Introduction
This, “The Dancing Constructions of Wisdom”, was written back in early November, along with the posts on “A Divine Avenue”.
It concerns the notion, & more particularly, the signifier, of “Philo-fiction”.
Terence Blake has already informed me of the Franco-institutional origin from which Laruelle has derived this categoria inventio, as it were.
It seems to me, that this origination, & more especially, its subsequent dissemination, are strongly indicative of a weak & farcical repetition of earlier innovations, namely SF.
It is the bandwagon jumping of those who were never inventive in the first place, those who require institutional permission to think at all, let alone think for themselves. Just as with OOO, SR, etc., it is faintly ridiculous to see such people struggle to articulate the obvious, in the language & thought-styles of the dogmatically ignorant, & then pose as ‘discoverers’ of an already inhabited continent.
Henceforth, if it proves necessary to refer to Laruelle’s “Philo-fiction”, I’m probably going to use ‘Philosophiction’, or whatever occurs to me, at the time. It can be a zone of critical & differential play.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Philo-fiction” does not suggest philosophical fiction. “Phil-” signifies “love”; “sophia” signifies “wisdom”. So “Philo-fiction” would only suggest the love of fiction. I guess that “Philo-fiction” has an abrupt, alliterative appeal, but it’s clumsy, & indicates only the kind of market-centred mindset catering to populist degenerations. In addition, it seems to be a kind of market-generated ghetto genre, purpose-built as a containment, another ‘holding-pattern’.
That’s not where I’m from. Ghetto for ghetto, I prefer SF, as it developed through to the early 1980s. That’s one of the ‘worlds’ I inhabited, that gets inflected through my writings. As far as I’m concerned, Philosophy occurs very much within the spaces of thought already opened up by those earlier contemplations.
Having crisscrossed, combined & differentiated, recombined & re-differentiated in countless other ways; at so-called ‘root metaphorical’ levels, & when a young teenager in the 1970s; the emphasis, for me, if there is one, is no longer something which can be communicated easily to others.
There is no need to territorialise, in the Deleuzian sense, over realms already mapped, so to speak. Those cartographic excursions issue from presuppositions already dogmatic from the outset. Such charts can only serve the demands of insular navigation, extending that insularity, in turn. Though better topographies are available, they have, on the whole, not been implemented, being consigned to manifestations of undeveloped ‘idealism’ instead.
“A Divine Avenue” is not “Philo-fiction”, whatever that is.