There is a non-philosophical approach to Philosophy. Reading Francois Laurelle has challenged us to think beyond our fidelity to One. He develops non-philosophy. It is not ordered by one standard way of doing philosophy. We are only used to the philosophy of logos. His approach challenges us to embrace all ways of philosophizing. These other ways of philosophizing he calls non-philosophy. Reason does not have to reduce reality to one or dialectize it in an oppositional binary relation or pluralize it as a difference. We can view reality in-One. In-One relation draws us to s dynamism of coherence of diversities. Perhaps, this in-One relation or logic can open us to new vistas of dialogue between Science and Religion.
Philosophy as a Decision
Laurelle thinks that all philosophy is a decision. This decision arbitrarily privileges a mere part of the unity of reality to the detriment of its opposite term which is thought of as a non-being. Thus, we can see how Plato identified the real with the ideal world to the detriment of the sensible world of our experience. Reality is, therefore, divided into unity and scission or identity and difference. This arbitration of reality is not in accordance with the real world but is in accordance with what Laurelle call‘s the principle of sufficient philosophy. Philosophers use it to decide whether the real is the ideal unity or the multiple sensible as difference. Such philosophies are ordered under One. Although we split reality, we assume that only one part is real. This is the basis of unitary and authoritarian thought. Laurelle attempts to bring philosophy under the order of in-One where all reality belongs together. This way of thinking is close to quantum physics where reality is inter-twined until an observer makes the decision to view it. Thus, Laurelle’s view becomes insightful in the context of Science-Religion dialogue as it manifests that both Science and Religion are already in –One and are therefore, in a dialogical symbiosis.
Radical Immanence
Reality is radical immanence and remains beyond our grasp. It exists in in-One relation. Unfortunately, philosophers have decided to slice it and privileged only one slice as real. This positivism of thinking in terms of being as presence and non-being as absence is contested by Laurelle and his nonphilosophy. Although, Laurelle teaches that reality is One and is in an unknowable dynamic immanence, I like to think of this dynamic of the real as being in-One. This logic of in-One that we find in Laurelle does assist us to view reality realistically wholesomely. Therefore, like Schrodinger’s cat in the box, we can know the real only when we open the world. This means both the being and non-being, therefore, exist in a dynamic radical immanence. Now drawing these insights into Science-Religion dialogue, we assert that Science and Religion belong to the in-One relation of the real. It is we who use philosophy as a decision either to divide or to bridge or to keep them apart. Admitting the radical immanence of reality, we also assert that Science and Religion belong together in a radical immanence. Hence, the dialogue between Science and Religion also remains entangled with its non-dialogue.
Cloning Science and Religion Dialogue
Laurelle thinks of philosophy as a decision. The decision that constitutes philosophy, he terms as Cloning. Cloning constructs or models the reality for us. Reality exists in a dynamic radical immanence. It is the decision of the philosopher that splits it and orders it under One. When the real is ordered under One, it is either put under the unity of the ideal or the multiplicity of the sensible. Against this, we follow Laurelle and decide to view reality in its radical immanence and thus clone it to constitute it’s being and non-being in relation to the logic of in-One. This decision to view reality in its radical immanence is called a non-philosophical procedure. This decision resists the original temptation to generate a world by separating it from the real. The way one relates Science and Religion depends on the way one constitutes/clones the world. Therefore, by taking a decision for the promotion of dialogue, it is possible for us to clone a disciple that we can call Science and Religion Dialogue.
Conclusion
Francois Laurelle’s non-philosophical approach can assist us to understand the dynamics of Science and Religion Dialogue. It shows us how they belong together and what we do to them is our decision that clones and constitutes their relations and our world. Thinking with Laurelle enables us to bring quantum physics into our thought.
