I’ve spent time thinking about how things should go here and have come to some conclusions. First some preliminary thoughts. I think Matthias’s text tells it as it is.
There are a few points, though, I would like to expand on.
The non of non-buddhism, which is the anti-decisional non of non-philosophy, has never been developed beyond an intuition.
For me this is the central issue.
I don’t want to go into what the non would look like once developed beyond an intuition. Anyone interested can read what we have written on Laruelle here or do their own research.
But I would like to give one example of where it might have gone. Matthias has already touched on this:
At the same time Mr. Pepper appeared. He at once pointed out that Brassier and Laruelle both are beholden to an “atomistic” view which places the individual wrongly at the base of any analysis while in fact it is an effect of ideology. The dialectics of individual and ideology would have been a point of departure to begin to work on Laruelle’s thinking and how it solves the vicious circle such a relationship develops, but that never happened.
Here was an early opportunity to explore the disjunction between Badiou and Laruelle. This was essential given that Laruelle’s method is at the root of the non buddhist critique of Buddhism
Speaking of the genesis of non-buddhism Glenn Wallis described how:
[···] four concepts in particular were initially formative: decision, auto-position, specularity, and radical immanence.[···] Wallis: Nascent Speculative Non-Buddhism.
The question was this: given that decision and auto position transgressed against philosophic as much as against Buddhistic transcendence, and given that Laruelle had already explored the decisional nature of Badiou’s thought (Laruelle’s anti Badiou) how could we justify the introduction of Badiou’s thought into the practice of non–buddhism?
When Glenn inaugurated the new phase “under the sign of Badiou’s thought” he structured the contradiction into the new phase of the project.
To put it bluntly the non of non-philosophy is as much a transgression against Badiou’s thought as it is against Buddhist thought. It is a transgression against all isms, philosophical, religious or ideological.
This is the reason we should persist with Laruelle’s thought, despite its difficulty. He offers a way of perceiving the human as an a priori given free from any determination by philosophy, ideology or any admixture of the so-called human sciences and philosophy. Further he proclaims the lived of human experience as the condition for philosophy, making philosophy serve the human and not the other way round. In this he aligns his thought with Marx in its essentially materialist bent while avoiding the decisional structure of later forms of “dialectical and historical materialism”
1) Laruelle’s thought is central to the critique of absolutist philosophical and ideological systems and by implication of political practice.
2) Since political practice is central to any post Buddhist practice Laruelle remains central as we move on.
3) We are free to explore the usefulness of any philosophical postulate, once freed from the decisional structure.
4) Laruelle’s thought has as yet unexplored implications (unexplored by us) for the practice of politics.
5) We need to explore the relation between Laruelle’s thought, Marxism and the practice of radical politics.
6) Buddhism has no further role to play in the project, other than as an object of critique and a source of perhaps useful concepts or practices.
7) We need a name change.