This articles continues the series on this website dedicated to understanding and communicating non-philosophy. I raise a few problems I encountered while reading a text by Alex Dubilet, “Non-Human Identity and Radical Immanence – On Man-in-Person in Francois Laruelle’s Non-Philosophy,” which I otherwise very much appreciate. The original date of writing is June 29, 2017.
Dubilet leaves non-philosophy the moment he wants to have knowledge of Man. Since non-philosophy at every stage attempted to develop a non-epistemological thought, this desire to know amounts to a domain error. Questions of knowledge are certainly not out of bounds for non-philosophy, but they fall under the heading of the “philosophizable.” Philosophy can always philosophize about any X it can grab hold of, including “Man-in-person” if it wants to. But non-philosophy thinks the latter the same way it thinks the One-in-person, the immanence of the Undivided, which it supposes axiomatically to be given “prior” to the reach of philosophy (also prior even before phenomenological givenness). It is not a isolable, separable X at all. Neither the Real nor “Man” qua Real is philosophizable or “knowable”—not because it is unknowable like some Thing-in-itself, but because Man, and so thought, are immediately in-One without needing to cognize it, represent it, grasp it, or even ask a question about it; it is unseparate and unseparable, the generic milieu. Man is not without qualities and predicates because he is an ineffable mystery or via negativa, but because his radical identity is in-One, which itself is indifferent to predication, qualification, determination—and this due to the One’s immanent nature, not because it is unspeakable or actively repels significations.
Connected to this point, Dubilet also mischaracterizes or misapplies non-philosophy when he writes, “we only know that man is,” where emphasis really lands on the “is.” If it is still Man-in-person that we’re implying here, then this is an error. One of the cardinal axioms of non-philosophy is that the One, and so Man, is not convertible with Being. This point cannot be emphasized strongly enough. That the One is not convertible with Being is perhaps the hardest axiom to apply rigorously, but without it non-philosophy dissolves. Language struggles to say otherwise (we want to say, “the One is,” and immediately we are led astray). But if we care about rigor then it will always be a corruption of non-philosophical thought to say things like “radial immanence is there,” or worse, that, “one has always been [material immanence]”! The here/there division, as well as the position of externality it implies, can only be overcome by starting each time with the axioms, axioms given in-One, according to the One. This may seem like a minor point, but in fact a great deal is decided here. Dubilet allows a slippage between Man-in-person and “a” man—as if we could seamlessly slip from the radical immanence (of) the One to the being-there of a living being (one among many, this man here, ecce homo, etc.)—as if it was a matter of realizing, “I myself will always have been just that: the Real” (non-human or not). (It would also be an error to think Man-in-person designated the presence of all of humanity in “me.”) So much of non-philosophy is dedicated to correcting such a dubious mixtures.
Dubilet deliberately mixes up Man-in-person and the metaphysical, historical, or worldly avatars of Man (or at least he plays to the reader’s suspicion on this matter). This is due largely to the fact that he wants to philosophize critically about the former; to do so, he must identify it with, or impute to it, the residues of the latter. Thus, Man-in-person is without further ado lumped in with what today’s discourses call “the human” (let’s leave aside the fact that just by invoking this as a category, as object of knowledge, we are squarely in philosophy; whereas Man-in-person is no category, has no referent in reality, etc.). He does specifies that Man-in-person is a first name, yet goes on to treat it as if it were nonetheless meant as a proper name. And so he does not explain the theoretical function of first names in non-philosophy: how immanence is indifferent to them, how they are all equal, how their use for theory (philo-fictions) is determined in the last instance by the One, how they aim to “use silence,” how they lack the priority of logos, etc. And, even more crucially, that Man-in-person is no sufficient name of the Real. No name is sufficient, but naming and sufficiency aren’t the goal here, and there is no restriction on invention; one can speak, as Laruelle sometimes does, of the Nowhere-in-person, the Answer-in-person, Redemption-in-person, etc. It is not a question of what it is or names, but how it is used in a theoretical matrix to modelize immanence, the radical autonomy of the One vis-a-vis not just names but language as well and any such decisions.
