a superior de0ree4 The 0eneric sciences2 the 0eneric


3/34

usa0e o. the sciences and in.ormatic pro0rammin02 si0ni5es that theyneither .ound nor e/en en/elop or deri/e .rom the others2 but that theycan inter/ene in other already constituted sciences ithout .ormin0 ane continuum to0ether as epistemolo0y en/isions4 Neither.oundation nor auto-.oundation2 these sciences ne/ertheless ha/e a

)suitability,2 one could almost say ith Plato an )a0- athon,2 ith and.or the others2 yet a non-reciprocal suitability hich must be in/esti0at-ed4


4/34

is ob/iously a problem o. commodity circulation o. and in philosophy48ut .or the moment and as a symptom2 the capitalist 0eneric2 i. youill2 is modest ithout bein0 banal or e/eryday it disposes o. a simpleand local .orce and 0i/es rise2 no doubt spea!in0 broadly2 to anincomplete or )ea! philosophy, it is a!in to the ordinary ithout

.allin02 .or e;ample2 into the con/ersational and demonetied lin0uistice;chan0e4 +t could be=this is a hypothesis=that the 0eneric is theordinary in a German mode4 Measured a0ainst philosophy2 it !eeps alo pro5le4 +t is a position o. !noled0e or the commodity in terms o.its usa0e2 but it does not re-posit itsel. a second time it has ceased tore-arm itsel. and )praise, itsel.4 +. it has its ay o. )circu- latin0, underthis .orm2 then is it still a commodity nd .urthermore2 isn,tphilosophy an or0anier o. circulation and the primary medium .or thecirculation o. !noled0es

"e could distin0uish one 0eneric by its ape; and another by its nadir4

+n the al0e- braic model o. !noled0e2 the 0eneric is the ac3uisition o.a supplement o. uni/ersal properties 7those o. demonstration andmani.estation9 throu0h a subtraction and an indetermination2 a.ormaliation o. 0i/ens4 +n the commercial model o. prescriptionmedicine or clothes2 0eneric uni/ersality is obtained throu0h a mar!don or don- 0rade and the loss o. the proper or ori0inal name underhich the product has been commercialied .or the 5rst time2 a losshich is e3ui/alent to an in.erior .orm o. .ormaliation that plun0esthese products into the common circuit4 There is2 hoe/er2 a di>erencebeteen these to re0imes o. the 0eneric4 That hich is scienti5c isalready beyond-ll or beyond-philosophy and only attains its 0eneric

re0ime throu0h a subtraction that is a supplement o. paradi0matic7e;tatico-/ertical9 properties2 hereas the commercial or commoditysphere is philosophical .rom the start and only attains its 0eneric /aluethrou0h the abasement o. its philosophical and 0lobal 3uality4

Thus2 in the philosophical conte;t such as e are outlinin0 in relationto super-.e- tishism and hat e call the hallucination to hich it 0i/esrise2 the 0eneric is dicult to situate beteen banality2 the median2and simply the milieu4 For us2 it ill be a 3ues- tion o. redisco/erin0 theidentity o% the generic in a new combination o% its two symptoms-sources2 man coming %rom philosophy and the sub$ect or ob$ect

coming %rom science& both trans%ormed& something like the identity o%the human middle& o% )ordinary man, and2 in particular2 the labours o%the latter4

?I@ The Generic as Predicate and Constant: Non-Philosophy andaterialism F*&M T#$ C&NC$PT &F T#$ G$N$*+C T& G$N$*+C'C+$NC$


5/34

To tas!s must be carried out4+t is there.ore 5rst a 3uestion o. 0i/in0 to the notion o. )0enericscience, its concept2

hich only appears in a .uy set2 indeterminate and at the mercy o.

/arious discours- es2 obects2 and disciplines4 These include multiplediscourses o. e;tremely di>erent ori0ins 7technical2 scienti5c2 medical2commercial2 administrati/e92 li!e an ambi0uity or situation to beclari5ed2 a set o. )phrases, that encroach upon one another and .or amoment constitute a tan0led eb2 but still not a .ormation o.!noled0e and state- ments4 No doubt increasin0ly )re0ular,2 thesestatements2 allusions2 re.erences2 or interdisciplinary in/ocations2 .ore;ample relatin0 to administration and the politics o. research andhich cross all the disciplines and old domains o. research2 still ha/enot reached their epistemolo0ical threshold2 neither as philosophicalnor as obects o. a sci- ence4 +n order to remo/e this indetermination as

much as possible and elaborate a concept most aptly tailored to0enericity2 e shall reser/e se/eral surprises4 +t could be that thegeneric power o. the so-called )0eneric, sciences can .orm the obect o.an epistemol- o0y neither in a classical sense2 nor in the sense o. aphilosophy in 0ood and due .orm in terms hich ould still be those o.Feuerbach4 $/en the trans/ersality or dia0onal- ity o. 0enericstatements in relation to the classical di/isions o. the 5elds anddomains o. obects does not necessarily 0i/e rise to an )archaeolo0y, Jla Foucault2 nor does the )epistemolo0ical plinth, rise to the 0enericityto hich it ne/ertheless is so close4

The .orce o. the 0eneric seems to be the .orce o. inter/ention o. one!noled0e in the other sciences to hich it is .orei0n 7interdisciplinary%orce o% inter'ention92 or e/en a medicine2 a .orce o. mar!in0 don or)don0radin0,2 in 0eneral o. subtraction throu0h hich any producthatsoe/er is .orced to enter into a circuit to hich it is .orei0n4 8utstill2 and this is more than another e;ample .or the 0eneric because itis uni/ocal .or all phenomena2 ho can 'tran0ers insert themsel/es )by.orce, into a community 8y .orce2 yet2 let us say2 suddenly2 ithoutthis .orcin0 escalatin0 to a reciprocal procedure o. capture or ar4 Themaority o. the problems that set the 'tran0er2 !noled0- es Ksa'iorsor indi/iduals2 co0nitions Kconnaissances or subects in play and hich

touch upon the problem o. their entrance into an already determinedcommunity2 are )0e- neric, problemspar excellence and must2 i.possible2 no lon0er be treated in this horrible style o. )omni-hybridiation,4 The 0eneric is the real nucleus hich is at the centre o.the se;ual2 economic2 and lin0uistic /iolence o. the hybridiation andorldly circulation o. !noled0es and indi/iduals2 thus trans.ormin0 itthrou0h its e;traction4 Not that these phenomena do not e;ist they.orm the transcendental yet obecti/e appearance o. the circulation o.


6/34

sciences and indi/iduals2 in.ormation and li/es4 8ut e only ha/e somechance o. trans.ormin0 these consistent appearances in theirmateriality by 0raspin0 the problem by its root hich is2 as the 0enericills2 man4 8ut hich man ll that can be said at the moment is thatthe .orce o. the 0eneric is that o. the 'tran0- er ho comes as a ne

type o. uni/ersal4

No2 i.=this is the second tas!=there is2 upon the basis o. thesesymptoms2 a 0e- neric science-thou0ht2 a uni'ersal genericity to beilluminated as distinct .rom philosophical uni/ersality2 somethin0hich resembles an epistemolo0y ithout bein0 one2 it ill probably inturn be called li!e all the other 0eneric disciplines simpler or more posi-ti/e .or carryin0 out /ery precise .unctions no ith disciplines morecomple; than the sciences .rom hich e set o>2 ith !noled0es onthe second le/el2 those here philosophy is already e;plicitly ud0eand ury and no lon0er implicitly2 namely the epis-

!ran"ois #aruelle ?I1

temolo0ies and all the disciplines here philosophy ma!es its presenceand e/en con- stitution !non2 as in aesthetics2 ethics2 technolo0y2 andtheolo0y4

This in/estment o. the elaborated concept o. 0enericity in the mostcomple; disciplines is not to be understood in a /iolent or unitaryay2 throu0h application or epis- temolo0ical superposition stemmin0.rom a bad .orcin02 but as a double causality2 )occasional, on the one

hand 7the precedin0 symptoms o. 0enericity9 and on the other hand asdetermination by Man2 hich only results in the last instance2 o. thesedisci- plines4 $/en i. the 0eneric is actually torn apart sa/a0ely byorldly economic .orces2 our endea/our in epistemolo0y 7e do notsay )in science,9 remains non-con3uerin0 and )non-capitalist,4 +ts 0oal isto e3uip the e;istin0 disciplines ith a ne .unction o. inter/ention or.ecundity and ith an unprecedented type o. communication2 some-thin0 e call a )circulation-sans-circle,2 neutral or sans-surplus-/alue2hich is the /er- itable support o. the 0eneric in the sciences andelsehere2 i4e4 0enerally2 as e shall ma!e clear2 on behal. o. anecolo0ical thou0ht4 The 0eneric no lon0er .unctions under the principle

o. the ll Kle Tout2 redoublin0 itsel.2 hich still rules o/er the Foucaul-dian epistemolo0ical plinths2 the %eleuian machinic dispersions2 andthe %erridean te;tual disseminations one last time2 hich all .ail tomention 0enericity hile rushin0 to de/ote themsel/es to the ll2 e/enhen this ould only be to dismember it2 abo/e all to criti3ue2deconstruct2 and di>erentiate it4


7/34

Philosophers ha/e not alays noticed that the apparently middle le/elo. the 0ener- ic2 hich they ta!e .or mediocrity or sometimes .or asimple materialist re/ersal li!e Feuerbach in relation to #e0el2 has the0reatest anities in the heart o. philosophy itsel. ith science andallos2 i. it is mani.ested and radicalied2 a delimitation o. the

epistemolo0ical 0rip upon the sciences4 This 0rip testi5es to aprecipitation and )spon- taneism,2 or hat could be called a certainsa/a0ery that thros e/erythin02 the ll2 into ar4 &n the contrary2 the0eneric )democratically, e3ualies the disciplines that it in/ests ithoutcompletely destroyin0 their speci5city or their relati/e autonomy2 bute3ualies them only in-the-last-instance4 +t is uni/ocally e3ual .or themall this is its uni'ersality o% ser'ice& its absence o% %oundational will( +tdoes not suce to criti3ue the .oundational ill o. philosophy a0ainstthe sciences2 as is sometimes done2 i. this ould not be to replace itith another .unction hich ould be that o. .ecundation2 i4e4 o. theproduction and 0i/enness o. peace4

