The Matter at Hand ?

— from “All Thoughts Are Equal”. by john maoilearca

While Laruelle Is often understood to be taking a hard line about some thing that is absolutely and insistently true, If we can get on board with Zizek always asking “what if” the philosopher really doesn’t know what he’s talking about and that it is up to us, the subsequent, to pull out the true ramifications of any philosophy — If we can really get behind this, not as a post modern eternal subjectivity which just gets to make up its own meanings about anything and live in its own world of utter alienation, rather, As indeed that is what is actually occurring despite what people want to argue about might be the case —
Then a more realistic understanding of what Laurelle is talking about concerns more how the human being actually functions, how the mind functions to allow for real understanding of things manifested as knowledge.

when we understand what non-philosophy is really saying about philosophy, it is then not so much that philosophy is wrong or pointing to something that is not real. it is more indicating what is actually occurring in these tropes that we know under various terms, such as, consciousness, thinking, perception, knowledge. etc.

and, when we get over the basic offense of how non-philosophy seems so ridiculous, then we begin to truly understand what it is that we are going through as human beings in the world.

as Laruelle points out here and there, This move that I’m talking about has nothing to do with removing philosophy or negating it or suggesting in any way that philosophy is giving us things that are wrong. It is only that philosophy is giving us things in a certain light, and that this light, in this way that I’m talking about, is real. Not non-philosophically real, but in the actuality of the process that philosophy is involved with in itself, which is to say, as an object in its self of the universe.

This is thus not a negation of philosophy to say that we need to choose some other route or somehow come cognitively or non-cognitively, have some sort of intuition of how philosophy is giving us incorrect information somehow. No. Laruelle’s hard line is merely for effect, the necessity for noticing.  rather, we begin to understand that philosophy is giving us a particular view upon reality. And that non-philosophy therefore has more to do with what is true then it does with reality. And again, this is not to say that somehow I get to dismiss myself from reality and dealing with real things. But it does say something about how now I approach reality, it does say something about how I appear, how I arrive in reality, as well as saying something about my relationship to other people, things, and the world.