Philosophy has long oscillated between viewing reality as process (endless becoming and change) or as substance (enduring being or essence). Classical debates from Heraclitus to Parmenides framed “becoming” as the opposite of “being,” with becoming emphasizing change and growth over time, and being emphasizing static existence (Being vs Becoming: Philosophy and History). Modern process philosophers like Alfred North Whitehead similarly argued that reality is a “constant state of becoming,” where even seemingly stable beings are phases in an ongoing flux (Being vs Becoming: Philosophy and History). Opposing this, substance-based metaphysics posited a permanent ground beneath change – an unchanging essence or being. Non-processism, as proposed here, steps outside this traditional metaphysical choice. In alignment with François Laruelle’s framework of non-philosophy, non-processism treats the debate itself (process versus non-process) not as an ultimate ontological decision, but as a question to suspend. Rather than deciding for either flux or stasis as foundational, non-processism explores a viewpoint that is non-decisional – one that refuses to privilege “process” or “substance” as first principles. This essay will explore non-processism as an open-ended mode of thought that remains immanent (grounded in the lived real without transcendental presuppositions) and generic (non-specific, applicable to all instances), drawing on contemporary thinkers like Karen Barad and others who pursue non-foundational, relational perspectives. By suspending standard oppositions (process vs. substance, being vs. becoming, subject vs. object, etc.), we aim to articulate how a non-processual approach can reframe epistemology, ethics, and our very concepts beyond the limits of traditional philosophy. The exploration remains tentative and innovative rather than doctrinal – a philosophical experiment in thinking according to immanence rather than from any pre-given metaphysical commitment.
At the heart of non-processism is a suspension of the philosophical Decision that divides reality into binary oppositions. In classical metaphysics, one decides whether change or permanence is more real – for example, Heraclitus’s world of eternal flux versus Parmenides’s unchanging being (Being vs Becoming: Philosophy and History) (Being vs Becoming: Philosophy and History). Process philosophies elevate change: from Heraclitus’s dictum that one cannot step into the same river twice, to Whitehead’s view that “being” is a state that emerges from becoming (Being vs Becoming: Philosophy and History). In such views, “entities are not static beings…they are dynamic processes that continually evolve” (Being vs Becoming: Philosophy and History), and reality is fundamentally “always in flux, growth, and emergence” (Being vs Becoming: Philosophy and History). Conversely, substance-oriented philosophies (ancient and modern) have treated change as secondary or illusory, asserting an underlying static essence or permanent substratum that truly is. Each side makes a metaphysical commitment – a decision that one pole of the opposition is the foundational truth of being.
Non-processism refuses to make this decision. In the spirit of Laruelle’s non-philosophy, it views the process/substance (or becoming/being) dichotomy itself as a product of philosophical thinking – a structuring decision that philosophy imposes (Non-philosophy - Wikipedia). Laruelle argues that all philosophies are built on an initial split or “prior decision” that divides the world (for instance, subject vs. object, phenomenon vs. noumenon, being vs. nothingness) in order to grasp it (Non-philosophy - Wikipedia). The decision is constitutive for philosophy, yet remains invisible from within philosophy’s own viewpoint. In this case, the privileging of either process or non-process is a classic decisional structure: philosophy assumes that reality must be primarily one or the other. Non-processism, by contrast, brackets this assumption. It does not assert that “everything is process,” nor that “everything is substance” – nor even that reality is a synthesis of both. Instead, it treats “process” and “non-process” as conceptual tools or perspectives that can be deployed without elevating either to an ontological foundation. This move is what Laruelle would call non-decisional: stepping out of the game of pitting Being against Becoming, in favor of a more immanent stance that doesn’t start by carving the world along that oppositional line.
To clarify, suspending the opposition is not the same as simply combining the two poles (as, say, Whitehead attempted by seeing being and becoming as interwoven (Being vs Becoming: Philosophy and History)). Whitehead’s process philosophy still ultimately privileges becoming – change is “fundamental to the nature of reality” (Being vs Becoming: Philosophy and History) and beings are just temporary results of deeper processes (Being vs Becoming: Philosophy and History). Non-processism goes further: it suspends the very question of which aspect is fundamental. In a non-processual approach, process and being, change and stability, are all seen as equal phenomena or descriptions within reality, without one being the “more real” underpinning of the other. This suspension is undertaken not to deny that things change or that things persist, but to refuse the metaphysical either/or that would make one of them the law of the Real. In doing so, non-processism opens up a perspective where we can think from an immanent real that is not decided in advance by such dualities.
Crucially, this suspension of oppositions aligns with a broader non-philosophical strategy of breaking out of hierarchical dualisms. Laruelle’s non-philosophy “withdraws from the metaphysical precept of separating the world into binarisms” (Non-philosophy - Wikipedia), whether that be universals vs. particulars, subject vs. object, or in our focus here, process vs. substrate. By suspending these splits, we approach what Laruelle calls the One-in-One or the Real – a radically immanent reality that is not bifurcated by philosophical categories. In the context of non-processism, we can speak of a unilateral stance: rather than saying “reality is process” (and thereby rendering non-processual being as merely derivative or illusory), we say “reality – the immanent Real – is foreclosed to that decision; it is neither purely process nor pure stasis, but the lived matrix from which such concepts are abstracted.” We think according to this Real without splitting it, using the concept of “process” when useful and “non-process” when useful, but without binding the Real to one or the other in principle.