Moreo/er2 since philosophy is hyper0eneric and 0lobaliin02 an illusionor transcendental appearance2 only the 0eneric can mani.est it to thise;tent that reaches or a>ects all epistemolo0ies4 'uch a discipline has/irtues and limits that can be called )non-philosophical,2 no doubt inthe sense o. )the, non-philosophy o. hich it is a by- product4 +t ispertinent .or each o. the mi;tures or combinations o. philosophy andsci- ence2 and should at least allo us to /an3uish thesetranscendental appearances that belon0 to any philosophy hatsoe/er48y all means it ill not be2 i. e mana0e to set it on its .eet2 0eneric-contemplati/e or theoreticist2 but ill trans.orm the disciplines as ell

as itsel.2 hich has been ac3uired ith their aid4

Thus2 the 0eneric desi0nates a uni'ersality o% unilateral inter'ention2more e;actly o. in- teraction2 but a ea! interaction ithoutre/ersibility this is hy the terms inter/ention and e/en interactionare imper.ect and should be nuanced4 This uni/ersality is distinct.rom other types2 .or e;ample the uni/ersality o. le0ality 7by la92 o.domain 7by 5eld o. obects92 or o. structure ith models 7bymodeliation94 $>ectuated as a speci.- ic discipline2 this uni/ersal alsore3uires its obects2 procedures o. deduction and induc-

?I? The Generic as Predicate and Constant: Non-Philosophy andaterialism

tion2 and a;iomatic and e;perimental material2 but each time under anori0inal .orm4 +t does not constitute the epistemolo0ical trans/ersal orthe archaeolo0ical dia0onal o. the e;istin0 disciplines2 but rather theirunilateral edge2 an ed0e o. hich it is impossible to say hether it ise;ternal or internal to the 0i/en .ormations o. !noled0e because it is


8/34

hat comes to the disciplines and attaches them throu0h this arri/al attheir 0round o. positi/ity hich 0a/e rise to epistemolo0y4 "e shallsu00est that 0enerici- ty2 ithout destroyin0 the mar!et and capitaliststructure o. e;chan0e and e3ui/alence hich is necessary to it as theelement in hich it inter/enes and hich is o. another order2 no lon0er

simply reproduces it e/en ith di>ere7a9nce2 but contributes to trans-.ormin0 it throu0h its operation hich is o. the order o. idempotence2as e shall ma!e clear later on4 This is a trans.ormation that ta!esplace according to a subect o.-the-last- instance and as its de.ence as'tran0er a0ainst capitalist-and-epistemolo0ical sucien- cy4 +t bearsitness to a completely di>erent )pro0ram, o. thou0ht than thephilosophies and thus the epistemolo0ies4 +t no doubt stems .rom hate call a )human messianism,4 'ince it is ob/iously an atheisticmessianism2 the 0eneric science-thou0ht is not the by- product o. a)shame.ul, creationism but rather alays see!s to eradicate theconstantly re/i/ed reli0ious and metaphysical nostal0ias concernin0

the scienti5c4 "e certainly do not ima0ine .or an instant that euphold the thesis that the inter/ention2 .or e;ample2 o. tribolo0y intoophthalmolo0y ould be a or! o. the Messiah ni/ersally e3ual or)ad/enin0, independently o% their speci)city o% origin %or all sciencesand all acti/ities2 the 0e- neric subect is a ne theoretical subect4Generic poer is not measured 3uantitati/e- ly in e;tension23ualitati/ely by .rontiers and demarcation2 or intensi/ely throu0h depthbecause it is operatory upon the ll and upon the type o. distinctionthat belon0s to it4 +. the radicalied 0eneric possesses a type o.uni/ersal 7non-9relation2 it is unilaterality or2 to spea! more clearly2 itis being-*tranger rather than marginality 7hich has produced the

0ood days o. philosophy94 t this le/el2 it is a 3uestion o. elaboratin0 aparadi0m2 both .orei0n and 0eneric throu0h its ori0in rather than bein0o. a Platoniin0 nature2 not necessarily a 3uestion o. describin0 aphenomenon o. the mar!et2 o. supply and de- mand beteen positi/esciences=this or! has already been carried out ad nauseam4 +n theelaboration o. our concept o. human 0enericity2 the sciences thatpractice 0eneric inter/entions are simple models .or us they interpretthe 0eneric +dea and its non-philosophical employment4 +ts sphere o.pertinence is tan0entially e3ual .or all totaliin0-indi/idualphilosophies2 ust li!e epistemolo0ies are in-the-last-instance4

+%$MP&T$NT %%+T+&N4 'T$*+L$ L+O$% $P$*+$NC$ K+,C4N+LT$*L+TQ

lon0side the anti-#e0elian and naturalist path 7Feuerbach9 and thescienti5c path 7ith its to scienti5c models2 ristotle,s anti-lo0icalbiolo0ical path and 8adiou,s set- theorism established on the basis o.contemporary lo0ical and mathematical or!s92 there is a path in thephenomenolo0ical and symptomatolo0ical style2 as e ha/e su0-


9/34

0ested2 .or enterin0 the 0eneric4 They are all ultimately philosophical7idealist or mate- rialist92 but e shall 5nd use in the phenomenolo0icalpath by collectin0 symptoms as material on behal. o. establishin0 theconcept o. a 0eneric science4 t this le/el2 the 0e- neric is still o. theorder o. a predicate dispersed to the ed0e o. the acts and obects o.

hich it is said4 &ur problem is to pro0ressi/ely brin0 the predicate tothe .unction o. a scienti5co-philosophical constant4 Thus2 there ill bea problem related to the le0i- bility o. these symptoms4

!ran"ois #aruelle ?I

Toards this 0oal2 e shall assemble to or three 0uidin0 a;ioms4 The5rst posits a ne concept o. the ultimate *eal as a constant uponhich these sciences can be edi5ed2 and this is necessarily Man4 'o asto distin0uish Man .rom that o. humanism and the problematic o. thehuman 'ciences2 e shall not call Man )0eneric, 7this ould be

Feuerbachian man9 but )in-person, 7or in a substituti/e and moreclassically metaphysical ay2 lest e undo this initial sense2 &ne-in-person94 Man-in-person is de5ned by immanence as a logical propertyo% idempotent and thus sterile addition& not at all by a philosoph- icalde)nition o% the )rational animal, type4 Ne/ertheless2 e/en i. this notionis important in the de5nition o. the phenomenon o. a/es2 e do notat all intend to a0ain 0rasp it as a property o. a physical phenomenonas such2 still less to 0i/e the latter a philosophical interpretation70enerally the )transcendental, interpretation o. 3uantum physics92 butto isolate this property and ma!e it account .or the phenomenon o.Li/ed $;perience4

The second a;iom simply posits this operation ithout substanceunder the .orm o. a li'ed operator o% immanence2 sterile or neutraliedli/ed e;perience in /irtue o. idempotence 7.rlebnis in #usserl92 non-e0olo0ical or subectless immanence4

The third a;iom posits idempotent immanence as articulated in asimply immanent way& without distance or mediation& o/er thephilosophical transcendence 7symbol2 term2 position2 concept9 that itprimarily transmits and trans.orms .rom the bi.acial or transcendentob- ect into a uni.acial )obect, or a uni-et this is the uni/ersaliin0

action o. li/ed idempo- tence4 +n other ords2 e ha/e ac3uired the0eneric sou0ht under the .orm o. a duality2 but as stran0er2 a dualityith one term called )unilateral,2 and hose other term2 idempo- tence2is not a term or does not pass into the sphere o. e;istence orrepresentation4 +dempo- tent li/ed e;perience does not e;ist or e;istsonly on this side o. bein0 and mani.estation4 s .or unilateral duality2 itre.uses to .all under the ll hich it trans.orms as a unilateral oruni.acial term and attaches to itsel.4 +n sum2 the 0eneric is a constant


10/34

o. all !noled0- es hich are determined in-the-last-instance by Manand not by philosophical authority4

There are three 3uestions concernin0 the 0eneric4 719 #o is itindi/iduated +t is indi/iduated /ia a mode hich is not that o. totality2

not by the /ne-0ll2 but by the &ne-ithout-ll or immanent &ne-in-&neas non-cumulati/ely added or sterile li/ed e;perience entirelysubtracted by itsel. .rom the philosophical &ne thus radical- lyea!ened4 7?9 "hat is its sphere o. comprehension +t is a uni/ersal apriori ithout particular obects2 precisely a 0raspin0 in immanenceand2 moreo/er2 a unilateral content o. transcendence2 e/entually o.the philosophical ithout philosophies or ithout the philosophiable4"hereas calculability )e;cludes, calculations2 philosophiabilitye;cludes particular philosophies and .ul5ls the 0eneric a priori4 Theauto-en/elopin0 ll has obects o. !noled0e in it2 hich arephilosophical systems or doctrines2 and2 beyond2 the matter o.

particular bein0s4 'ince the philosophiable lac!s an obect2 it cannot.old bac! onto itsel.2 reEect upon itsel.2 or ind itsel. around aparticular philosophy it is a one-sur.ace2 a uni-.ace or un.olded4 79"hat is the internal causality that articulates 0eneric thou0ht &n thereEected side o. the philosophical &ne-ll or bi.acial transcendence2idempotent Li/ed $;perience detaches or subtracts a sin- 0le side2 auni.ace4 +. the philosophical &ne is di/ided and then reuni5ed2 i. it isboth a transcendental 7either the di/isible or relati/ely indi/isible &ne9and real or absolute- ly indi/isble &ne2 the 0eneric instead separatesthem2 the uni/ersal sphere )belon0in0, to the &ne-in-&ne alone yetthe latter ne/er counts as a type o. uni/ersal or one o. its obects

because it is .oreclosed to the latter4 The philosophiable no lon0er hasphilos- ophies it is sans-obect ust as the immanent &ne-in-&ne itsel.is sans-philosophiable4

?II The Generic as Predicate and Constant: Non-Philosophy andaterialism

+t should be noted that it is the prepossession o. this constant thatallos us to present philosophical comple;ity as duplicity2 thee;cessi/ely abstract comple;ity o. the .a- mous )all,2 o. )totaliation,and )detotaliation,4 "e ha/e called )super-ll, the system o. sub- and

super-totaliation2 o. de- and re-totaliation2 ultimately the surplus/alue to hich philosophy and epistemolo0y aspire4 "e shall call this)all, a super-ll .or reasons 0i/en a.ter the .act4 s .or the meanin0 o.)unilateral,2 e are .orced to ad/ance a ne /ocabulary little by littledespite ha/in0 to e;plain it later on to disco/er its un!nons4

