I am still reading Laruelle’s “Cristo fiction”. I am liking some of his terms.
He makes a distinction between nonphilosophucal idempotence and philosophical repetition.
Indeed this is part of the idea of partition that I speak of when I have said that we have to stop the persistent philosophical deconstructing of terms. I will get into this whole process and my third book, but for now it is enough to say that a partition is needed because no one can ever say anything without the philosophical re-joinder ‘what do you mean by such and such’.
This is not to say that such method of query and clarification is not needed, but it is more that we find that such questions Refeal rea but it is more that we find that such questions Refer to real situations, for example, philosophy of computer science, or philosophy of driving on the left side of the road, or the philosophy of neuroscience, The philosophy of AI. All of these ‘philosophies of…’ can never be stopped; One cannot simply hold their hand up to stop at motion because the method thereby wants to continue questioning even when one slams their face into a brick wall. We simply say that the brick wall is there and you slammed her face into it and ya aint going to get past it. No matter what philosophical gymnastics you want to apply to the situation. Even if I say ‘mama dog face in the banana patch’, still your nose is bloody you have a big scrape on your four head and your little bit dizzy. We simply admit that philosophy has to do with reality.
By this we bring in Plato’s forgetting and Kierkegaard’s repetition. How many rounds does the human being have to go through before realizes that it’s really not saying anything more then it can say that it is capable of saying; how many arguments must be made before we realize we’re just resorting to the same arguments? Well, for real philosophical method, we must go on forever because that is the nature of the mythology of progress. But it is clear once we understand the point of contention that such philosophical repetition is based in a transcendental clause.
On the other hand; idempotence definition:
denoting an element of a set that is unchanged in value when multiplied or otherwise operated on by itself.
What is key here is the distinction between these two sets, what I call two routes.
Philosophical repetition is understood to not occur in it’s effective and real actuality; which is to say, Real agents do not acknowledge repetition except in the context of spiritual progression.
The irony of the whole situation that leads to a necessary devergence from such spiritual/real progress, is that the progress of the same is its failure.
Idempotence thereby describes the situation whereby the philosophical reduction loses its veracity as a method for finding solution. It is a situation where the identity is not affected and or changed in its doubling.