In practical terms, to suspend the process/substance opposition means that a non-processual thinker approaches phenomena without the bias that everything must be understood primarily as evolving process or, alternatively, as fixed being. It invites a kind of phenomenological humility: allowing that some aspects of reality may appear processual, others may appear static or patterned, and that this mix does not force us to choose an ultimate ontology behind it. In a sense, it echoes certain non-Western or post-classical ideas. For example, Taoist philosophy’s yin-yang symbol illustrates how apparent opposites are intertwined and mutually contained – no quality is independent of its opposite, each contains a seed of the other (File : Yin yang.svg - Wikimedia). Non-processism, however, is not exactly a yin-yang dualism (which still posits a cosmic polarity); it is closer to what a neither/nor or both/and logic might entail. We hold the opposition in suspension, somewhat like a quantum superposition of states, awaiting a context to “measure” or deploy one aspect without claiming that context as the absolute frame. This is why we call non-processism a non-philosophical construct: it treats the classic philosophical pair (process/non-process) as material for thought rather than the sovereign dictate of what reality is. It refuses what Laruelle calls “philosophy’s authority to decide what counts as real” in this regard (www.performancephilosophy.org) (www.performancephilosophy.org).
François Laruelle’s non-philosophy provides the methodological inspiration for non-processism. Laruelle characterizes non-philosophy as “a practice which entirely renounces ‘the foundational function of philosophy’ (and indeed any one mode of thought)” (www.performancephilosophy.org). Instead of doing yet another philosophy about philosophy, Laruelle treats philosophy itself as raw material, as “a mere symptom of the Real” (www.performancephilosophy.org) to be worked with scientifically or artistically. This means non-philosophy does not seek a new ultimate principle (no new metaphysics of process or substance), but rather suspends the authoritative stance of philosophy that claims to ground reality. It approaches concepts in a flattened, democratic way, yielding what Laruelle calls a “democracy of thought” or an equality of thinking (www.performancephilosophy.org). In his view, “knowledges – including philosophy – must all become equal in the generic” (www.performancephilosophy.org), with none granted the special role of arbiter of the Real. This refusal of hierarchy is directly relevant to non-processism: it means the philosophical concepts of “process” and “being” are treated on equal footing, without one dominating as the key to what-exists. They are tools rather than truths. As Laruelle puts it, “if [non-philosophy] has a founding premise, it is the renunciation of foundation itself in favour of ‘the multiplicities of knowledge’” (www.performancephilosophy.org). Non-processism follows this lead by renouncing any single ontological foundation (whether “All is flux” or “All is substance” or any other).
In Laruelle’s theory, standard philosophy is always making a transcendental decision – splitting the world and positing some condition (e.g. Being, Becoming, the Subject, etc.) that it alone has access to for grounding reality (Non-philosophy - Wikipedia) (Non-philosophy - Wikipedia). Non-philosophy’s response is to adopt a stance of radical immanence: thinking from the real without positing a transcendent founding term or binary. Laruelle often speaks of this immanence as the One (One-in-One) – not the numeral one, but the indivisible reality that is given without a second term. From this perspective, the pairs that philosophy generates (such as process and non-process) are secondary structurations. They occur “in” the Real but the Real-in-itself is not adequately described by taking one side against the other. Laruelle even likens non-philosophy to a kind of “quantum theory of philosophy” (www.performancephilosophy.org). The analogy is suggestive: just as quantum physics challenges either/or classical logic (e.g. light is both wave and particle, or neither in any simple sense), non-philosophy challenges the either/or of philosophical decisions. It is, Laruelle says, a “machine of immanence” and an experimental, ongoing process of thought itself (www.performancephilosophy.org). This does not mean non-philosophy secretly endorses process metaphysics; rather, it means it continually adjusts and invents concepts without finalizing a dogma – much like an experiment that keeps producing new data. Non-philosophy is explicitly non-systematic: it is “an exit from philosophy as self-encompassing via the invention of a new genre of thought” (www.performancephilosophy.org). It does not pretend to already know what “thinking” must be – Laruelle says it is “the manner of thinking that does not know a priori what it is to think” (www.performancephilosophy.org). In other words, it proceeds without the usual presuppositions, allowing thought to surprise itself.
Applying this to non-processism, we treat the process/non-process distinction as one of those philosophical dyads to be put in parentheses. Non-processism becomes a mode of theorizing that uses a unilateral duality (to borrow Laruelle’s term (The Non-Philosophy of François Laruelle - Oxford Academic)): it acknowledges the two terms (process and non-process), but does not let their opposition structure the form of thought. Instead, one “side” is used from the stance of the Real without opposing it to the other. For instance, we might say: rather than conceiving reality as a dynamic process that excludes permanence, or as a static being that excludes change, we conceive it as an immanent field that can manifest relatively as process or stability depending on perspective, without being exhaustively defined by either. This is somewhat analogous to how, in quantum mechanics, an electron can appear as a wave or a particle only in specific measurement contexts, but in itself is described by a more complex state (the wavefunction) that is not simply one or the other. Laruelle’s nods to quantum theory (www.performancephilosophy.org) encourage this analogy – the Real as a kind of superposed state vis-à-vis philosophical properties. Non-processism thus aligns with what we might call a complementary or entangled view: process and non-process are complementary descriptions, entangled with each other, and only “decided” within particular theoretical or experiential frameworks. The aim is to prevent a decisional cut that would elevate one description to primary reality and relegate the other to mere illusion or derivation.