T#$ %+'T+NCT+O$ T*+T' &F T#$ G$N$*+C


11/34

$3uipped ith our three a;ioms2 e can no locate se/eral symptomso. the 0ener- ic in philosophy and already present the principle o. theirtrans.ormation toards the ac3uisition o. the non-philosophical 0enerice are see!in04 +. the precedin0 para- 0raph is clear in its technicallydicult means and intents and can ser/e as our 0uid- in0 thread2 it is

ne/ertheless more ambi0uous because it desi0nates a ourney thatour- neys .rom the /a0ueness o. do;a and philosophy toards thea;ioms o. the 0eneric4

14 Generic-bein0 tends to present itsel. as a stran0er4 product2techni3ue2 or !nol- ed0e can recei/e2 alon0side its speci5cimportance 7correspondin0 to an ori0inal domain2 thus ha/in0 uni/ersal/alue only .or its domain92 another uni/ersality hich is not clas- sically0lobal and domineerin0 Kde surplomb22 a /alue or a .unction2 a usa0ehich is instead trans/ersal in relation to the precedin04 +t .ul5ls tas!sor ser/ices in domains hich are not its on2 but ithout a

philosophical type o. sur/ey Ksur'ol or .oundation4 Thus certaindisciplines ac3uire a 0eneric /alue2 despite their speci5c character2throu0h the usa0e made o. their on means in other domains o.obects4 This term )trans/ersal, is ne/ertheless pro/isional .or usbecause 0eneric !noled0e is not e/en supposed to .old itsel. ontothe same 0eneral space that it ould tra/erse and ould ser/e as itsre.erence4 The unilateral 0eneric chan0es the 0i/ens o. re.erence4 )uni-lateral, usa0e is an added .unction hich in a sense has nothin0 incommon ith the !noled0e ensurin0 the reception it is not itsel.held in a .ace to .ace or in co-relation and )interaction, i. it is sim- plyunilateral ith another more classical !noled0e it thus does not

come to annul or destroy this !noled0e,s le0ality2 but 0uarantees its/alidity otherise4 0eneric !nol- ed0e does not ).old, itsel. to thelas o. another domain o. phenomena in hich it inter- /enes4 t thelimit2 e/ery reciprocal action beteen the to !noled0es2 the speci5cand the 0eneric that inter/enes2 is eliminated4 The 0eneric,s essence isa non-actin0 that acts throu0h a unilateral or0anon this is hy it isnecessary to spea! cautiously about inter- /ention or inter-action4 Latere shall spea! o. )sub-/ention, rather than )inter/ention, and )sub-action, or ea! .orce rather than interaction4

?4 Generic-bein0 possesses an a priori .unction ithout bein0 a

philosophical a priori4 Concentrated in a speci5c !noled0e2 it is /alid.or a series or a set o. obects hich it selects .rom all the 0i/ens4 Thisis not the transcendental bein0 o. the particular obect or bein02ultimately o. the philosophical ll2 but an a priori .or the selectedobects upon hich it does not impose itsel. as a lo0ico-philosophical.orm2 as a uni/ersal and necessary !noled0e2 but as a uni.acial orunilateral poer o. the immanent trans.ormation o. their obecti/ity4The distinction comes up a0ainst the philosophical con.usions 7the ll


12/34

in 0eneral9 beteen the philosophical super-ll and the simple all thatproduces the 0eneric4 Generic-bein0 is not an ll o. the 0enre e call)duplicitous, ith hich it ould reciprocally a>ect itsel.2 but it is /alidalso or in a supplementary

?4 Literally )o/erhan0in0,2 correspondin0 ith the ord )sur/ol,2meanin0 )Ei0ht-o/er,4 Ktrans4

!ran"ois #aruelle ?IB

ay .or e/ery )all, o. the obects o. this ll or is a priori compatible iththem throu0h their trans.ormation despite its 'tran0erhoodK,tranget,4 The )all, there.ore chan0es meanin0 and is no lon0ersur/ey and torsion2 but a simple and closed all2 ithout the .old hichis said o. a multiple 7the )0eneric, o. 5lm94 The philosophical super-ll iscer- tainly animated also by an intentionality %or the particular2 e/en

sin0ular2 obect and its multiplicity4 8ut2 on the one hand2 here there isno reciprocal presupposition beteen the a priori o. the simple all andits content2 or i. one still e;ists2 it is simple or )Eat, ithout aredoublin04 Their /alidity Eos in a sin0le or )descendin0, direction2 a).or, ithout torsion or return2 since they are2 despite e/erythin02ithin the ultimate ho- ri1on o% the philosophical act2 the intuiti/e.orms o. sensibility in relation to the materiality o. the phenomenon7(ant .or e;ample94 &n the other hand2 0eneric uni/ersality is rel-ati/ely shut o> in a sphere o. obects 7)alls,9 it is an unlimited all2hate/er it may be2 simultaneously shut o> in its on multiplicity andnot inde5nitely reopened li!e the super-ll .or ma;imum poer4

ltimately2 the 0eneric is simply the sphere o. anythin0 hatsoe/erinso.ar as it is depri/ed not o. such and such a predicate but o. thispredi- cate o. all predicates hich is the dimension o. the super-ll4

+t is ob/ious that only science2 prior to philosophy itsel.2 can 0i/e us asomehat ri0orous concept o. the 0eneric and de5ne a ne type o.!noled0e that liberates itsel. .rom re/ersibility and duplicity4 8uthich scienti5c property Namely hat e ha/e posited as idempotentaddition in tan0ential re.erence to 3uantum physics4 For the 0e- nericalso has a more restrained al0ebraic interpretation2 but perhaps less o.a non- philosophical scope because it is that o. a )positi/e, discipline4

ny !noled0e2 obect2 or element hatsoe/er 7in 0eneral amathematical theory9 is 0eneric %or 444 a class or set o. obects i. e/eryobect o. this class can be deri/ed on the basis o. this obect byspecialiin0 or determinin0 its un!nons4 These are 0enerally al0ebraicstructures li!e the .ormulas o. an e3uation4 They are as uni/ersal as anin/ariant matri; or a .unction can be hich must be determined inorder to 0enerate other obects4 This obect can represent hiche/erelement o. the class in the order o. !noled0e ithout ceasin0 to be


13/34

one o. its indi/iduals4 These 0eneric obects ha/e a ea! but)paradi0matic, /alue4

4 The 0eneric represents the chance o. a duality ithout a synthesis2.or it is the attempt or matri; o. e/ery duality as such2 o. the To that

structures science or its sub- ect4 "hereas the philosophicalcommences throu0h a duality and throu0h its o/er- comin0 in the unityo. an all or an auto-reEection that internalies the indi/idual in thismachine .or superior .unctions2 and hile the dialectic commencesthrou0h a duality but induces the &ne .rom it hich is rapidly de/otedto the rei0nin0 uselessness or to the subaltern .unctions o. the count2the 0eneric is the point o. /ie o. any soli- tary indi/idual hatsoe/erho !nos hersel. to be ta!en .rom a human tissue beyond itssubecti/ity4 The 0eneric is the indi/idual that has accepted bein0uni/ersal but lim- ited2 not bein0 the point or e;pression o. theabsolute2 and hich there.ore a priori re- sists its 0rip4 The indi/idual

holds the uni/ersal in the order o. her 5nitude itsel.2 hile conditionin0and pre/entin0 it .rom de/elopin0 itsel. in an uncontrolled ay4

Philosophy sometimes thros itsel. into 3uestion in a contradictoryay throu0h 0eneric man 7Feuerbach92 or e/en throu0h the indi/idualas e;treme and pre-0ener- ic sin0ularity4 #ence a criti3ue o. this0eneric man to hich one opposes indi/idual or e/en pre-indi/idualsin0ularity or identity 7Nietsche2 %eleue2 #enry9 as opposed to theall2 primary in relation to it4 This is an insucient criti3ue2 .or itremains on the terrain o. the all as philosophical super-ll4 +t isnecessary to radicalie the To by 5rst

?I6 The Generic as Predicate and Constant: Non-Philosophy andaterialism

radicaliin0 the &ne2 the concrete term or the indi/idual hich isidempotent rather than metaphysical4 The 0eneric ill be the To thathas lost its totality or system4 +n Feuerbach2 the To is pre/alent butcertainly still philosophical M4 #enry has not noticed its interest andhas erased it in the name o. the radical indi/idual4

I4 The 0eneric is an obect or a !noled0e that mounts a resistance to

philosophical absolution2 not simply because it reduces the super-llas a priori 7hile 0i/in0 it a0ain as appearance92 but since it 0i/es itsel.as a simple all ithout the double relation o. torsion proper to thesuper-ll4 +t is a )material, constant because it possesses an a prioricontent2 an intuition o. the all or the 'ame 0i/en as simple or sans-.old2as )un.oldedRimpli5ed, Kimpli,4 s 'ame in a radical sense2 it lac!s a/erso2 duplicitous depth2 or an other-orld it does not e/en ha/e a sur-.ace but a .ace-sans-sur.ace2 hat e called a )uni.ace,4 This a priori


14/34

constant is the true criti3ue o. philosophical other- orlds4 +t .orms aplane ithout internal double torsion it is a loop but simple or sin- 0le2a uni-.ace o. e;position or presentation4

Mar; presents the material base as Producti/e Forces producin0 in

*elations o. Production4 #e retains in this material base somethin0 o.Feuerbach,s 0eneric man but ith a di>erent concept o. Man asimmanent or or0anic producti/e .orce4 This is not the abstraction o.auto-a>ecti/e li.e or the transcendental e0o 7M4 #enry92 but Produc-ti/e Force inso.ar as it is still associated ith the transcendente;teriority o. the dialectic in *elations o. Production4 +n other ords2Mar;,s so-called material base is a /eri- table )base, rather than a.oundation2 but it is not speci5cally 0eneric and still remains somehattranscendental4 No understood as 0eneric Li/ed $;perience in thesense o. idempotence2 it de5nes Man and is no lon0er addeddialectically .rom the outside4 Man as base2 these are the Producti'e

!orces and 2elations o% Production together in their identity o%idempotent or Producti'e !orce(This problem must neither be resol/edaccordin0 to Feuer- bach2 ho con.uses the indi/idual and the 0enreunder the name o. man2 nor accord- in0 to Michel #enry ho2 hen heshould reintroduce Producti/e Force into Man under the .orm o. labourpoer and surpass simple immanence 7hence the concept o. )pra;is,92separates Force and *elation too brutally in a 3uasi-dualist ay2 thusbrea!- in0 their 0eneric unity4 Nor should it be resol/ed accordin0 tolthusser ho ma!es o. Man the simple support or empirical bearer o.ideal structures4 "e resol/e the problem in this ay: it is Man as0eneric *eal ho2 o. hersel. or under the .orm o. a sub- ect2 subtracts