Dubilet makes a plea for emptying the signifier “Man” of sense, but non-philosophy never gives it any sense at all. This is what it means to say it is an axiomatic and non-epistemological theory, modeled on science rather than on philosophical discourse. It is at least unfair to suggest that non-philosophy retains such “humany,” total-meaningy connotations under the heading of Man-in-person, without once discussing the importance of oraxioms (lived axioms) and the specificity of first names, which have nothing to do with “naming radical immanence human.” First-naming is not an act of necessary nomination, but of contingent experimentation for philo-fictions. Failing to reconstruct the logic and syntax of non-philosophical thought, this amounts to an objection to a choice of words. Later, he suggests instead “Cockroach-in-person,” the cockroach as name of the Real and even as the “truth of non-philosophy”—does that really mean more, or something better? what does this accomplish? He implies that in non-philosophy there is a “process of humanization” that needs to be thwarted, but the latter is only assumed or projected (there is no becoming-anything in Laruelle). Dubilet must know he is distorting things here; my fear is that he is responding to the spontaneous connotation of words and misunderstandings of the theory. But such a “critique” spreads a confusion about non-philosophy’s mode, because it neither clarifies nor practices it.
When the article comes to Lispector, the slippages and inconsistencies continue. In the name of the non-human, Dubilet wants to elevate the experience of “neutral” and “impersonal” life above what he sees as Laruelle’s overemphasis on the “in-person.” He wants to be able to say, “I, neutral cockroach body.” A few comments apply here. First, it is the subject who says “I am” and “I live”; it is the grossest error to think non-philosophy is about learning to say, “I, Man-in-person” (not to mention the error of converting immanence into being). The subject of thought and enunciation has only ever been theorized as a transcendental “clone” of the One and for good reason. The solitude of Man-in-person is not, as Dubilet seems to suggest, a matter of “one’s own proper individual self”; nor does immanence set off anything like an individuation process. This is precisely what the thematic of the generic is to remedy: it already responds to the demand for the neuter and the impersonal. In French, Man-in-person is written “Homme-en-personne,” which I believe can and should be read as Man-in-no-one (English commentators should consistently mention this). For it is never a matter of identifying “personally” with the One, or of “being” Man “oneself.” As is made clear in books like Christo-fiction, the “effect” of the wave-like One is rather a depersonalization, deindividualization, a rendering-generic. To replace this with a rendering-cockroach is speculative realism at best, a product of the imaginary.
To return to Lispector, she sees a nonhuman, nonspecific, general movement of Life in the cockroach, and she identifies with it (side note: isn’t this recourse to “life” too a bit… metaphysical? isn’t life here that which transcends all the living beings whose presences “radiate” it?). This question is the most difficult of all. What I can briefly say is that Dubilet takes us in the direction of Henry’s philosophy of Life or Deleuze’s “a life”—but leaves out all mention of the non-philosophical concept of the “lived-without-life” (the generic lived, subtracted from life-death, not folded into a singular life or subsumed under the totality of Life). That the logic of the latter is left out is another instance of a failure to adequately reconstruct the theory, or to even discuss the option it presents to this problematic. What Dubilet seems to advocate for “humans” is an immanent, impersonal and non-human Life-in-person, which occurs or joyfully surges prior to all subjectivity, humanity, and worldly existence. And yet, although the goal here is to extract, “the human from false metaphysical attributes,” he also quotes Lispector favorably when she writes that, “man…is inevitably human.” He is no ideal human (but Man-in-person is no ideal either), but neither is he a cockroach!
In sum, Dubilet rightly wants to decouple radical immanence, “from the process of transcendence and ideality, of humanization”—this is a primal aim of non-philosophy. But doing so by coupling it to the non-human—or to an animal chosen essentially at random, a cockroach—is bound to fail (except as a creative commentary), especially if, “man… is inevitably human.” Let me close by saying I have always been wary of the phrase Man-in-person and have questioned its necessity, which is why I felt the need to evaluate this critique of it. I have always felt it was designed to mobilize a philosophical term and heritage to new uses. To defend it in full would take lots of reconstructive work and would likely not be worth it. In my view, most of Dubilet’s goals (impersonality, etc.) are pursued by Laruelle in a very rigorous way under the heading of generic immanence, generic humanity, and the generic human. It would probably be necessary to look at “En dernière humanité” to really evaluate all this.
I am obviously ready to be corrected on these matters and I’m happy to discuss. I don’t pretend to be an expert, but I do have a concern for the rigor of the theory, thus I share my thoughts. Thanks to Alex Dubilet once again for writing such a thought-provoking piece.