By suspending the choice, non-processism also resonates with certain poststructuralist moves in 20th-century thought that sought to escape binary thinking. Think of Derrida’s strategy of différance, which is neither being nor non-being, or neither presence nor absence, but an “in-between” that undermines the strict binary. Non-processism is different in content (we are talking about process vs. static being), but formally it is similar: it installs a kind of delay or deferral in deciding what is ultimately real, which allows one to analyze how the opposition itself is constructed. It is also akin to some Madhyamaka Buddhist ideas (like Nāgārjuna’s tetralemma) that refuse to assert either that things ultimately exist or do not exist, preferring a middle path that dissolves the question. However, our approach remains grounded in Laruelle’s secular, theoretical framework rather than a religious or purely deconstructive one. The “non-” in non-processism is not a negation of process, but a marker of operating outside the dichotomy – much as Laruelle’s non-philosophy is not an anti-philosophy, but a practice alongside philosophy that treats it immanently (Non-philosophy - Wikipedia).
In summary, adopting a non-philosophical stance means we suspend the standard oppositions and renounce any single foundational philosophy. Non-processism follows suit by suspending the commitment to either constant becoming or permanent being as the ground of reality. It cultivates an immanent point of view from which we can engage with both processual and non-processual aspects of the world freely, without elevating one to dogma. This allows a more generic mode of thinking: one that can integrate insights from various disciplines and perspectives (science, art, ethics, etc.) on an equal footing, since we are no longer bound to a single metaphysical framework. Laruelle emphasizes that “all thoughts are equal in the Real” (www.performancephilosophy.org) – meaning no discipline or discourse has a monopoly on truth. In a non-processual context, this equality suggests that a physical explanation in terms of processes and a poetic description in terms of enduring forms could both be valid parts of knowledge, without one needing reduction to the other’s terms. We thus attain a pluralism without relativism: a stance where multiple modes of describing reality coexist, anchored in a common immanent real but not ranked by an ultimate ontology.
Non-processism is not an isolated invention; it resonates with currents in contemporary thought that challenge traditional foundations and binary structures. Many 21st-century theorists across disciplines are seeking ways to think that blur or dismantle classic oppositions – be it in metaphysics, epistemology, or ethics. A prominent example is Karen Barad, whose work in quantum physics and feminist theory provides a rich, non-foundational ontology that complements a non-processual approach. Barad’s framework of agential realism insists on the entanglement of entities and meanings, rejecting the idea of independently existing substances or a priori distinctions. As Barad puts it, “to be entangled is not simply to be intertwined with another, as in the joining of separate entities, but to lack an independent, self-contained existence. Existence is not an individual affair” (SS > book reviews > Karen Barad). In other words, nothing in the world exists in utter isolation; there are no self-subsistent building blocks prior to relation. Individuals (whether particles, people, or concepts) do not pre-exist their interactions; rather, “individuals emerge through and as part of their entangled intra-relating” (SS > book reviews > Karen Barad). This notion of intra-action (Barad’s term) means that the relata (the “individuals”) are constituted by their relations, as opposed to the usual idea of interaction where independently existing entities come together. Barad explicitly cautions that this emergence is not to be thought of as a single, linear process in time according to some external clock: “Which is not to say that emergence happens once and for all, as an event or as a process that takes place according to some external measure of space and time, but rather that time and space, like matter and meaning, come into existence and are iteratively reconfigured through each intra-action” (SS > book reviews > Karen Barad). This profound statement means that even fundamental dimensions like space and time are not fixed containers for processes, but are themselves produced and re-shaped through relational events. It becomes “impossible to differentiate in any absolute sense between creation and renewal, beginning and returning, continuity and discontinuity” (SS > book reviews > Karen Barad).
Barad’s view thus undermines the classical process vs. substance dichotomy at a deep level. There is no static substance (since entities have no independent existence outside of entanglements), but neither is there a uniform, external process (since what we call “process” – change over time – is itself entangled with the emergence of time). Instead, her ontology is thoroughly relational and immanent: everything that exists exists in and through its entanglements. This aligns strongly with a non-processist attitude. Rather than positing a metaphysical Process with a capital “P” driving the world, Barad suggests a kind of immanent unfolding where distinctions like process/product or dynamic/static lose their clear meaning. Notably, Barad draws inspiration from quantum physics (especially Niels Bohr’s interpretation of quantum mechanics) to formulate this view () (). Quantum theory shows us a world where the classical either/or logic fails: light is neither just a particle nor just a wave in itself; quantum entities exist in superposed states that become one thing or another only in interaction with a measurement. Barad generalizes this to ontology: “any division into individuated elements is produced by intra-actions in a fundamental, entangled whole” (). Reality in her view is a holistic entanglement, and what we observe as “elements” (objects, beings) are particular cuts or resolutions of this entangled field. By calling into question the dualisms of subject/object, knower/known, culture/nature and so on (), Barad aligns with the non-philosophical project of suspending entrenched oppositions. She explicitly states that agential realism “calls into question the dualisms of object-subject, knower-known, nature-culture, and word-world” () – all pairings that map to core philosophical decisions. In place of these separations, we get a post-classical picture of reality that is oddly “non-processual” in the conventional sense: change occurs, but not as a unidirectional flow in a pregiven timeline; entities exist, but not as atomistic substances with intrinsic properties. Everything is in a sense in process, but without a transcendent process framework – change is immanent to entangled events, not imposed by an external time or meta-law.