7e shall return to this concept9 her on materiality o. the a priori .romthe circular or philosophical doublin0 o. content hich is indeed amixture2 namely the mi;ture o. Forces and *elations4 'ubtractiona/oids the con.usion beteen the indi- /idual and the 0enre as theirabsolute solitude2 as ell as their undetermined2 second- ary role o.empirical support4 lthusser is a sort o. medium beteen Feuerbachand Michel #enry2 but rather on the side o. Feuerbach and thus theside o. philosophy .or hich he substitutes structuralism2 hereas the0eneric non-Mar;ism e propose is also the milieu 7the mid-place9 o.the to2 but more on the side o. Michel #enry or the radical criti3ue o.philosophy4

B4 The 0eneric produces /alidity rather than authority2 and truth ratherthan philosophical or epistemolo0ical !noled0e 7couplin0 o. asin0ular science and a philosophical apparatus94 uthority and /aliditymust be distin0uished4 Oalidity is e3ui/- alent to a theoretical controlo/er a domain2 but2 inso.ar as it is not sucient and is inseparable.rom a certain poer Kpou'oir2 /alidity does not ha/e philosophy,s


15/34

political nature4 8ut the 0eneric alays produces it under this apparent.orm o. the )Mid-place,2

!ran"ois #aruelle ?ID

o. hal.-/alidity or hal.-truth rather than under their unitary orduplicitous .orms4 The 0eneric obect determines a domain .or hich ithas /alidity in accordance ith Man- in-person2 yet has little or noauthority 7it reduces !noled0e as poer and 0i/es it bac! to the trutho. human 0enericity94 Truth and /alidity are completely secondaried orunilateralied in relation to Man-in-person as True-sans-truth or be.ore-priority ithout hierarchy4 &nly the duplicitous or philosophical super-ll claims to possess the .ull poer and authority 0ra.ted onto!noled0e it turns /alidity bac! toards authority4

Generic /alidity is no lon0er a control and a completeness J la #usserl

in his )theory o. multiplicities,2 i4e4 a possibility o. 0eneration on thebasis o. the a;ioms o. all true statements4 +t is a determination2 but it isneither immediate or direct2 li!e the scienti.- ic2 nor obli3ue or intorsion li!e the philosophical4 This is 0enerally because in 0enericthou0ht there is a restriction or subtraction that pro/ides e/idence .orthe %etermina- tion-in-the-last-instance4 There are to thin0s: on theone hand2 the relati/e autonomy o. the order o. !noled0eKconnaissance 7or e/en2 here2 non-demonstrated truth de- cided bya;ioms92 and2 on the other hand2 simultaneously the limitation o. thee/entual philosophical auto-.oundation o. !noled0e Ksa'oir4 #ere eredisco/er the 0eneric2 non-complete /alidity or non-total control

7GSdel92 the radical but not absolute non- suciency o. a;iomatics2 andultimately a certain e>ect o. the deconstruction o. the structure o.auto-.oundation4 uto-.oundation ill be prohibited .or a stron0erreason2 hich is not lo0ical because positi/e science is not in 3uestionhere2 but %or an a priori reason2 namely the a priori or immanent 7non-G3delian9 de%ence against the assaults waged by philosophy and%oundation 7radicality against the absolute94 Fully concei/ed2 the0eneric or Man as uni-/ersal is a priori protected by itsel. .romphilosophy4

64 The 0eneric re3uires the dissolution o. the con.usion beteen the

subect and Man-sans-subect2 hich can e;ist throu0h other meansand amphibolo0ies that ac- company it4 This dissolution allos us toposit the e3uality o. humans at least in-the- last-instance4 This is toautonomie Man and her labours hich she ne/ertheless ac-complishes throu0h the subect2 0i/in0 bac! to them a uni/ersalityhich is no lon0er 0lobal and o. the obecti/e order4 For e;ample2 theyare set on the same plane o% equali- ty but in-the-last-instance2philosophy by )debasin0, the le/el o. its claims2 and !noled0es by


16/34

reco0niin0 i. not ele/atin0 their on claims2 yet by conser/in0 therespecti/e autonomy o. one another4 This is seemin0ly a ea!enin0o. philosophy4 8ut it is ri0orous2 re0ulated2 and rendered necessarynothin02 i. not the .oundin0 preudices o. Gree! thou0ht2 can pro/e thatMan must be inscribed ithin the super-ll or that the orld suces to

de5ne her4 +t is necessary to posit Man as sans-subect2 as non-producer or non-creator o. concepts2 but by ma!in0 use o. the subectso as to trans.orm the latter .or philosophy4 "e are searchin0 .or the0eneric as a radically idempotent non-plane2 in ri0orous terms as aunilateral or uni%acial plane2 as 'tran0er o. uni3ue bein04 nd sinceMan-in-person is sans-subect .rom the start2 she is )/anishin0, orradically unpresent- ed and thus not simultaneously localiable in or ona plane o. e;istence4 The 0eneric is the dualysis o. philosophicaltopolo0y and the )return, to the )base,4

T#$ C+'+T+&N &F T#$ G$N$*+C C&N'TNT

'e/eral moments are discernible in the operation o. ac3uirin0 the0eneric constant4 14 *educe the super-ll or the &ne-o.-the-&ne hichis the true content o. the metaphysical )&ne, impo/erish it as a simple&ne or .old it out Kd,plier2 un.oldRim- pli.y Kimplier it as idempotenceo. the )&ne-in-&ne,4 This is its 5rst aspect4 The *eal

?IA The Generic as Predicate and Constant: Non-Philosophy andaterialism

is neither ideal nor material it a/oids this disunction but also this

unity or synthesis o. opposites4 The other term .or this *eal is Li/ed$;perience or )Man-in-person, this is our ay o. interpretin0Feuerbach,s 0eneric man as bein0 nothin0 but a symp- tom2 yet Man-in-person ill be more precisely the ensemble o. the to aspects that.orm the 0eneric constant2 namely idempotent Li/ed $;perience andthe unilateral or a priori ed0e4

?4 $mpty it o. all thou0ht and !noled0e Kconnaissance to hich it is.oreclosed4 Then hat is its substance *ather than as a transcendent)!noled0e, Ksa'oir o. the Gree! type li!e the eidos or the true +dea2e understand this un.oldedRimpli5ed or added immanence as 0nosis

and the latter as Li/ed $;perience hich a/oids the one- multiple o.li/ed-e;periences-o.-consciousness still impre0nated ithtranscendence 7#usserl94 "e can no lon0er say o. this immanent Li/ed$;perience that it is subec- ti/e or obecti/e this is an opposition ita/oids2 alon0 ith that o. the indi/idual and the multiple2 the e0o Kmoiand the sel. Ksoi2 the e0o and the orld2 hich are all phil- osophicalcouplin0s4 Man-in-person is de5ned by this idempotent )0nosis,2 thisindissol- ubly scienti5c-and-philosophical Li/ed $;perience2 hich is


17/34

not a bein0-in-the-orld or a bein0-in-philosophy4 The 0enericity o.man is to be a !noled0e that does not itsel. )!no,2 a Li/ed$;perience hich is thus not reEe;i/e and cumulati/e4

4 'ince it is not reciprocally determined by philosophy2 it is indeed

necessary to 0i/e a relati/e autonomy to the latter or to thou0ht asTo2 and not an absolute autonomy but a relati/e autonomy to theidempotent .orm o. Li/ed $;perience4 Materi- alism ma!es o.!noled0e a do0matic reEection o. the *eal 7matter9 e ma!e o. it ali/ed a priori both o. 444 or .or 444 philosophy=this is the unilateral oruni.acial ed0e o. Li/ed $;perience4

I4 +n this unilateral !noled0e2 hich is the 0eneric a priori o. science2e thus dis- tin0uish .rom the *eal-in-person its a priori ).orm, in itsmateriality2 this sin0le-.aced border hich deducts itsel. .rom the realthrou0h the reduction o. the super-ll4 ll these problems e;ist2 .or

e;ample in (ant,s transcendental esthetics2 but here they recei/e asimpli5cation that attaches them to the super-ll4 Non-cumulati/elyadded Li/ed $;perience is itsel. .oreclosed to the materiality o. the apriori2 but the latter2 the simple ll 0i/en a priori2 is philosophy,s .ormo. reception4 There is no 0esture o. at- traction to the ll by the *ealthe ll can also be immanent2 not inso.ar as it is du- plicitous2 butinso.ar as this ed0e or .ace=this simple ll=is also un.oldedRimpli5ed4

"hat2 then2 is the e>ect o. the Li/ed-in-person upon this entirecomple;2 since there is no 0eneric i. Man2 here as &ne-in-&ne or as)sterile, immanence2 does not inter/ene nilaterality is subtracted

by an %rom the auto-en'eloping 0ll4 it is subtracted by im- manence4+t is a 3uestion o. a de-duction2 o. a unilateral subtraction that remo/esphil- osophical transcendence or instead concentrates .rom it thathich 0oes beyond the unilateral ed0e o. immanence4 &ne o. thetheses o. non-philosophy is that immanence is not at all an interiority2.old2 and .oldin0 7%eleue92 nor a pleatin0 7Foucault9 only the)philosophies o. immanence, sustain this con.usion2 but it is preciselyhat is radically un.olded andprecisely %ore'er un%oldable4 +nstead o.shuttin0 itsel. in and clos- in0 itsel. o> li!e the super-ll2 the un.oldedopens itsel. and can do nothin0 but open itsel. li!e an ed0e that ne/ercloses upon itsel.4 Philosophy is .ounded amon0 other thin0s upon

#eraclitus, ma;im2 )nature 7physis9 see!s to hide itsel., non-philosophyis instead .ounded upon the ma;im2 )because it is .oreclosed tothou0ht2 the *eal or Man lo/es to open itsel. ,4

!ran"ois #aruelle ?IH

The 0eneric constant de-duc7t9ed .rom philosophy by immanence is nolon0er a complete or partial obect2 a part hich ould e;press the


