Laruelle’s “Fragments of an Anti-Guattari”

[This may be cited as Laruelle, F.; Wolfe, C. (trans.). (1993). “Fragments of an Anti-Guattari.” Long News in the Short Century 4, pp. 158-164. Retrieved from

The following is reproduced with permission. A pdf version is available here.]

1.1   It was the Post-Modern times
        Unlimited becoming-cinema
        Image-debris in a state of fixed surview
        Thinkers were then producing the Real
        A bachelor philosopher a bachelor analyst
        A dyad of bachelors was inventing
        The reversibility of desire and the concept
        The “D-G” desiring-machine
        Consider the following diagram

laruelle AG diagram

1.2    About-face inversion of the Greek horizon
        Great Desirers they went down to the Heraclitus stream
        Bathed once-for-two in the same flux
        Foreswearing the One-logos of the hospital-schizos – The Sensible
        In the Collective-logos of schizo-processes – The Senseless
               “The right to madness, superhuman right of the human”
               “Take into consideration desire in its entirety”
               “A thousand Oedipuses do not make one incest”
               “The Same is the Desired and the Desiring—by one machine more or less”
               “The stream is the self-production of the stream”

“Heraclitus! Heraclitus!
Only one ‘flash’ can set fire to a thousand plateaus”

“Emblem of necessity
Supreme constellation of Desire
Eternal Yes of Desire
Forever I shall be your Yes”

         Thus they spoke of the eternal and cunning speeches
         Tautologies linking past and future
         New theory of indiscernables – the concept as bridge

1.3    Transcendental cartographers of the thousand eternities of Being
         To the proximity constellations Mythos and Logos
         Their extinction has not yet reached us –
         They have added shining-obscure
         The so-called “Chaos” constellation
         A stream of neighbouring stars
         “Chaosmos”, “Chaosmosis”, “Chaology”, “chaosmology”
         And the most recent “Ecology-of-Chaos” also known as “Echaology”

         – Its birth has not yet been announced

1.4    A philosopher – an analyst up to one auto-position
         An analyst – a philosopher up to one unconscious
         Reversible up to an “up to an X”
         Naming their common non-sense “Desire”
         The archaic originary One-Two of “desiring Desire”
         Oh mythology which never ceases to bring back
         The D(i)eux [D(y)ei] of grammar

1.5    We have loved these transcendental tautologies
         Stretched out like a temple over our heads
         Worlding World/nullifying Nothingness/speaking Speech/desiring Desire
         Merry-go-round spun around by a Leibnizian ritournelle

“The philosopher, turning, so to speak, the general system of these tautologies that he deems suitable to be produced to manifest his thought, from side to side and in all ways, and looking over all the facets of this ‘fourfold’ in all possible ways, since there is no relation which escapes his omniscience; the result of each view of this system, as seen from a certain place up to a turn, is a philosophy which expresses this total, if the philosopher deems it suitable to render the thought effective and to produce this philosophy.” From which 12 founding statements [follow]: “take into consideration
                the nullifying world
                the speaking world
                the desiring world
                the worldifying nothingness
                the speaking nothingness
                the desiring nothingness
                the worldifying speech
                the nullifying speech
                the desiring speech
                the worldifying desire
                the nullifying desire
                the speaking desire … in its entirety
        For 12 new philosophers among the thousand
        Coming up from the bottom of the Future


2.1   I call “One (of) desire” desire as One rather than One as desire

        Consider the One (of) desire

(up to a point, more or less, up to a being more or less, not
   approximating “as close as X”, not on the basis of any
      desire, before it disjoins itself into desired and desiring,
          and blends in the concept and the unconscious)

        … What is called thinking?

2.2   I call “Desiring desire” the doublet which opens analysis
        and the difference which implodes it in super-analysis

Either it desires itself
Inverts reverts itself into super-analysis
Big with a thousand desired-desiring amphibologies

Either it ceases in the One (of) desire to desire itself
Emerges to its own manifestation
As three states (of) desire
Categories of a non-analysis

           – The One (of) desire
                       – or the Desired-without-desire
                               – the order of the real
           – The Being (of) desire
                       – or the Desirings which are [the] multitude
                                                                                of desire-thinking
                               – the order of the symbolic
           – The Entity (of) desire
                       – or desiring Desire
                               – the order of the imaginary

2.3   I call “One (of) desire” or Desired the Enjoyed (of) jouissance

The One (of) jouissance rather than the jouissance of the One
That which in desire is enjoyed from both ends
That to which desire does not give its share
That part of desire which appears to desire alone
Its absolutely un-desirable and just so desired phenomenon

