Home » Responsivities » Inscribed Electrons » PAN-cognitive equivalence & flat CAKE theory

PAN-cognitive equivalence & flat CAKE theory

[John Ó Maoilearca]:”After 5 years work, All Thoughts Are Equal is finally out. There’s a link to a 20% flyer below. Coffee and biscuits not included.” (here)

 
{AK}: “All Thoughts Are Equal” & “Coffee and biscuits not included”?
           Although assertions of pan-cognitive equivalence do not directly contradict considerations of inclusivity with respect to the work on offer, the exclusion of such baked confections is worrying. The unilateral banning of a beverage, too, without explanation, is no less bereft of such anxiety.
Aside from the uncertain particularity of the ‘biscuit’ subset, regarding the general category of baked confections – Jaffa Cakes? – a more pressing consideration presents itself.

 
It is asserted that the unity of a textual work (“5 years work”), concerning an all-inclusive cognitive democracy, has been finalised (“is finally out”). Yet a subset of baked confections & a beverage appear only as negations, moreover, as negations mentioned ‘outside’ the allegedly ‘finalised work’. Whether or not they are cited within the hallowed confines of Ó Maoilearca’s pan-cognitive opus is uncertain. But, if such is not the case, are we confronted with the author’s mockery of his own work & claims? This is difficult to determine.

 
Ostensibly, the work could be seen as an integrated demonstration of the titular thesis, the externally mentioned negations as orbital confirmations of that thesis: “All Thoughts”, wherever they are, “Are Equal”, ‘textual work’ (“book”) boundaries notwithstanding.

 
Or, by couching the work in a hypothetical ‘transaction’, where the exclusion of biscuit & beverage purchases a reduction in cost of the “book” (the work-as-commodity; “a link to a 20% flyer”), has Ó Maoilearca secretly written a work of political economy?

 
More disturbingly, perhaps: does the author’s finalisation of his work index a departure from cognitive democracy itself? Was pan-cognitive egalitarianism a five year task that is “is finally out” & finished with? Is Ó Maoilearca free to return to hierarchical concerns?

 
Or, there is always the possibility that the author’s overt exclusion of the baked confection & beverage industries masks a covert collusion with them. The lack of brand specification in “Coffee and biscuits” suggests the complicity of general, industry-wide marketing boards, experimenting with the instruments of generality characteristic of Philosophy.

 
Whatever the details, it is obvious that the work itself, the “book”, is merely a pretext for its author. At the risk of initiating a new orthodoxy of interpretation concerning Ó Maoilearca’s work, it seems “incontournable” that everything hinges on the “Coffee and biscuits”!
The author’s real achievement, of which he was entirely unaware during its performance, is that of writing a work that has nothing to do with Francois Laruelle, whilst copiously citing that very thinker throughout the work! Only by giving himself over, entirely, to a Laruellean pretextual consciousness, was Ó Maoilearca able to generate, as a quantum effect of ‘critical emanation’ (cf. ‘Catastrophe Theoretics’), the random manifestation of baked confection (bcp) & beverage (bvp) particularities, in such a definite configuration (C(bcp-bvp)).
Consumed by the localised labour of the Laruellean thesis, even the possibility of non-local ‘critical emanation’ of C(bcp-bvp) was necessarily obscured to Ó Maoilearca. Nevertheless, as soon as that labour was complete, the inexorable law of non-local ‘critical emanation’ exercised its power through Ó Maoilearca himself, using him as its instrument of production.

 
No doubt, the author’s protestations are to be expected; & can be attributed to the proportional persistence of Laruellean pretextual consciousness; spellbound by his earlier labours, as Ó Maoilearca must be.

 
It is difficult not to fall into the position of Russell surveying Frege’s work on the foundations of arithmetic, or Bohr critiquing Einstein’s “hidden variables”, but, of course, this review is of far greater import. Those earlier encounters merely concerned local disciplinary concerns. This evaluation, like the work it examines, concerns everything, all that is thought.
Of the three scenarios of scrutiny, this review, definitely, & non-locally, “takes the biscuit”, even though only non-biscuits were offered.
[Tags: Area 51, Extraterrestrial Confection Conspiracy, Hollow Earth Semiotics & Jammie Dodgers as Transcendental Edible]


2 Comments

  1. Dear Artxell,
    this review is somehow above my head. Can you please try to illuminate to me what the critique of Mullarkey’s work is in a nutshell? I myself found his book ‘All thoughts are equal’ helpful to gain some petspectives on Laruelle. Look forward to you comment Artxell.

    • “Hi Matthias,
      Yes, I can see an email notification from my blog. The post was written as a joke.
      John Ó Maoilearca/Mullarkey had posted about his book on Terence’s Laruelle page. So I quickly wrote that, based on his pre-publication announcement, though I hadn’t read the book. But I took what I discerned as its thematic, & combined it with Terence’s general points about the lack, in the ‘Laruelleans’; of quantum critique, whatever that is; & wrote a satire, inventing a kind of ‘quantum critique’ out of the biscuits that Ó Maoilearca/Mullarkey had shown in a picture of the book, on his FB post.

      Ó Maoilearca/Mullarkey was cautious, in his FB responses to my satire. When he posted about this, “Thinking In Equality: On Laruelle’s Democracy of Thought“, on Terence’s Laruelle page, I wrote a serious critique, here, “The Thoughtscape of Levelled Promotions“.
      I posted the critique on my blog, & a link to it in the comments section of his blogpost. It wasn’t allowed through. When Ó Maoilearca/Mullarkey posted again on Terence’s Laruelle page, I commented again, leaving another link to the critique on my blog, just in case he’d missed it. He then deleted his post, & everything else he’d done on Terence’s Laruelle page.
      However, this was not entirely, or really, due to me, but largely, I have been informed, because of other ongoing conflicts.
      In any case, after all that, I posted this, to Terence’s Laruelle page:

      “Artxell Knaphni
      3 November 2015

      To F. Laruelle & his acolytes,

      It is only in the institutions of an imperialised consensuality, that the rhetoric of ‘democracy’ becomes such a constrained operation: conforming only to the rigid conceptions & receptions characteristic of those institutions: the institutional workers, completely lacking the agility & power to actually think, try to appropriate the very spaces, whose modalities they exclude. Those realms were never empty, they have already been thought & lived through; & the natives there, speak & understand the language you believe to be yours, much better than you. It’s understandable that such institutional personnel would run away. Lol”

      https://www.facebook.com/groups/473188082854780/permalink/504044893102432/

Leave a Reply