18/34

hole4 +t is hat should be called a unilateral 0ll 7in this casedetermined by Li/ed $;perience alone=to hich philosophycontributes ithout determinin092 non-expressi'e o. itsel. 7immanenceas un- .olderRimpli5er o. transcendence92 and aprioritic withoutmaterial 7inso.ar as it ta!es its materiality .rom the non-.ormal a priori

o. philosophy94

Generic acti/ity is then distributed or distributable because o. itsbein0-separated in the /arious disciplines .ormin0 a comple; le/el2such as epistemolo0y2 theolo0y2 aes- thetics2 etc42 here it caninter/ene in their philosophical component and trans.orm it4 +t stopsbein0 theoretico-e;perimental 7the sciences9 or contemplati/e-theoristic 7phi- losophy9 under the la o. the re.olded ll4 "e cande5ne it as a id-place2 not a medium beteen to e;tremes or ahal.-measure2 but literally as an )un%olded between-two,4 +t must beunderstood as a place hose simple identity has been subtracted .rom

the philosophical place2 hich is alays comple; and .olded bac! onitsel.4 'ince the latter alays has to poles or .aces and is at leastde5nable by to coordinates 7.or e;ample horiontal and /erticaltranscendences2 or a .ore0round and bac!0round2 or e/en in- ternaland e;ternal horions2 etc492 the generic will automatically be de)nedas an entity with one %ace or a single dimension4 To be sure2 thisuni%acial bein02 hich is ne'er in a %ace to %ace or in mimetic ri/alryith other !noled0es2 but assembles itsel. and sets itsel. up as a uni-lateral duality2 is no lon0er the obect or unity o. countin0 7anarithemetic92 but the unity o. Man hersel.4 Concretely2 the 0enericconstant2 hich can distribute itsel. in di>erent !noled0es2 is

.oundationally estran0ed .rom the "orld or philosophy2 the latteralays bein0 to-.aced2 a duality o. de-doublin0 and redoublin04

The 0eneric is thus not a double o. hat e;ists or has ta!en place2 ane double o. philosophy or the positi/e sciences it comes as &ne2 a'tran0er in the orld o. sciences and philosophies it does not repeatthem but modi5es or helps them trans.orm their obect and there.oretrans.orm themsel/es4 "e should also nuance the under- standin0 o.the .ormula that turns the 0eneric into a .orce o. inter-/ention4 #ere2the inter- is not a ay o. occupyin0 a beteen-to or o. placin0 itsel.beteen to ad/er- saries2 as a neutral third or a re.eree4 'imilarly2 the

0eneral .ormula o. )interdisciplin- arity, could be corrected .or the0eneric2 and this is because it is that hich .orms the nucleus o. realityo. the obecti/e appearance o. the interdisciplinary4 This is precise- lyhy 0eneric poer alays orients in a sin0le direction or is unilateral2.or it can do nothin0 but arri/e at or come to the midst o. the situation2or more e;actly2 to come as the only Mid-place o. the situation hichdoes not result .rom a .old4 +t has the be- in0 o. a 'tran0er2 at leastinso.ar as one does not dissol/e it in philosophical circula- tion4 an is


19/34

not in the midst o% the 0ll or the 5orld& opened up to it by its two%aces4 she is the radical identity o% the id-place4

This is no lon0er a median solution o. a milieu2 o. a side retchedlytorn beteen the e;tremes4 +t is instead the philosophical 0eneric

hich has somethin0 o. a middle as its phenomenolo0y desires2 hichis thus a symptom to be treated4 +. e no posit the 0eneric +dentityo. the to maor types o. philosophy 7+dealism and Materialism9 or anyother di/ision in the system o. +dealism2 this idempotent a priori ill nolon0er be their middle or common element but their unilateral +dentityin-the-last-instance2 hich is not suitable .or all the total parts o.philosophy2 but .or their trans.ormation as all bein0 symptoms4 #erethe 0eneric Mid-place is instead the ordinary2 i4e4 the ordinary o. theLo0os or .or it2 but still not a supplementary mi;ture4

?B@ The Generic as Predicate and Constant: Non-Philosophy and

aterialismT#$ G$N$*+C P*+&*+: F*&M T#$ '8T*CT+O$ T& T#$

'8T*CT$%-"+T#&T-'8T*CT+&N

The a priori is 0enerally a curious notion because in reality it is mi;ed2partially a posteriori i. one relates it to the all o. the philosophical act4From the point o. /ie o. the order o. !noled0e2 it depends upone;perience2 here upon philosophy2 or in (ant upon physical e;istencehich 0i/es it its materiality o. ).ormal intuition,4 8ut in the order o. the*eal2 it depends upon a real cause2 either the transcendental in (ant2or more radically the idempotent *eal in the 0eneric4 +t implies the

disunction o. the subtracted real and the operation o. subtraction2hich ill be the basis .or determination in-the- last-instance as a non-idealist combination o. the real and !noled0e4 +n short2 this can benothin0 but a simple /icious circle it is already bro!en by aphilosophical di/ision in (ant on behal. o. the transcendental &ne2 ore/en by a unilateral duality in the 0ener- ic 7here the Li/ed real is.oreclosed to !noled0e94 Thus e must seriously distin0uish beteen2.or e;ample2 the subtracti/e 78adiou9 that still supposes an operationand is mi;ed=simultaneously a priori and a posteriori=and the li/edsubtracti/e hich has nothin0 but the obecti/e appearance o. asubtraction and hich reduces the a posteriori to a simple2 non-

constituti/e2 occasional cause o. the Li/ed real4 Measured by phil-osophical appearances2 the 0eneric ob/iously seems to be obtained byan operation o. subtraction2 but it presupposes a non-cumulati/e orreal addition4 s a materialist pro- cedure2 the *eal and 8ein0 in theiroccurrence only subtract themsel/es .rom the Lo0os by also addin0 toit2 hich is nothin0 but a bilateral or double-ed0ed procedure 8ein0thus inds up bein0 less and more than the Lo0os: this is thephilosophical but materialist subtracti/e2 the *eal as brea!Rsuture in


20/34

the Lo0os4 From our point o. /ie2 the subtracti/e is an obecti/eappearance created by the addition that sub-/enes indempotently andconcentrates the transcendent term hich presents itsel.2 a term hichis immediately or instantly trans.ormed into unilaterality4 s an e>ecto. sterile addition2 the material a priori is only seemin0ly subtracted

.rom the Lo0os and has no e>ect o. supplement2 cumulati/e addition2or surplus /alue in relation to Li/ed $;perience4 The 0eneric a pri- ori2subtracted-sans-subtraction2 is no lon0er an operation and reects thisobect appearance o. the operation upon the Lo0os4 Thus2 the latter istrans.ormed in its essence and not di/ided .or the 0reater 0lory o. thephilosophical nity hich ould reconstitute it4 This is the di>erencebeteen transcendent and anonymous materialism and li/ed hu- manmateriality4 "e thus distin0uish beteen the subtracti/e as anoperation hich conditions the *eal as 8ein02 namely by restrainin0or determinin0 it 7ultimately in materi- alism92 and the subtracted-sans-subtraction as the idempotent trans.ormation o. merely philosophy or

the orld4 The lesser-than Ken-moins deducted .rom philosophy is radi-cal and does not balance a radical surplus hich ould subsist in Li/ed$;perience2 because the a priori adds nothin0 real to Li/ed$;perience 7it is not a ne instance it is thus )transcendental, in anori0inary sense and announces the subect ho precisely supposes asupplementary condition94 Not bein0 relati/e-absolute2 the lesser-thanis simply a trans.ormation o. philosophy2 since !noled0e has no e>ectupon the *eal4 +t is not deri/ed .rom a positi/e operation o. re-partition2di/ision2 and recomposition2 but .rom the immanent repetition o. anaddition hich trans.orms the super-ll ithout Man trans.ormin0hersel.4 The 0eneric does not au0ment !noled0e 7supplied by the

e;ist- in0 positi/e disciplines92 nor does it ma!e the latter possible2 buttrans.orms it as truth or in-the-last-instance as True-sans-truth4 The0eneric a priori is simply called )subtracti/e, because it conser/es itsplace ith the occasional lan0ua0e that it does not lea/e behind4

!ran"ois #aruelle ?B1 P#+L&'&P#+CL C+*CLT+&N N% G$N$*+CC+*CLT+&N4

T#$&*Q &F T#$ M+%-PLC$

+n order to clari.y the precedin0 and the .olloin02 namely the radical

distinction beteen the 0eneric and the philosophical=their unilateralduality hich e ha/e hit upon=it must be remembered that e ha/esubstituted the philosophical and /icious auto-criti3ue o. the ll .orthat o. the super-ll2 and the criti3ue o. the Global .or that o. %uplicity7&ne and To9 and e/en double %uplicity 7empirico-transcendental andtranscendental-real doublets92 hich is the real ultimate content o.philosophy as super-ll4 The concepts o. 0lobal and partial2 holesand parts2 dispersions2 partial ob- ects2 disseminations2 and .ra0ments2


21/34

hich all nourish some o. the contemporary at- tempts at the renealo. epistemolo0y2 are arte.acts that produce philosophy itsel.philosophy prolon0s its suciency throu0h them and continues tobeitch the subect by ma!in0 it belie/e that any liberation is possiblein this ay4 Philosophy is duplicity at the limit o. the specular on each

o. its le/els the ll is de $ure the doublet o. the transcendental ordi/isible ll and o. the real or indi/isible ll4 "e call this de $ure en-semble by a sin0le name: the super-ll4 The problem is that e arehere2 .or lac! o. a better ord2 at the ed0e o. philosophy as ell as theed0e o. the /oid althou0h e are probably still .ascinated2 li!e theyoun0 Mar; by #e0el2 e are outlinin0 a 0eneric that ould no lon0er0o bac! to philosophy as these descriptions suciently sho2 althou0he still ha/e not thematied it as such4

"e can no clari.y a Mar;ist e3ui/ocation: there must be a distinctionbeteen to circulations2 namely the philosophical and the 0eneric

7hich e shall be0in to call )non-Feuerbachian, ithout ris!in0 areturn to the humaniin0 and naturaliin0 0eneric94 Philosophyreco0nies particular bein0s2 systems2 and the ll o. these alls2 theabsolute 'ystem2 a per.ect Circle2 in the sense that it no lon0ercirculates2 almost cut o> .rom circulation hile circulatin0 ithin itsel.4They are both unmo/ed mo/ers Kmo- biles )xes2 they only circulate inthemsel/es in a rapid .ashion and 0i/e rise to a strobos- copy o.philosophical appearances4 Plato li/ed throu0h this contradiction morepain- .ully than others2 be.ore #e0el too! his place and obscurede/erythin04