The Enjoyed suspended in its own immanence
What begins and completes itself with no circle
Begins there without departing from it
Completes itself there without return

Deserted without desire
Too simple the desert is not rare

Desired, absolute past of desire
Enjoyed, absolute past of enjoyment
As the Lived
Precedes the living the Affected
Affection the Enjoyed
Solitude of closed eyes before
The confinement of solitude

Reduced form enjoyment spark of desire
The Ir-reduced of the Enjoyed, the intense Extinguished of the Desired
Are a mystical razor
An ante-essential rather than supra-essential state

2.4   If as Desirings it is still possible to say of desire that it desires
        Being (of) desire
        It is suspended in-
        The Desirings remain

I call Desirings the multitude (of) axioms
Of the void beyond the Desired
On this side of the desire-Entity

Think in-Desired
Make Being void of desire
Prepare the dwelling of the Desirings

Of the Desired the axiom is never stated
Unless it is also the cause of the axiom
And insofar as it is

The axiomatics of Desirings adds nothing to the Desired
Just itself to itself
The axiom seen-in-full

Consider the fluxion of desired-desiring connections
Its suspension like a photograph
Reveals to the unclear side of the stream
A strict identity between the source and the mouth
The frozen flux of an eidetic Heraclitus
Frozen-in-One like a sky of eternal axioms

Desired is the non-moved and the non-moving
Desirings are the mobile or the flying moved once each time
Desire-desiring is the moved motor


The One (of) desire gathers without division all possible (undividable)
The Being (of) desire gathers without division all possible division
Being is particular – oh Desirings
Particle is the partition with nothing to part
A partition from one end to another
Without mixing with the Desired as is
The undiscernable molecule
of desiring Desire

Desire receives thinking not from thinking itself
From the grace of the One (of) desire and then thinking
Thinking receives desire not from desire itself
From the grace of the in-Desired and then of desire


Translated by Charles Wolfe


Author’s notes

“Desired”: past participle of ‘desire’, which I make into a noun.

“in-Desired”: en rather than dans, indicating an interiority or a radical inherence/immanence.

Sensés”-Senseless: translation of Heraclitean terms.

“Fourfold”: Heideggerian term (Cf. “The Thing”).

Jouissance”/“Enjoyment”: Lacanian term. I extract from it the past participle Joui (Enjoyed) which I make into a noun.

“Reduced”-“spark”: mystical terms. (Cf. Meister Eckhart).

“Ir-reduced”: not opposed to “Reduced”; cf. “irreducible”.

“Extinct”/“Extinguished”: past participle of ‘extinguish’, which I make into a noun.

“razor”: Cf. Ockham’s razor.

“ante-essential”: cf. the mystical term ‘supra-essential’; before Essence (=Being), above or beyond Essence (=Being).


: Editor’s notes:

I have emended the second term in §1.3’s antepenultimate line. It originally read ‘Chaosmose’, while Laruelle doubtless means ‘Chaosmosis’, the title of one of Guattari’s books. Cf. the French osmose, which translates to the English ‘osmosis’.

In §1.4, ‘self-position’ has been changed to ‘auto-position’, in keeping with standard translations of Laruelle.

“Nullifying nothingness” (1.5) refers to Heidegger’s statement “The nothing nothings.” Laruelle clearly has in mind the meaning ‘nothinging nothingness’, which unfortunately does not parse well into English.                                                                     — G.J.


About Graham Joncas

We are a way for capital to know itself.

Posted on March 13, 2013, in Non-Philosophy, Philosophy, Psychoanalysis, Schizoanalysis and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 15 Comments.

  1. Reblogged this on AGENT SWARM and commented:
    Laruelle on Guattari. This is his anti-guattari. I would have preferred a non-Guattari. I think it is more about Laruelle’s unliquidated relation to Lacan and to his non-analysis, which I find to be a halfway house between Lacanism and Schizoanalysis. Still, I could be wrong…

  2. Interesting, esoteric and sometimes indecipherable. Thought experiments! Love it.

  3. I do find it interesting that Laruelle never published this in French, and that technically this would be his first piece published in English…The problem with doing a ‘non-’ Guattari instead of an ‘anti-’ Guattari is that L’s non-, as we know, has rules, and those rules guide the reciprocal redescription of the material in accordance with the non-thetic a prioris…

    I would say, L makes things easier for himself by proceeding via ‘anti-’, because in that case he doesn’t have to follow any rules!!! He just riffs and riffs….

