Why Laruelle? The question is a clue. It does not need answering, rather it needs decoding. The decoding is the placing of the ‘why’ at the end of Laruelle so that we have ‘Laruelle-why’. But this too has not unlocked the mystery. This ‘why’ of the question is transformed to its phonetic ‘y’ thus we have ‘Laruelle-y’. Is this a coordinate? Possibly, though here even this coordinate option is barred as we make a simpler move. This move is to emphasise the common pronunciation of a ‘y’ at the end of a word; this is of course the ‘ee’ sound. The resulting structure is the word ‘Laruelly’. How are we to proceed from this point? Does this new word mean a follower of the non-philosopher? Maybe it does and maybe both the laruellee as follower and the Laruelle-y coordinate will have their day. This however is not today. The next move is one of confirmation, indeed the whole sequence has been one of confirmation. We look to a rhyming move to achieve the next step, this rhyme is: Laruelly-Jelly. Jelly indeed was where we were heading. For jelly came up in a recent Laruelle seminar as the best understanding we were able to forge of the one. There is though one last transformation to make, that of jelly to non-jelly, this is pronounced jelly but spelled zhgli.
Zhgli is the one.
Laruelle[y] is a priori zhgli.
One cannot help but hear the adventitious ring of ‘syzygy’ in the spontaneously created zhgli. The conjunction of the oppositions seems resonant of overcoming the philosophical schism, or maybe it is itself a clue the zhgli is not the one and we have gone astray.
But zghli is a One (or maybe A1 (is the A1 La Rue Elle?)). Maybe it is only a resonance, and there is no syzygy in zhgli. However there are moments where no matter whether one is rightly or wrongly conceiving the matter, Laruelle serves the zhgli.
The zhgli conception is that moment of conceiving that you, the air, the table, your colleagues around the table, the chairs, the biscuits and the floor are the continuous zhgli. This tells you nothing about the nature of the zhgli, it seems to adhere to what Laruelly wants to say -there are no relations in the zhgli, there are no objects and no events. It seems to intimate the conception of non-information as raised in a post on the umbra.
There seems something ironic in this conception bearing in mind Bertrand Russell once likened Hegel’s thought to jelly where here nontology has become zhgli. The problem does seem raised as to where the informational relation has gone if it did not qualify to remain in the zhgli reduction. Maybe this is a misunderstanding but it seems that the contingent names, discussions, meaningful noises are not in zhgli as meaning. This would be how pneuminosity differs. In a theory where the information is substantialised (becomes pneuma), the zhgli too would show the pneuma in all its accreted messy glory. A pneuminous zhgli!