"e shall distin0uish a 0eneric circulation o. !noled0es and products.rom the ll-circulation o. philosophy2 hich is perhaps the !ey to thecapitalist economy de- ployed and 0rasped in its culmination4 They donot simply enter into )use.ul circuits, and hence into the /astcirculation o. philosophy ithin itsel. that comes to 0rip them oncea0ain2 but into another more common and less intense )circuit,2 abo/eall into another lo0ic than that o. e;chan0e4 This is a uni/ersally local)lo0ic, hose uni/ersality does not .orm a synthesis or system ith itslocality4 This is not a ay o. sli0htly intensi.yin0 the mar!et orphilosophical capital2 hich tends toard immobility2 but a ay o.re.usin0 its e;clusi/ity4 +t is not to stop2 inhibit2 or re/erse it in a

re/olutionary ay4 The 0eneric is important because it is adisenchantment o. e/ery commercial type o. circulation2 thou0h not itssuppression this is because the 0eneric is a non-relation to the orldand because it installs a sans-relation in the latter4 The 0eneric2 .orinstance and .or lac! o. better phrasin02 circulates !noled0es andproducts hich do not ha/e )0uarantors,2 unilateral merchandise2)perspecti/es,2 or )intentions, that 0i/e the ll2 but an ll hich hasstopped re-armin0 itsel. and has become modest2 thus 0i/in0 up


22/34

philosophy and theolo0y=a &ne hich is sterile or inert in some ay2atheistic i. you ill4 This is still a circulation o. demarcated productsand hybrid sciences2 but a circulation-sans-circle2 a semi-circulation4Generic ser/ices or products are semi-mar!ets

?B? The Generic as Predicate and Constant: Non-Philosophy andaterialism

they are interested in the Grand Circuit en/elopin0 money2 but do not.or a moment obey its dialectical or e/en analytic lo0ic2 and there.orecreate another usa0e o. the ll hich they attach to its auto-circulation4 8ut hat lo0ic and .or hich circulation "hat is it thatmost radically destroys the philosophical appearances o. hybridiation

+t should be noted that this semi- is not a hal.2 the mid-place or thedi/ision beteen to borders o. a place2 but the identity 6o% the7 id-

6place7 or nilaterality which is the ma$or support o% the generic )logic,to the sciences 7and the determinin0 concept o. non-phi- losophy94 Theproblem is that o. !noin0 hether it is theplace or the mid- o. the mi-lieu that is characteristic o. idempotence2 i. not identity4 Forphilosophy2 it is the 7mid-9 place that reproduces itsel. accordin0 to itsdeterminin0 mid-7place94 +n the 0ener- ic2 thin0s happen in a re/erse.ashion and necessarily more than re/erse the mid- is the idempotentbe.ore-5rst that determines the place )in last place,2 i4e4 )in-the-last-in-stance,4 The mid- o. the milieu is not a hal.2 but unlimited2 in5nite2 andeternal idempotence hich determines2 i4e4 trans.orms2 the place=or2i. one ishes2 it is a hal.2 but a hal. that is &ne4

This phenomenon o. the Mid-place2 hich a>ects 0eneric products ande/en unilateral ser/ices or tools2 diminishes unity and its illusionarye>ects o. con.ormism or so- cial di0nity ithout2 hoe/er2 bein0 amiddle beteen the total and the particular2 the 0lobal and thespeci5c2 or the .undamental and the re0ional4 The 0eneric 0i/es nemedia to the practice o. the )milieu, and perhaps to the practice o.ustice or democra- cy4 +t consi0ns the 0rand and aristocratic lord toobli/ion as ell as the moanin0 o. the )labourers o. philosophy,7Nietsche94 Plato in/ents the Grand Genres2 but ristotle in- /ents the)0enre,4 The philosopher need not be so pure and di/ine to in/ent the

0ener- ic4 From this point o. /ie2 Materialism is use.ul4 8ut ill itperhaps be necessary to 0o a little .urther still and no lon0er tocompletely turn the 0eneric into the milieu o. philosophy Philosophyis already its own milieu2 its mid-place through di'ision2 hichde0rades itsel. to the state o. banality and mediocrity2 a sort o.ea!enin0 o. philosophy2 i. not its .all or un0roundin02 at least its )lopro5le,4


23/34

The 0eneric ma!es possible a totally di>erent type o. circulation hichcould be called sans-circle or more e;actly sans-redoublin0 sincesimple circularity alays 5n- ishes by ha/in0 been there2 the problemis ho not to redouble it and 5;ate it in itsel.4 +t should be noted thatphilosophy only )circulates, as a commodity to be captured in the

con/ersations or debates o. ideas because it truly only circulates initsel.4 "hate/er sort o. obect2 .rontier2 or di/ision is inserted into it2 thell passes o/er its obstacles because it is made to pass o/er itsel.2merely borderin0 on itsel. to en/elop itsel. once a0ain4 'ys- tems anddoctrines are all simply particular and multiple armon0erin0 entitiesthey mechanically stri!e upon closed or hal.-closed eyes2 and at bestsimulate each other and capture one another in the element o. a 0randobscurity4 +ndeed there are Eash- es2 but that,s because philosophersEip the sitch4 This lo0ic is ell !non the Good consumes itsel. in theli0ht o. *eason and *eason in the luminescence o. conscious- ness4 Nodoubt e can spea! super5cially o. )circulation,2 but there is ultimately

a stro- boscobic e8ect o% immobility that %ascinates philosophers andscientists4 The 0eneric has other /irtues hich are no lon0ercompletely philosophical2 related to utility2 creati/ity2 .ecundcirculation2 and e/en less to compulsi/e repetition4 The 0eneric nodoubt cuts across the contemporary operators o. thou0ht2 li!e thetrans/ersality o. %eleue-Guattari2 or Foucault,s dia0onality4 Theseoperators render the clear distinction beteen the philosophical styleand hat e could call the 0eneric style more dicult2 but not impossi-

!ran"ois #aruelle ?B

ble4 The 5rst is tan0ential2 throu0h Eashes and illuminations2 andtouches upon the ll hich it espouses2 sometimes rather upon itsinternal .ace 7the philosophical tradition2 the e;ternal .ace bein0reser/ed .or God92 sometimes upon both .aces at once 7the phi-losophies o. %i>erence and "itt0enstein in his on ay9 but o. hich ithas no !nol- ed0e li!e God4 $/en the philosophies o. %i>erence thatmobilie themsel/es alon0 its ed0e2 sometimes more on one side thanthe other2 ac3uire a certain di/ine !noled0e o. the ll but ha/e notheory o. it4 8ut ould not God himsel. possess this theory o. the allNo more than the philosophers4 The 0eneric-human point o. /ie illprecise- ly be necessary to percei/e it2 i4e4 to annihilate the ll as

subect o. its on !noled0e2 merely conser/in0 it as material andsymptom4 This is because the 0eneric abandons the contact o. theed0es to hich philosophy de/otes itsel. in order to ultimately reducethe 0ll to an edge& o% whom9 o% an=the ll as unilateral mar0inalityo. Man4 +t in/erts the philosophical relation beteen Man and the ll2and ma!es o. the ll disenchanted by itsel. the simple ed0e or mar0ino. Man4 8ut does Man ha/e this poer2 or ould e once a0ain returnto Feuerbach and his 0eneric Man &ne o. our tas!s is to de.end Man


24/34

a0ainst its philosophic-0eneric or mi;ed capture this is the condition.or elabo- ratin0 a science o. the 0eneric4 "e must also 0uard a0ainstsimply opposin0 Man as indi/idual or e0o to the 0eneric as uni/ersalin a /a0ue sense 7Michel #enry94

T*$-"+T#&T-T*T#2 "$( F&*C$2 M+N+ML T&*$

"e distin0uish beteen 0eneric .orcin0 and philosophical .orcin0 intheir trans.orma- ti/e e>ect upon !noled0e as ell as in theirrespecti/e mechanisms4 8oth are oper- ations destined to assure thepassa0e beteen to re0imes o. !noled0e2 .rom e;ist- in0 7scienti5c9!noled0e to a .orm o. uni/ersality o. a di>erent 7philosophical9 type2or indeed the re/erse passa0e2 the 0eneric becomin0-science o.philosophy4 The 0eneric mani.ests itsel. as a ea! .orce e;ertin0 itsel.upon !noled0e rather than upon an operation o. transcendentalschematiation4

The e>ect o. sterile idempotent Li/ed $;perience is to constrainphilosophy to ta!e note o. its conditions o. e;istence or /alidity hich itspontaneously i0nores because Li/ed $;perience re.uses itsel. tophilosophy4 The uni/ersal property that transmits the 0eneric constantis inscribed by .orce in the e;istin0 !noled0e as its trans.ormation itdoes not prolon0 the series o. !noled0e2 .or it does not inscribe it-sel. in it ithout trans.ormin0 the latter4 s uni'ersal-%or 7usage9 anyobect hatsoe/er2 it contains a parado; hich is a solution it is thepassa0e-in-.orce assured by idem- potence2 a passa0e or more e;actlysub-/ention to unilaterality ithout a schematism2 i4e4 ithout a

synthetic unity o. opposites or dualities4 "hat2 then2 results .rom this ne type o. )predicate, results2 a priori but real2 toard predicates orproperties o. the obecti/e ran!2 toard a !noled0e o. any orderhatsoe/er2 and is reputed to be natural or empirically constituted$ustlike philosophy is4 Predicates o. a di>erent order can be attributed tophilosophy ithout this 5nal chan0e o. nature2 as ould be the case i.they ere re/ersible ith the )subect, that recei/es them4 8ut it doesnot chan0e nature or is not destroyed by the science that contains the0eneric2 it is simply trans.ormed4 The 0eneric is precisely this poer o.an instance=hich is impossible .or the ll=o. .orcin0 and e;ceedin0itsel. 7%or9 toards the 0i/en or .actual order o. !noled0e2 all ithout

trans%orming itsel% in this operation2 ithout e;chan0in0 its nature iththat o. the 0i/en !noled0e4 Genericity is the property o. bein0 able tocommu- nicate truth or rather the True-ithout-truth to a thou0ht thatdoes not ant it4 Min-

?BI The Generic as Predicate and Constant: Non-Philosophy andaterialism


25/34

imal tor3ue is not simply a )tist,2 a supplementary torsion it is on thecontrary an )un- tistin0,2 a return to the n.olded4

0ainst philosophy hich is the continual .orcin0 o. and by the subect2a re/ersible torsion2 the 0eneric opposes itsel. as another .orcin0 but

a ea! .orce2 that hich can be the non-actin0 o. the idempotent2 thato. the 0eneric a priori hich .orces philosophy or the super-ll4 +t isnot Man ho is .orced in her bein0 it is hat happens to Man in theorld as constitutin0 the super-ll4 "hat Man-in-person2 in/isible to theorld2 uses a0ainst the latter is an a priori ed0e that produces theidempotent as a concentration o. philosophical structure4 This ed0e isthe &ther-than 7not the &ther-o.9 or better still the 'tran0er2 unilateralor uni.acial2 the thron-under-sans-thro KetU-sans-et34 The meanin0o. (ant,s pure a priori conditions as already a .orcin0 o. philosophy byscience hich as still anthropolo0ical2 a ay o. surpassin0 its limits ina non-metaphysical or non-,dialectical, ay2 o. ma!in0 an entirely ne

condition o. truth recorded by philosophy4 +t is traditionally no lon0er a3uestion o. schematiin0 philosophy in Man2 but o. .orcin0 thephilosophical past throu0h the True-ithout- truth o. idempotence4Generic bein0-.orced is not a reciprocal schematiation ith theima0ination as its common root4 +t is ea! .orcin02 the minimal torsione;acted upon philosophy that is ultimately no lon0er re/ersible but uni-directional2 conse3uently a .uture4 s i. the most modest 0enericinter/ention in the e;istin0 state o. thin0s ere that o. the Future-in-person4