    It is interesting to note that I have not seen L write on ‘Anti-’ anyway besides Guattari…until a few years ago with his book on Badiou, that is.

  4. What is also puzzling to me is this: in his ‘Response to Deleuze’, he only mentions Guattari’s name once, as though WIP were written solo…

    What saddens me, however, is that the G piece by L gets published a year after G’s death (in English, too, not French)…

    And, alas, the ‘Response’ gets published a few years after D’s death…

    So, maybe this is wrong, but I wonder how much this piece on Guattari is L’s own poetic attempt at a tribute, an homage, a eulogy for G…

    Nevertheless, the status of ‘anti-’ for L is very problematic…since the One is indifferent to its descriptions, and since non-philosophy does not compete with philosophy in effectivity, it is hard for me to qualify what this ‘anti-‘ is doing… the closest thing I can come to see is this: ‘anti-’ is not an opposition, but an apposition… there’s a kind of playing G against himself…

    At least that’s what I’d like to think…There’s no need to read L as ‘opposing’ Guattari or inverting him. If he returns G to G, then this would be with the maximum aspect of a double that would begin the uni-version of-the-last-instance…

    So, I’d like to see it as L constituting a thought that would be Other-than G, rather than Other-of…

    As L says in his Response to D, none of this is against Deleuze, but all of it is against the philosopher in Deleuze…

    I agree with Terrence, there is a thread of this against Lacan, the Lacan in G…

    But, I would stress one last reading of the ‘anti-’ (you can see it bothers me): would not the ‘anti-’ accord with the sense of ‘Anti-Oedipus’, insofar as that seems to be the text that Laruelle is setting off from? So, how to continue the thrust of the anti- in a Guattarian vein? How to use the anti- of G and ‘against’ G, but for a serious thinking of the stakes of G/L, not a ‘forget G’ in a purely negative vein…

  5. I’m also sensing a bit in which the emphasis on ‘anti-’ in the title of the essay is pursued through the ‘ante-’ and ‘precedence’ of the One, the Enjoyed, the Desired…it is a shame that we don’t have a French version of this text….this would be something that I would hope L would share with us :). Not that I question the translated title….just that I see more emphasis on the status of an ‘ante’-Guattari than an ‘anti-’…I wonder how much is at stake with that slippage…

  6. Also, Chaosmose is the French title of Guattari’s last work…and since it wasn’t published in English until 95, that’s why the reference to Guattari’s original French title…. I have heard some discussion about the translation of the title in English, insofar as ‘Chaosmosis’ virtually wipes out the play on ‘chaosmos’ that DG spend time elaborating in C&S…

  7. It seems to me there’s a special kindness present here — underscored perhaps by the poetic treatment; at any rate I was reminded of the new “gentleness” which Guattari indicated was so urgent; there’s definitely elements of homage here. (It also strikes me as interesting that the theme of philosophy only appears briefly in 1.5, and in detached — quoted — form…)

  8. Laruelle’s essay was published in Long News 4 as part of an homage to Guattari, among essays by Negri and several of Guattari’s other close friends. So the term “Anti-Guattari” appears very odd alongside the eulogies that accompany it. I can only imagine the awkward conversations with the editors that must have taken place…. So the piece is an homage, but an odd one. It’s not exactly a critique, but neither does Laruelle (fully) indulge his tendency to skirt around whatever topic he’s ostensibly supposed to be writing about (as best illustrated in his lecture ‘on’ ecology) in favor of just talking about his own ideas.

    In the introduction to Anti-Badiou there are two excerpts which are somewhat helpful in explaining Laruelle’s intentions in his use of ‘Anti-‘. The first (xxxi):

    There are at least two traditions of the “anti-.” One is recent—religious anti-philosophy against the Enlightenment in the eighteenth century, or inversely anti-religion, which attacks a global thought or ideology; and then contemporary psychoanalysis and which is a relatively structured thought. The other is named or individuated—a genre punctuated by The Anti(ante)–Christ, Anti-Düring, Anti-Kautsky. For, to be able to say “anti-,” it is best to have a proper name as spokesperson of the ideology one opposes. Deleuze & Guattari’s Anti-Oedipus is located at the midpoint between these two traditions. As is the present book, which attacks a philosophical personality recognized as very significant. It is thus indeed an Anti-Badiou, and critiques “a” philosophy through an individual in perfect concord with it.

    The second (xxxiv):

    The Anti- is not a dialogue. I oppose him to read in him—and this is from the very outset—some axioms entirely different from his own and whose type of weakness can no longer be measured against the force of his—this paradox must be understood.