Barad is one of several contemporary thinkers often associated with the “new materialism” or posthumanist theory who pursue such non-dual, non-foundational ideas. For instance, philosophers like Donna Haraway have argued against the “God trick” of viewing the world from a detached, transcendent standpoint, emphasizing instead situated knowledges and entangled agencies (New Materialism ). Haraway’s notion that there is no innocent, outside observer dovetails with Barad’s insistence that we (as knowers) are part of the world’s intra-active becoming (New Materialism ). The separation between observer and observed, or theory and reality, is problematized. This has clear epistemological implications (which we will discuss shortly) that match a non-processism outlook: knowledge cannot be a view-from-nowhere that captures a static reality or even a single dynamical process – it is itself entangled in the phenomena it studies. Other thinkers, such as Bruno Latour, have similarly blurred traditional divides (e.g. nature/society, subject/object) by proposing “networks” of hybrid actants. Latour’s actor-network theory refuses a fixed divide between what is natural process and what is social construction, offering instead a flattened ontology of actants in relation – an approach quite congenial to non-processism’s flattening of hierarchies. Even in metaphysics, currents like object-oriented ontology (OOO) and speculative realism emerged as reactions against anthropocentric foundationalism. OOO’s insistence on the withdrawn reality of objects and speculative realism’s championing of the absolute (e.g. Meillassoux’s contingency) were attempts to find a ground outside human-centric process or correlation. However, these often ended up positing their own new fundamental (objects or chaos). Non-processism, in contrast, strives to remain genuinely non-foundational: no single posit – whether object, process, being, becoming, material or form – is declared the fundamental stuff of the world. This attitude hews closer to what Laruelle describes as the “generic” orientation: a stance that is universally applicable but does not privilege a particular kind of entity or process. Laruelle’s generic identity of the One is an identity that “reverses the classical metaphysics” by not requiring a transcendental ground (Non-philosophy - Wikipedia). We might say that in a generic perspective, reality can be seen under any number of descriptions (physical, mental, processual, static, etc.) without one description claiming the foundational status. Non-processism hence finds sympathetic echoes in any theory that disperses agency and reality across networks, entanglements, or radical immanence.
It is worth noting that quantum theory’s influence on these contemporary thoughts (especially Barad’s) provides not just metaphors but a kind of scientific validation for abandoning classical ontological commitments. The quantum world’s “weirdness” – superposition, entanglement, indeterminacy – shows that our intuitive categories (an object here or there, evolving in a single definite history) break down at fundamental scales. This has inspired a “quantum-inspired perspective” in philosophy, one that non-processism readily adopts. Laruelle’s claim that non-philosophy is a “quantum theory of philosophy” (www.performancephilosophy.org) can be read in this light: just as quantum physics forces us to relinquish a single deterministic narrative of physical processes, non-philosophy forces us to relinquish a single decisive narrative of philosophical sense-making. In place of solidity and certainty, we get probability clouds and complementarity – analogously, in thought we get openness and a stance that two seemingly contradictory approaches might both be valid in different situations (just as wave and particle models are both valid, though no single picture can capture the entirety of quantum behavior). Karen Barad’s work exemplifies taking this quantum lesson and turning it into an ontological principle: reality is inherently non-separable and contextual. For a non-processual approach, this means process is not a universal clockwork governing everything from outside; rather, “process” is itself an emergent description from within entangled reality. And likewise “substance” or stability is an emergent pattern from those entanglements. Both are real without being absolute.
(Can entangled particles communicate faster than light?) Quantum entanglement exemplifies a world beyond classical separations. In this illustration, two particles share a single, non-local state – a metaphor for how entities lack independent, self-contained existence and only manifest particular properties upon relational interaction. Entanglement, as depicted above, shows connectivity without a mediating substance – a “relation without pre-existing relata,” to use Barad’s phrasing. This quantum phenomenon visually and conceptually supports non-processism’s key idea: that we cannot peel off relations and find autonomous pieces with inherent process or essence. Instead, the fundamental scenario is one of inseparability. From such a scenario, sometimes a stable pattern appears (analogous to measuring an entangled particle yields a definite state), and sometimes change occurs (the collapse of possibilities into an outcome) – but both stability and change derive from the one entangled reality. Thus, non-processism finds a friendly exemplar in quantum entanglement, which demonstrates that the classical intuition of independent entities undergoing linear processes is incomplete. The world is more like a mesh of interdependencies where processes and states co-arise.
Beyond Barad, we could mention Catherine Malabou’s concept of “plasticity” as another contemporary idea consistent with non-processism. Malabou’s plasticity describes the capacity to receive form and to give form – essentially a way to think change and form together without privileging endless flux or rigid permanence. It suggests an ontology where beings are neither utterly static nor in permanent free-flow, but can transform while retaining continuity. This subverts the being/becoming binary by introducing a medium that is both structural and dynamic. Likewise, philosophers like Gilles Deleuze (often seen as a champion of process and becoming) introduced ideas like the virtual and actual, and the concept of difference in itself, which move beyond simply saying “everything becomes.” Deleuze’s immanent ontology doesn’t valorize being or becoming in the traditional sense, but creates new terms (virtual multiplicity, etc.) to describe a reality where the old oppositions don’t apply straightforwardly. While Deleuze still leans heavily on becoming, his dissolution of fixed identities parallels non-processism’s aim to avoid any reification of either pole of an opposition. The common thread among these thinkers is a shift toward immanent, relational, and generative frameworks that refuse a fixed starting point or binary logic.