The 0eneric thus .orms a style o. thou0ht in to phases2 li!e the

philosophical2 but trans.ormed4 The 5rst is constructing this posture o.Man as 0eneric2 non-transcenden- tal2 presupposed but in/isible2 apriori ith the aid o. the means supplied by philosoph- icalrepresentation4 +t is there.ore the phase o. namin0 or renamin0 it2 notinscribin0 it in philosophical representation2 but 5ndin0 in it thelan0ua0e to treat it in the most ade3uate ay in order to ma!e thisposture e;ist and lea/e behind its state as presup- position4 Thephilosophical is then treated as a simple occasional and conunctionalmoment o. this operation4 The real deduction o. the a priori2 its sub-/ention2 does not come ithout an induction2 yet it determines itsinduction on the basis o. the episte- molo0ical occasion4

The second phase is here a subect o. an order hich is 0eneric2 andthus not transcendental2 comes into play2 0rasps the a priori and thereturn or uses its unilateral character a0ainst epistemolo0icalrepresentation2 .orcin0 it by a minimal tor3ue to recei/e it andtrans.orm itsel.4 This is the in/erse phase that prolon0s the occasion orconunctional epistemolo0ical e/ent2 the .uture o. the True-ithout-truth hich must create the /ehicle or et .or the trans.ormation o. the


26/34

statements o. philosophy2 in particular the specular structure o.epistemolo0y4

Truth is not determinin0 .or the *eal or Man hich2 as 0eneric or True-ithout- truth2 is subtracted .rom philosophical !noled0e and its

subsets4 Generic science sets to or! )a;iomatic, decisions determinedin-the-last-instance by the idempotent *eal4 They immediately e;ceedor subtract themsel/es .rom philosophical !noled0e hich theyappeal to in order to 5nd a lan0ua0e in hich to .orcibly incarnatethemsel/es2 e/en i. it is a 3uestion o. the ea! .orce o. a non-actin04#ere the 0eneric is the problematic that allos us to re.ormulate2 onthe one hand2 the e/ent as non-historical occasion or historical-ithout-history2 and on the other hand the True-ithout-truth astrans.ormation o. the history-orld4

4 Playin0 o> the literal sense o. the ord )subect,2 hich means

)thron under, Ktrans44

!ran"ois #aruelle ?BB

The 0eneric discipline has some anity ith a philo-5ction that .orcesthe philosophical barrier2 its norms2 and its criteria o. recepti/ity4 +t is.orce.ully heretical2 it is an imperati/e .or the most human .uture o.passin0-in-.orce the Gree! ima0e o. thou0ht and epistemolo0icalmytho-lo0y4 +t is more than a ris! to ta!e2 it is the ris! throu0h hichone must let onesel. be ta!en: it is .aith.ulness to the ultimatum o. theFuture4

P#+L&'&P#+CL 'TQL$ N% G$N$*+C 'TQL$2 MPL+F+CT+&NR+MPL+F+CT+&N

The 5rst style is .old and o/er.old2 the second is the out.old or e/en)un.old, 7un.old- ed2 un.oldable92 out.oldin0 and e/en un.oldin04 The5rst is o/erload2 o/erdetermina- tion2 redoublin02 sur/ey2 hyperbolicity2duplicity2 accumulation o. an alays more su.- 5cient capital4 Thesecond is mid-place o. the ordinary i. not the median o. unilateraldistribution alon0 a line o. immanence4 The 5rst is the system as 0lobalelement2 hile the second is the uni/ersal as simple element 4442 hich

does not reconstitute an au- to-en/elopin0 interiority but an a priorispace internal and adacent to Li/ed $;peri- ence4 The 5rst is auto-thesis2 the second hypo-thesis hich remains somehat incom- pletein relation to the ima0inary super-ll o. philosophy4 The 5rst isabsolute2 the second radical and remains relati/ely autonomousithout becomin0 absolute4 "e dis- tin0uish the topo0raphical plane o.rationalism2 the in5nite and topolo0ical plane2 en- dorsed and idealiedby certain contemporaries2 .rom the unilateral ed0e hich is neither


27/34

topo0raphical nor topolo0ical and hich can be called a )mar0in,4 Tosum up all these di>erences2 the philosophical style is the capitalisticampli5er o. .antastically in- Eated e;perience hich has becomebothersome2 hile the 0eneric style is the un.old- erRimpli5er not o.e;perience but o. philosophical capital4

The apparent ea!ness o. the 0eneric demonstrates itsel. in relation tophilosophy,s ambitions yet this is not a ea!ness2 it is the ordinaryMid-place that 0athers to0ether the scientist and the philosopher atthe e;tremes 7in the subect92 and in other ri/alries here philosophy isalays ud0e and ury4 The misunderstandin0 o. the real a priori2 o% thepresupposed and not o. the presupposition o. philosophy2 is its idealist.olly4 &b/iously e are tempted to as! hat in turn is thepresupposed o. immanence one then sees it as transcendent2 it turnsinto a .olded or pleated plane o. immanence2 its radicali1ationbecomes its absolution4 &nly a sub-/ention or a sterile addendum2

rather than a subtraction hich conser/es its reality but ne/erthelessithout sublatin0 it2 0uards it .rom its philosophical capture andmaintains its 0enericity or its ordinariness ithout lettin0 it turn intothe Lo0os4 +t is more /alid to deconstruct idealism and its culminationthan to immediately build upon materialism as a spontaneousphilosophy2 .or then one .or0ets to deconstruct materialism itsel.4Materialism and non-philosophy are not e3ui/alent4

Philosophy is a thou0ht accordin0 to the ll which )turns, in the 0ll asin its prison2 hich sha!es its bars or tu0s at its shac!les2 and in thissense is simply a thou0ht o. man4 Man- in-person is not the subect

that .ormulates a;ioms by en/isionin0 a Platonic s!y2 but theimmanent cause o. the subect ho .ormulates them and is thus thestructure o. hich the a;iom is the e;pression2 the li/ed e;perience 7o.the9 a;iom or the a;iom li/ed in an idempotent ay rather than ananonymous obect dra00ed alon0 by the hole "orld4

N&N-P#+L&'&P#Q N% T#$ G$N$*+C

Non-philosophy cannot be reduced to the theme o. the 0eneric2 e/en i.the unilateral To is its a priori or constant4 There ill probably be astru00le beteen non-phi-

?B6 The Generic as Predicate and Constant: Non-Philosophy andaterialism

losophy and materialism to 5nd out ho ill best protect the 0enericithout lettin0 it return to +dealism4 8oth carry out the criti3ue o. themi;ture that )0eneric Man, is and dissol/e it2 materialism in order to


28/34

return to philosophy and non-philosophy in order to 0uard Man .romphilosophical suciency4 "hat are the sta!es o. this stru00le

+n philosophy2 the 0enre is a sub- or pre-philosophical concept it .ormsthe artic- ulation beteen the indi/idual and the duplicitous super-ll

hich it sin0ularies as sub-totality2 but hich the duplicitous llpre/ents2 thus as partial all or subordinated 0enre4 +t distin0uishesitsel. in a ea! ay .rom the omni-philosophical or auto-en/el- opin0ll4 nder this .orm e redisco/er a continuity o. the philosophical andthe 0e- neric4 +t has a tendency to be e>aced by the ll itsel. hichliberates itsel. .rom the indi/idual or puts it bac! in its place throu0hthe pairin0 o. a !noled0e or a particular science 7ithout practice9and +dealismRMaterialism as positions o. the ll4 The 0e- neric is theuni/ersal as concrete or human2 the )human 0enre,2 but it is thenmenaced by erasure on behal. o. totality4 &ne .undamental thesis isthat the philosophical ll is ne/er simple2 lest it return to the /ul0ar

ima0ination o. a circle 7somehat li!e the )her- meneutic circle,94 +t is0lobally en/elopin0 o. itsel.2 auto-en/elopin02 and not simply o. thee/ents o. e;istence 7


29/34

The philosophical e>acement o. the 0eneric is ine/itable4 Morepro.oundly2 .rom our point o. /ie it is the e>ect o. an i0norance o.Man-in-person 7hich does not mean )sin0ular subect,9 only it candetermine a 0eneric base or a uni/ersal To o. inter/ention hich illno lon0er .all bac! under philosophical authority4 +dealist by /o- cation2

philosophy and hat remains o. it in materialism con.uses Man-in-person ith the subect and ith a !noled0e ithout practice itcon.uses human substance ith its operatory poer4 #ere eradicalie it and .old it out to let it de%end itsel. a0ainst philosophicalharassment4 +n order to pass to hat e could call the genre-in-persona.- ter philosophy2 it suces to lea/e the duality o. the &ne anduni/ersal to as a unilateral bein02 ithout synthesis or reciprocity2ithout a third term or system2 ithout the ll returnin0 once a0ain toitsel.4 From this an0le2 the 0eneric is the dismemberment o. thesystem2 its )dualysis,4 There.ore it is not a simple term2 bein0 or thin0abstract-

!ran"ois #aruelle ?BD

ed .rom the system2 it is alays a duality but not a to-headedapparatus or a )desirin0 machine,4 s a philosopher2 %eleue alsoadmits that man is a concretion abstracted or constituted .rom .orcesin a state o. e;teriority2 a partial obect cut out .rom a total Eu;2continuum or .ull body machines are selections o. Eos4 'imilarly28adiou ultimately cuts the 0eneric out .rom the presupposedmaterialist position as other-plane4

