We are haunted by racism, casteism and discriminatory nationalism. These and other indignities that are afflicting humans have their roots in philosophy. The way we have been philosophizing is at the root of these evils. Philosophy has produced our world. It has contributed immensely to our world but has also in several ways led to evil ways. Another world is possible but to usher in that other world we have to give up our logos-centric philosophies.
Philosophy is determined by logos. In some way, logos excludes, isolates and then grasps or conquers. This is why philosophy is faithful to the One. Every philosopher has his logos. Even anti-logocentric thinkers like Jacques Derrida has his fidelity to the One. Derrida’s One is differance . Similarly, we can find that Martin Heidegger is loyal to finitude, and Fredrick Nietzche and Gilles Deleuze are faithful to immanance. Fidelity to One is fidelity to the unitary totalizing and reductive logic of Greeco-Judean thought. Maybe in place of One, we may have take up in-One, the in-between relation proposed by French thinker Francois Laurelle.
In-One is non-unitary, non-totalizing and irreducible. Our experience of the world is non-exclusionary. It is wholesome. It remains in the in-one relations. Logos philosophies are the philosophies of the One. Laurelle proposes non-philosophies of the in-One, an in-between relation. This in-One relation is humanly determined and therefore, leads to the production of non-philosophies. But we have also noted that a world outside human determination is certainly not a world without humans. Such a world may be thought of as a ( non-)One relation. It is a world in the process whose becomings have no beginning or ending. This (non-)One relation is still articulated by humans and therefore belongs to non-philosophies.
This movement away from logos philosophies that are grounded in a One which keeps changing from thinker to thinker might enable us to take a leap into posthumanities. From Laurelle’s point of view be may call this leap forward as leading to non-humanities . The logos philosophies have given us humanities but they have converted humans as wolves to humans. This is because logos philosophy are producing fidelity to One and thereby proposing One way of being human. Hence, every way of being human becomes rival to other ways of being human. But there is a real possibilities to usher in non-humanities that will give a relations of in-One and humans then will be human to other humans. We can live an in-between relation.
To live an in-between relation, we have accept that there is no apriori notion of being human in the world. Being human being an in-between relation is in-process of becoming that can grow in several directions. Hence, the in-One relations can flower into (non-)One relations , manifesting that there is no one single totalizing way of being human. Thus Anthropology as well as ethics have to become non-Anthrpologies and non-Ethics in sense of Laurelle’s non-philosophy.
We, therefore, cannot reterritorialize logos as otherness. That would lead us to fidelity to the One. On the other hand, we have to reterritorialize democracy of thinking and allow fidelity to in-One where relation of being in-between is not merely thought as difference but is seen as opening to an otherness not in exclusion or in isolation but as in an inter-being relation. This means we do not have being or becoming. What we have is an inter-being and inter-becoming . Thus, we are pushed to the shores of non-metaphysics .
This means we cannot think difference/ being in accordance to the One but have the challenge to think in accordance to in-One . We , thefore, have to decompose our thinking that is shaped by fidelity to the One and embrace a thinking that embraces fidelity to in-One, in-between relation. This de-territorialization of logos-centric thinking may show how racism, rabid casteism and racid nationalism are based on our fidelity to the One while the territorialization of non-logos-centric thinking can bring peaceful and harmonious co-existence. We therefore, have to choose from thinking ordered by One or thinking ordered by in-One. Another India is possible. To usher in another world, we have to think from the vantage point of in-One.