In sum, the landscape of contemporary theory provides a rich context for non-processism. From quantum physics in Barad’s agential realism, to network ontologies in Latour, to feminist science studies, to speculative philosophies – there is a convergent move toward what we might call a non-foundational ontology. Non-processism is our name here for one aspect of that convergence: the aspect that specifically deals with the status of process. Rather than taking “process” as an article of faith (as process philosophers do) or rejecting it in favor of eternal substance, we are aligning with those approaches that see no ultimate foundation at all – only the immanent unfolding of a reality that can be sliced or analyzed in various ways. This situates non-processism firmly “beyond traditional philosophy,” not in opposition to philosophy per se, but in the sense of operating with a different logic (one might even say a “non-Standard” logic, to use Laruelle’s term for his work). It treats classical philosophical questions (like “is being or becoming primary?”) as outmoded products of a decisioned thinking, and instead embraces an outlook where immanence, entanglement, and the generic commonality of being guide our conceptualization.
Adopting a non-processual, non-decisional stance has significant implications for how we understand knowledge and thought themselves. Traditional philosophy’s commitments to one ontology or another often come with corresponding epistemologies: if you think reality is static and law-like, you strive for certain, fixed knowledge (truth as correspondence to eternal being); if you think reality is flux, you valorize processual knowledge (truth as an ongoing process, or perhaps as pragmatic adaptation). Non-processism, by not nailing its colors to either mast, encourages an epistemology that is open, iterative, and humble. We no longer see knowledge as the mirror of a single fundamental structure (be it static or dynamic), but as an ongoing participation in an immanent real that is too rich to be captured fully by any one schema. In Laruelle’s vision, this takes the form of a “democracy of thought”, where different forms of understanding are placed on equal footing (www.performancephilosophy.org) (www.performancephilosophy.org). No discipline or perspective can claim a totalizing viewpoint from above; philosophy does not get to unilaterally judge science or art, nor science to judge philosophy, etc. Instead, knowledges are “equal in the generic… while conserving their difference in technique and materiality” (www.performancephilosophy.org). For epistemology, this means embracing a pluralism of methods and insights. A non-processist thinker might use scientific explanation for some aspects of a phenomenon and poetic or phenomenological description for others, without assuming one must be reduced to the other. Since we are not assuming reality must be processual, we can be fully open to evidence of pattern, recurrence, even apparent stasis; since we are not assuming it must be static, we are equally open to novelty, creativity, and transformation. Knowledge becomes a matter of integrating perspectives without a final synthesis – a kind of patchwork realism that stays mindful of its own limits.
Karen Barad’s concept of diffractive methodology nicely illustrates the epistemology suited to non-processism. Instead of the traditional scientific ideal of reflection (where a theory mirrors nature), Barad suggests diffraction – examining the patterns of differences that result when different knowledge apparatuses intra-act (New Materialism ) (New Materialism ). Diffraction acknowledges that the knower is part of what is known; it looks at how our interventions produce particular results. This standpoint fits a world where there is no view from outside the process, because everything (including the act of knowing) is entangled. In practical terms, a non-processual epistemology means we do not seek a God’s-eye view (since that would imply a transcendence we’ve renounced). Instead, we engage from within, aware that our concepts and models are themselves events in the world’s becoming. We aim for accountable knowledge – accountable in the sense of being responsible for the cuts and distinctions we introduce (New Materialism ) (New Materialism ). This leads naturally into ethics (which we address in the next section), but on the conceptual level it suggests that our concepts should be held lightly and revisable. If reality is immanent and not anchored in a single absolute category, then our conceptual schemas are tools that work more or less well in context, not revelations of a pre-given structure. We might generate concepts that are deliberately hybrid or paradoxical to capture the richness beyond binaries – for example, Barad’s notion of “ethico-onto-epistemology” (New Materialism ) unites ethics, being, and knowing as inseparable, challenging the conceptual silos of each. Similarly, non-processism might invite new concepts that fuse what used to be opposed, or that indicate a continuum rather than a divide (such as “becoming-being” or “stable change”). These would not be empty neologisms, but reflections of the understanding that our language and thought must adapt when we are not shoring them up with rigid metaphysical oppositions.
Another epistemological implication is a certain tolerance for ambiguity and contradiction. In a classical frame, if one theory says “X is fundamentally process” and another says “X is fundamentally static structure,” one must be wrong under the law of non-contradiction – and a lot of intellectual energy will go into arguing which is correct. A non-decisional approach might say: both perspectives capture something, but neither captures the whole, because the “whole” (the Real) is not structured by that opposition in the first place. Instead of forcing a decision, we might hold the tension or alternate perspectives. This is akin to Bohr’s idea of complementarity in quantum mechanics: wave and particle descriptions are mutually exclusive yet both necessary. Likewise, a process-description and a structure-description might be complementary ways of knowing, even though each on its own looks incomplete. Non-processism therefore fosters a kind of epistemic flexibility and creativity. It encourages cross-pollination between fields, since no single field has the master key. For example, insights from ecology (with its cycles and balances) and insights from computer science (with its state-changes and computations) might both inform a philosophical view of mind, say, without reducing mind to purely one model or the other. The generic stance loves such combinations because it treats all these insights as pieces of the Real’s puzzle, none as the ultimate frame. This can be empowering: it frees thought from dogmas and allows genuinely novel forms of theory to emerge, unbounded by the historical either/or choices that may have outlived their usefulness.
Conceptually, then, non-processism is an open-ended exploration. We can think of it as an ongoing experiment in using philosophical concepts without being used by them. It does not solidify into a fixed doctrine (“Thou shalt believe all is process” or “all is One” etc.), but remains adaptable. In a way, it mirrors Laruelle’s description of non-philosophy as “experimental” (www.performancephilosophy.org) and not knowing in advance what it will find. Non-processism at the conceptual level means we are willing to continually revise our mappings of reality as we register new phenomena or as we engage with different disciplines. It is not skepticism about reality’s existence or knowability, but a humility about our own frameworks. It assumes reality in the last instance is simpler and more unified (immanent) than our complex oppositions make it out to be, but also that any single simplification we impose (like “it’s all process”) will miss something. The goal is a kind of immanent intelligibility: to understand the world on its own terms, as directly as possible, without filtering it prematurely through arbitrary either/or choices.
To ground this in an example: consider the concept of “life.” Classical debates might ask: is life a process (metabolism, evolution) or is there some essential substance or vital force? A non-processual approach would say: life is whatever it is immanently, and our concept should emerge from studying it without presupposing either mechanism or vitalism. It could turn out that life has processual aspects (growth, change) and also steady-state aspects (homeostasis, identity) that are equally important. A non-processist concept of life might be something like “living continuity” – a notion trying to capture that life perseveres through change. This notion wouldn’t reduce life to pure becoming nor to a fixed essence, but see it as a kind of dynamic stability or stable dynamism. In formulating such a concept, we haven’t decided the metaphysical status of life in advance; we’ve let an immanent description guide us, which might very well include seemingly paradoxical features (stability-in-change). The concept remains exploratory, subject to further empirical and theoretical tuning.
In summary, the epistemological and conceptual ethos of non-processism is one of immanent realism with open boundaries. It shares Laruelle’s view that “no one thought, no one part of thought, can stand apart and therefore stand for the whole” (www.performancephilosophy.org). This means our theories and models are always partial – and that’s acceptable, even expected. The best we can do is use them in concert, without an overarching hierarchy, to illuminate the Real from many sides. Knowledge becomes a collaborative, ongoing dialogue rather than a final pronouncement. The suspension of the process/substance opposition is just one move in this broader strategy of freeing thought. By not pledging allegiance to one side, we remain agile and responsive to what the world shows us. In a way, it is a call for intellectual modesty: a recognition that reality exceeds our chosen descriptors, and thus we must be ready to revise or multiply those descriptors as needed.
Just as non-processism reshapes how we conceive reality and knowledge, it also suggests a distinctive ethical stance. If everything is viewed under the aegis of immanence and entanglement, our ethical relations can no longer be thought of in terms of detached selves acting on an external world or following absolute transcendent rules. Instead, ethics becomes a matter of responding within a web of interdependence – an ethics from within the world’s process, not imposed from outside. Karen Barad provides a clear entry point here with her idea that “entanglements are relations of obligation” (New Materialism ). Because nothing has an independent, self-sufficient existence, we are literally bound up with each other and with our environment. Barad emphasizes that this entanglement carries a kind of ethical debt or responsibility: “Responsibility is not ours alone… [e]ntanglements are relations of obligation” (New Materialism ). In other words, to exist is to be obliged – obliged to the others (human, non-human, material, conceptual) with whom one’s existence is entwined. This notion of ethical relationality aligns perfectly with a non-processual framework. Since we have abandoned the idea of isolated substances (like an autonomous rational subject) and also the idea of a single master-process (like History or Progress) that could justify means by ends, ethics is located in the immanent interactions themselves. Ethics becomes situational, dialogical, and ever-emergent.
Non-processism encourages an ethics of immanence and radical equality. Laruelle’s democracy of thought, which we discussed, has an ethico-political edge: if all forms of thinking are equal, then authoritarian claims of any ideology or worldview to trump all others are suspect. John Ó Maoilearca notes that if we truly hold all thoughts equal, we cannot even define that equality in a limiting way without betraying it (www.performancephilosophy.org) – highlighting how careful we must be not to introduce subtle hierarchies. Ethically, this translates to a stance of non-dominance. No single perspective (for example, a purely technocratic view or a purely economic calculus) should unilaterally decide what is “best” for all, because that would violate the principle of equality in the generic sense. A non-processual ethic would thus emphasize listening to the multiplicity of voices – human and nonhuman – in any situation. It resonates with Levinasian and Derridean ethics as well (both of whom influence Barad (New Materialism )): the idea that the Other comes to me not as something I subsume under my categories, but as a singular call to which I must respond without alibi. In non-processist terms, because I do not assume a pre-given framework (neither a fixed moral law nor a guaranteed teleological process like “moral progress”), I must attentively discern my obligations in the moment, in the interaction. Ethics becomes about responsiveness and responsibility – literally, the ability to respond appropriately to the unique context of entanglement I find myself in.
One concrete ethical implication is a stance of care and sustainability. If nothing is merely a resource or backdrop (since all is entangled and of equal reality), then exploiting nature or other beings recklessly cannot be justified by relegating them to “inferior” ontological status. For example, if one rejects the opposition of human vs nature (a very standard philosophical and cultural split), one starts to see environmental ethics not as a special branch of ethics but as inherent to all ethical thinking. We are part of the same fabric as the rivers and air and animals; our actions on them are actions on ourselves in a real way. This echoes the new materialist insistence that we “acknowledge non-human agency and matter” as active participants in the world deserving consideration () (). Non-processism doesn’t anthropocentrize process (as if only human-led processes matter); it treats all processes and states in the world as collectively real. This yields an ethic of respecting the immanent processes of other beings – for instance, not forcing a landscape to change according to our abstract scheme (since we have no mandate that “progress” must happen in that way), but working with the processes of the ecosystem in a cooperative manner.
Additionally, an ethic of non-processism values presentness and particularity. Standard moral philosophies often rely on general principles or on projected outcomes (utilitarian process of maximizing future happiness, or deontological adherence to a timeless rule). If we suspend those transcendent yardsticks, we are brought back to the here and now of ethical relations – what Laruelle might call the “ordinary” or the “generic human” perspective. This doesn’t mean ethics becomes arbitrary. Rather, it becomes attuned: one seeks to do justice to the singular configuration of a situation. Think of it like improvisational performance (an apt analogy since Laruelle’s non-philosophy has been compared to an experimental art (www.performancephilosophy.org)): one has to respond to the immediate context creatively and responsively, rather than following a script. The immanence of the ethical call, to use Levinas’s term, is that it arises within the encounter itself. For example, when two people communicate, if we drop preconceived power structures or roles, an ethical relation might form simply through genuine listening and responding – each recognizing the other’s reality on equal terms. This is a non-hierarchical ethics, much in line with Laruelle’s egalitarian thought but extended to all beings. If “all of the Real is equally thought” (www.performancephilosophy.org) (www.performancephilosophy.org), perhaps we could say analogously that all of the Real is equally valuable, meaning every being or phenomenon has its place and import that should not be dismissed. There is an echo of Spinoza’s idea (furthered by deep ecology) that each thing, insofar as it exists, strives to persevere and has its own good. Non-processism wouldn’t try to rank these or fold them into a single process (like a Hegelian world-historical process that justifies some goods being sacrificed for others); it would instead strive to let be and let become in a mutual way.
Barad’s insight that “we can no longer see ourselves as innocent bystanders…observing the world from a falsely neutral, overarching point of view” (New Materialism ) is crucial. It means ethical accountability is built into knowing and intervening. In scientific practice, for example, Barad argues that we must place responsibility at the core of what we do (Being of Use: Diffraction and an Ethics of Truth-Telling in Post ...). This involves recognizing how our measurements, classifications, and technologies affect the phenomena we study. A non-processual ethic in research would, say, caution against manipulating a complex system just to demonstrate a theory, without regard for the system’s integrity. Because non-processism lacks the hubris of a master narrative (it doesn’t assume human reason is destined to control nature, or that history inevitably progresses), it tends to err on the side of caution and care. One acts without the safety net of guaranteed outcomes, which fosters a kind of ethical mindfulness of consequences.
Finally, non-processism can incorporate an ethic of intellectual charity and dialogue. If no one philosophy has the ultimate truth, then we ought to engage with different perspectives (even ones we disagree with) as potentially containing a fragment of insight about the Real. This can translate to ethical habits of discourse: less combative, more collaborative. The goal is not to “win” a debate by decisively proving reality is X not Y, but to learn from each other’s partial truths. Such an approach values diversity of thought — akin to biodiversity in ecology — as a strength. It’s an ethic that could mitigate the often polarizing battles in academia or politics by reframing differences as complementary rather than mutually exclusive. We might recall here Laruelle’s phrase that non-philosophy “invites us to experiment with [the] hypothesis that all of the Real is equally thought, and that all thoughts are equally part of the Real” (www.performancephilosophy.org). Ethically, if I treat my interlocutor’s thought as equally real (even if I find it mistaken in some respects), I owe them a certain respect and patience. I cannot simply dismiss their view as nonsense, since it too is a product of the Real’s immanent unfolding. This doesn’t mean all views are correct, but it means discourse should proceed without the assumption of one sovereign position. It creates a space for what Laruelle calls “unilateral duality” in conversation: I can unilaterally (from my side) use their thought as material to enrich my own understanding, without needing to place both of us in an antagonistic two-term system of winner/loser in truth. The ethics of non-decision might then emphasize peacemaking, understanding, and the alleviation of needless intellectual violence.
In essence, the ethical dimension of non-processism emphasizes interconnectedness, equality, and humility. It steers away from any philosophy of control or predestination and towards an ethic of care – care for others, care for the world, care for the truth. It acknowledges, as Barad does, that because “we are part of the world in its ongoing intra-activity”, we are never off the hook: every choice we make is part of the fabric of the real and thus has ethical weight (New Materialism ) (New Materialism ). This creates a robust sense of responsibility without absolute mastery. We are responsible precisely because we are not masters of a pre-given process or plan – we must respond attentively to the uncertainty and particularity of each moment.
Developing non-processism as a non-philosophical construct has led us to envision a mode of thought that remains dynamically balanced between opposites, without collapsing into indifference or indecision. It is an ongoing exploration rather than a fixed doctrine – a practice of thinking that operates under self-imposed constraints (suspending metaphysical decisions) in order to unlock new possibilities. In this essay we saw how, by avoiding commitments to either process or non-process as foundational, we free ourselves to see reality in a more immanent and generic light. We aligned this approach with Laruelle’s radical immanence and non-decisional method, using his ideas of equality of thought and the renunciation of philosophical sufficiency to guide our rethinking of the process/substance dichotomy (www.performancephilosophy.org) (www.performancephilosophy.org). We engaged with Karen Barad’s quantum-inspired philosophy to illustrate how a world of entanglements defies classical binaries and calls for new conceptual and ethical paradigms (SS > book reviews > Karen Barad) (SS > book reviews > Karen Barad). Alongside Barad, we acknowledged parallel movements in contemporary theory that resonate with non-processism – from feminist epistemologies to speculative metaphysics – all converging on the insight that old oppositions and foundations are untenable in the face of a more relational, intertwined, and uncertain reality.
Non-processism, as presented, has broad implications. Epistemologically, it suggests a fallibilist, pluralistic approach to knowledge, where understanding is iterative and multi-perspectival. Ethically, it emphasizes relational responsibility and respect for all parts of the Real, undermining any stance of domination or absolute certainty. Conceptually, it encourages innovation – forging new terms and ideas that better fit an immanent view of the world (even if those terms sometimes sound paradoxical or counter-intuitive to ears trained by binary logic). Importantly, this entire venture was framed as non-philosophical in Laruelle’s sense: we sought to use philosophical concepts (process, being, becoming, etc.) without getting caught in their self-validating orthodoxies. In doing so, we treated philosophy itself as material to be transformed, rather than as a master discourse. This approach is inherently experimental. As Laruelle writes, “by definition, we do not entirely know what to expect of ourselves” when engaging in non-philosophy (www.performancephilosophy.org) – we discover the path by walking it. The same holds for non-processism. It does not start with a manifesto of final truths, but with a set of questions and suspensions that allow thinking to move differently and, hopefully, to uncover insights that a straightforward processist or anti-processist stance might miss.
One might ask, what do we gain by this approach? Perhaps the greatest gain is a kind of intellectual freedom and integrative power. Free from having to defend an all-encompassing ideology of process or substance, we can integrate knowledge from physics, biology, sociology, art, and everyday experience without forcing them into a Procrustean bed. A non-processual view of mind, for instance, could accommodate both the brain’s electrochemical processes and the apparent unity of subjective awareness, without reducing one to the other, because it doesn’t assume one must be the ground. Instead, it could treat them as two aspects of a deeper immanent reality of “mind-in-world.” The result might not be a neat theory – indeed it might be complex and somewhat indeterminate – but it could do more justice to the phenomena. This is speculative, but it exemplifies how non-processism opens space for thinking between and beyond positions that used to be seen as irreconcilable.
Throughout this essay, we have maintained a tone of exploration. We have not declared process metaphysics “wrong” or substance metaphysics “obsolete” in an absolute sense; rather, we have explored what happens when we suspend the need to pick a side. In doing so, we’ve drawn on those who likewise blur boundaries: Barad dissolving the line between observer and observed, Laruelle dissolving the line between theory and reality by making thought itself a generic part of the Real (www.performancephilosophy.org), and others dissolving boundaries between human and nature, or between present and future (consider how Barad’s time-reconfiguration means even causality must be rethought). The immanent, generic, quantum-inspired perspective we articulated is one that sees the world as one (not as totality, but as undivided multiplicity) and thought as part of that world rather than hovering above it. In such a perspective, oppositions like being vs. becoming become useful distinctions only when applied within certain contexts, but are not elevated to cosmic dilemmas.
As an open-ended exploration, non-processism does not conclude with a triumphant solution to the riddles of metaphysics. Instead, it offers a shift in orientation. It suggests that many of those riddles may have been self-imposed by the way questions were framed. By changing the framing – by choosing non-decision where a decision was assumed necessary – we might bypass sterile debates and engage more directly with the richness of reality. This does not mean anything goes; on the contrary, it requires careful analysis and novel conceptual work to navigate without the old compasses. But it is precisely this creative work that makes the endeavor exciting and worthwhile.
In closing, we can say that non-processism is less a theory about the world and more a practice of thinking with the world. It invites us, as Laruelle might say, to think according to the One (the immanent Real) rather than about it (Summary of non philosophy of Laruelle | Henosophia TOPOSOPHIA μαθεσις uni√ersalis τοποσοφια MATHESIS οντοποσοφια ενοσοφια). It invites us, as Barad might urge, to acknowledge our entanglement and “meet the universe halfway” (to borrow the title of her book) rather than stand apart (SS > book reviews > Karen Barad). By neither affirming nor denying “process” as the core of being, we allow being to show itself in processual and non-processual ways, however it will. The true test of this approach will be in the kinds of insights and effects it produces as we apply it further. The present essay has sketched the motivation and contours of non-processism; it remains for future explorations to fill in its content. In a sense, the essay itself is an instance of non-processist thinking – it did not present a linear argument to a predetermined conclusion, but an iterative, diffractive exploration through various angles, aiming to superpose ideas from Laruelle, Barad, and others into a new interference pattern. The hope is that this pattern – the concept of non-processism – proves generative for ongoing thought. If nothing else, it challenges us to reconsider how we do philosophy (or non-philosophy) in a time when rigid foundations are crumbling and cross-disciplinary, non-binary modes of understanding are in demand. It underscores that sometimes the most radical move is to refuse to choose in the old way, and instead to forge a third way that is not a synthesis but a mutation to a new level of thinking. Such is the promise of non-processism as a project: a journey beyond the familiar oppositions, towards a more immanent real that we are only beginning to glimpse.
Sources: Primary and secondary sources have been referenced throughout, including Laruelle’s writings on non-philosophy (www.performancephilosophy.org) (www.performancephilosophy.org), commentary on his method (www.performancephilosophy.org) (www.performancephilosophy.org), Karen Barad’s Meeting the Universe Halfway and related analyses of entanglement and intra-action (SS > book reviews > Karen Barad) (SS > book reviews > Karen Barad) (), as well as discussions from new materialist and quantum-inspired philosophy that illustrate the move beyond foundational binaries () (New Materialism ). These sources provide the scaffolding for envisioning non-processism as outlined above. The ideas put forth remain exploratory and invite further development in dialogue with ongoing work in philosophy, science studies, and critical theory, wherever thinkers seek to move beyond the process/substance divide toward a more inclusive understanding of reality’s unfolding.