    But it’s still difficult to put one’s finger precisely on how this extends to Guattari.

  9. My salutes to everyone. I think Ian Buchanan says in his article about may’ 68 that Guattari was known in the French press as ‘Mr. Anti’ because of his activism, which is illustrative but I don’t think has much to offer with what is discussed here. At least we can take it as a funny coincidence ;-)

  10. That is quite a happy coincidence…I think in a Deleuzian vein, Laruelle is describing ‘buggery’ that is made explicit through the ‘anti-’, an (auto-)buggery…

  11. Just to note something…Laruelle has a text in German called ‘Anti-Hermes’ (cf. Text und Interpretation, Deutsch-französische Debatte mit Beiträgen von 1. Derrida, Ph. Forget, M. Frank, H.-G. Gadamer, J. Greisch und F. Laruelle…

    Derrida has two essays in there, with Gadamer in the middle…they seem to be working in tandem, although I haven’t read this exchange here.

    Anyway, thought that was interesting to note this other usage of ‘Anti’ in L’s work.

    • Thanks Taylor, I do appreciate it.

      There’s a snippet from “Anti-Hermes” online (used as an epigraph for this dissertation), which my German housemate translates as follows:

      A text in general is simultaneously and optionally (rule of reversibility) an interpreted and an interpreting. The only criterion is the option of the two’s “simultaneously” and of their conversion.

      Make of that what you will…

  12. I think it’s a mistake to presume anti-(Guattari) is a subject localized first of all on Laruelle, or by the same token the (autopositional) reader – especially looking at the opening section.

    Thinkers were then producing the Real
    A bachelor philosopher a bachelor analyst
    A dyad of bachelors was inventing
    The reversibility of desire and the concept
    The “D-G” desiring-machine …
    Great Desirers they went down to the Heraclitus stream
    Bathed once-for-two in the same flux
    Foreswearing the One-logos of the hospital-schizos – The Sensible
    In the Collective-logos of schizo-processes – The Senseless …
    A philosopher – an analyst up to one auto-position
    An analyst – a philosopher up to one unconscious
    Reversible up to an “up to an X”
    Naming their common non-sense “Desire”
    The archaic originary One-Two of “desiring Desire”

    He gives what we need to understand the ‘anti-’ at the outset. Anti-Guattari can mean, simplest level, Guattari’s opposite (number) Deleuze – analyst/philosopher, bachelor/bachelor, ‘reversible up to an “up to an X,” “up to one unconscious.”’ More fundamentally, if you remember that antisymmetric relations are defined in terms of non-reciprocity,* then anti-(Deleuze)/Guattari indicates something like a coupled pair of unilateral dualities, Deleuze(/Guattari) and Guattari(/Deleuze), that compose the(ir) joint identity – a Syzygy – seen from Guattari’s side. Or, more to the point, on the occasion of his mortal last-instance. (Graham’s quote above from “Anti-Hermes” also demonstrates the Syzygy-structure pretty well.)
    *Given an antisymmetric relation Y on set X, if for some x,y elements of X, Y(x,y) where x≠y, then Y(y,x) cannot hold. So, if Y is complete on X, it will contain all and only the pairs (x,y) elements of X that are non-reversible moves (but in either direction), or repeated/cloned identities.

    In part it’s an axiomatized love story, or a story of (thought) axiomatizing ((desiring-)desire) on the basis of love; an homage to Guattari’s great X, the transcendental Chaos-constellation whereby he (was) re/constituted (alongside) Deleuze. The ‘originary One-Two [that] bathed once-for-two in the same flux. … “Forever I shall be your Yes.”’ Also fascinating to see some of the pre-Stranger basic development for non-analysis’ syntactic matrix of jouissance…especially since my French did not prove remotely equal to THEORIE DES ETRANGERS, heh. Altogether, it’s a pretty stunning tribute to all the things Guattari made possible. I wonder what Deleuze thought of it.

    I’m a bit surprised no one on here’s even really mentioned the clear (intensely) personal aspects of his theoretical act. Is it because of default assumptions about Laruelle’s style, or the range of the axiomatics? Or out of curiosity – and not meaning to be at all antagonizing – is everybody else commenting here, so far, straight? I can imagine that the extent to which it isn’t just about Guattari, so much as *them*, might not be so striking – forceful – in that case.

  1. Pingback: Conversation in Linguistic Capital |

  2. Pingback: Laruelle Bibliography (English & French) | Linguistic Capital

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: