I am making my way into the resources that I will use for the third book of philosophical hack.
I got through”of spirit”, Derrida, and I am now making my way through Laruelle’s “Christo- fiction”.
If of spirit allowed me to evidence this particular view of which I am attempting to expound upon, Cristo fiction, again just like his other books, reads like a quantum entanglement would imply.
I lied in my other post saying that I’ve read two or three of Laruelle’s books; I have two or three of his books and I’ve read portions of all of them including some of his essays and including essays written by other people about him. My experience with L as you might see in my early early posts, was the same that I convey about my experience with Kierkegaard, yet at least 10 years apart. In fact the first thing that I had read of nine philosophy was the dictionary of line 9 floss if h in fact the first thing that I had read of nonphilosophy was the dictionary of NP, and just like”Being and Event”, I had only to read a couple sentences to know exactly his point; this Point reverberates through all of his works such that when I read other books of his already know what. He saying.
Of course all those great thinkers to read so closely and thoroughly to discover the true meaning of philosophical authors would say that I’m filled with shit. And I would say that they do not understand what he’s writing about.
The only difference that I have with Laruelle is that he appears to be invested in the idea that somehow this way of seeing, this ‘Christ science’, so to speak, might be able to be taught to others. I say that that idea is a motion of bad faith (see my earliest posts on Bad Faith). The problem he notices, and so it kind of boggles my mind why he still proceeds upon andassumption or a presumption that he can overcome the situation that he’s describing.
More in a bit…