Non-philosophy is instead a restraint .or not e;ceedin0 the specialduality o. the 0eneric toards the unity o. the system2 .or notinscribin0 it in a uni/ersal horion4 Many philosophers identi.y the basicduality but raise it up into a superior uni/ersal4 The phenomenolo0icalpath is the simplest and e;tracts the essential traits that create the0eneric style on the basis o. the ordinary usages o. the term4 +t is onthe basis o. these symptoms that another properly non-philosophicalpath consists in )surpassin0,2 but in- the-last-instance,2 in ).orcin0, theduality .acin0 a &ne that e ha/e no .olded out as simplicity o. theidempotent or non-cumulati/e addition4 %eleue,s misinterpretationhas been total hen he con.used the &ne-in-&ne2 the /ne added to

the /ne without modi- %ying itsel%2 with the /ne-0ll which is the /nemultiplied by itsel%2 hich is precisely the con.u- sion beteen theradicaliation and the absolution o. duality4 Lea/in0 behind the phil-osophical 0eneric at least as a tendency2 e ha/e dualyed it andassi0ned it the trait o. the bein0-.orced o. non-philosophical truth inepistemolo0ical !noled0e4


30/34

+t is a 3uestion o. understandin0 the paradi0matic sense2 hich is herea non-Pla- tonic concept2 o. the .orce o. inter/ention o. one science intothe others4 This is an inter/ention ithout capture or capti/ation7ithout hat could be called by a biolo0i- cal metaphor o.)hybridiation, or )crossin0, or e/en )crossbreedin0,2 in reality acti/ities

o. capture here predator and prey cooperate and are at the thresholdo. e;chan0in0 their .unctions9 and hich can be .ormed upon the basiso. the community o. certain phenomena beteen the science hichre3uests an inter/ention and can recei/e it and the science that o>ersit4 'uch phenomena are themsel/es called 0eneric in relation to thedomain o. speci5c or 0lobal obects they are characteried by theirspecial identi- ty2 an identity o% unilateral distribution hich is an apriori constituted .rom the phenomena that they collect but ithoutdeterminin0 itsel. in its real essence ith them recip- rocally4 'uch an apriori assembles the di/ersity o. the ll ithout ha/in0 the duplicity o.the philosophical ll and ithout bein0 )mar0inal, in the traditional

sense o. philosophy 7this is another paradi0m2 that o. )mar0inality,2that culminates in the tentieth century94 #o is )unilateral, to beunderstood +n 0eneric acti/ity2 only the o>er is important because itis determinin02 rather than the re3uest2 the ser/ice rather than itsreception4 lthou0h the re3uest and reception truly e;ist2 they cannotin turn deter- mine the 0eneric decision2 nor can the o>er determineitsel. reciprocally ith the re- 3uest4 The 0eneric no lon0er lea/escertain phenomena to chance nor selects them in accordance ith an+dea or a paradi0m in the Platonic sense or e/en in (uhn,s episte-molo0ical sense4 +n short2 contrary to the super-ll2 0eneric poer is apriori 7the ll is transcendental and there.ore claims to be real92

selecti/e 7the ll only selects itsel. or its on duplicity throu0h thephenomena hich are its e;pressi/e parts92 and unilater- allydeterminin0 7the duplicitous ll has primacy o/er its parts hichreciprocally de- termine themsel/es94

MT$*+L+'M N% T#$ G$N$*+C

Phenomena that obey 0eneric lo0ic are .olded out or more preciselyun.olded in the manner o. the &ne-in-&ne or sterile addendumbecause they are non-totaliin0 and

?BA The Generic as Predicate and Constant: Non-Philosophy andaterialism

non-reEected uni/ersalities4 The 0eneric constant is opposed to idealisttranscendental nity but also to the materialist To as transcendence4These to positions ha/e noth- in0 but a )transcendental, unity in ane sense4 They claim to be identical to the totality o. 8ein02 or toe;haust it2 but it is precisely this superior or en/elopin0 unity that ills


31/34

to positions hich is also transcendental in the (antian sense o. the)%ialec- tic, ell !non by e/ery philosophy4 "e ill call transcendentalappearance the claim to the real throu0h the bias or under the 0uise o.8ein0 and the transcendental &ne 7hich correlates ith a di/ision or aduality94 Fundamental ontolo0y 7#eide00er9 is in this sense the

meditation o. an appearance4 8ut the 0eneric a priori is also opposedto )re0ional, or speci5c cate0oriality2 to the philosophical )0eneric,4 +tin/ests the empirical or spontaneous 0enres o. !noled0e2 science2reli0ion2 art2 politics2 erotics2 and eco- nomics hich are clusters o.re0ulated phenomena and must be clearly distin0uished .rom thespeci5city o. the techni3ues o. the positi/e sciences as ell as thephilosophical transcendental4

The a priori 0eneric announces a 3uasi but )trans.ormed, materialism2as Mar; ould say4 This problem becomes complicated because the0eneric2 hich .ully in- /ol/es the /astest relation to science and not

simply to the philosophical tradition2 is sometimes cau0ht beteen amaterialist position and a particular science4 Material- ism ta!es the0eneric .or its obect and ris!s con.usin0 it ith a supposedly.undamental speci5city2 thus ith 8ein0 or its type o. uni/ersality4 +tseems that the materialist also .or0ets ith this problematic theproblem why the /ne 5hy immanence


32/34

ay4 8ein0 is nothin0 more than a transcendental presence2 anappearance o/erdeter- minin0 the in/isible or non-appearin0 *eal4

The 0eneric thus chan0es conte;t and .rontier4 8eteen it and thespeci5c andR or the transcendental2 there are no lon0er sutures o. the

materialism type but unilateral dualities or clones 7the suture is notthe brea! but the trace-scar o. the subtraction o. supposedly real8ein094 Thus sterile addition or the &ne-in-&ne is &ther-than 4442unilationally a priori2 and immanenties the chorismos hich there.oreceases to be con- .used ith transcendence4 "ith radical immanence.or its essence2 the chorismos is re-

!ran"ois #aruelle ?BH

/ersed or turned bac! a0ainst philosophy it is unilational or 3uasi-ristotelian and in touch ith the e;perience o. the orld4 +nstead o.

cuttin0 the ontolo0ical base out o. the all o. philosophical ori0in2 the*eal has already subtracted the immanent 0eneric instance %orphilosophy2 ithout cuttin0 it out2 ithout a decision riddled ithsutures2 ounds2 or traces2 all hile reco0niin0 that it only belon0s toit throu0h its materiality4

Materialism interprets the 0eneric as 0i/en ith philosophy4 +t mas!sthe nature o. the latter,s symptom and ta!es philosophical claims .or)spendin0 money,4 Moreo/er2 it 0i/es to the 0eneric the basis o. aparticular science or model2 it reduces it to its )cause, o. the )operation,type and pri/ile0es subtraction rather than addition4 +t loses the sense

o. the symptom and )non-total, uni/ersality proper to the 0eneric byrei.yin0 it in an operation or a determined !noled0e4 This is topre/ent Man-in-person as ultimate cause and to replace it throu0h aphilosophical position4 +t is to abstract !noled0e or practice precisely.rom practice as human2 to be 0i/en the !noled0e constituted in itsplace and to deri/e the cause o. practice under the .orm o. a subectedsubect4 From this point o. /ie2 the a;ioms o. set Theory are alreadyproducts and 0i/ens2 rei5ed and dead .rom a !noled0e hich hasalready ta!en place it is 3uite the contrary .or 0eneric science-thou0hthich is a production o. a;ioms as real radical li/ed e;peri- ences2 notas a;ioms contemplated in a materialist ay4 s ).utural,2 thou0ht-

science creates itsel. and does not come readymade2 hereas2 positin0a non-human 0ener- ic2 a !noled0e already made2 the materialistdecision is conser/ati/e and annuls itsel. in !noled0e alreadyproduced or annihilates itsel. in the contemplation o. the past4 Ma!in0the 0eneric .all bac! on classes or sets is already to hand it o/er to thell2 albe- it bac!ards4 +. it,s not a class2 0enre2 or set2 it is instead apro/isionally unilateral dual- ity2 li!e )desirin0 machines,2 that hasor0anic and biolo0ical models throu0h hich the ll succeeds in


33/34

capturin0 it4 The problem o. protectin0 it is not o. redoublin0 it but o.emptyin0 it as the 7material9 a priori o. all content2 at least allduplicitous content2 ust as the idempotent &ne-in-&ne is emptied o. allcontent4 uni/ersal that does not to- talie2 it is not related toindi/iduals or bein0s li!e the super-ll that 0athers e/erythin0 to0ether

don to the last indi/iduals4

Generic duality is no doubt re-appropriable by the obecti/eappearance or philosophical hallucination4 8ein0 materialist is toassume the all o. philosophical ambitions /ia the mode o. a unilateralbut transcendent duality2 hich is there.ore somehat re- /ersibledespite e/erythin02 a duality cut out .rom the interior o. a philosophicalll that continues to rei0n as sucient and duplicitous4 8ut the 0enericis not an onto- lo0ical base2 a position and a brea!2 it is distinct .romontolo0y and all philosophical splittin04 +t is not a base o.consciousness2 representation or ideolo0y2 but the last-instance-%or 444

philosophy4 The radicaliation o. Feuerbach allos us to eliminate thephilosophical super-ll that ould be constructed upon it and to e;tractit as human .orce in order to trans%orm philosophy4 "hen the latter iseliminated too 3uic!ly and too sloly2 as is alays the case .or thematerialist brea!2 it then returns as reception and collection Kaccueil etrecueil4 Liberatin0 the 0eneric .rom its scienti5co-materialist in-scription is carried out in to ays: 14 speci5c science must2 throu0hits procedures and its obects and throu0h ithdraal2 stop directlydetermining the suture o. the 0e- neric to the ontolo0ical or meta-ontolo0ical ?4 science indirectly or in-the-last-instance determinesthe .oreclosure and suture beteen the 0eneric and philosophical or

epistemolo0ical transcendence 4 The re.erence to a particular scienceprecisely sub- sists as support 7)unilation,9 o. an epistemolo0icalsymptom4 This science chan0es sta-

?6@ The Generic as Predicate and Constant: Non-Philosophy andaterialism

tus: .rom the determinin0 under philosophical conditions inmaterialism2 it becomes determinin0 in-the-last-instance4 Materialisminscribes the 0eneric in the relati/e-absolute and not in radicalimmanence it subsumes it under the authority o. the philosophical

horion4 The a;ioms o. the 0eneric sciences are not ithout concretere.- erence2 and non-philosophy is not ithout re.erence to anepistemolo0ical symptom4 8ut they are no lon0er re.erred to an obector an obecti/e /oid2 not e/en a pul/eri- in0 obect that tends to the/oid li!e 8ein02 but instead a uni-et2 i4e4 a uni-lational )obect,4Cra.tin0 a philosophy o. the 0eneric is possible and perhaps necessary2but then e ould ta!e it as symptom and model o. a more uni/ersalscience-thou0ht2 o. a non- philosophy o. the 0eneric4


34/34

laruelle- the generic as predicate

Documents