We are used to analysis. Recently I came across dualysis. Francois Laruelle has proposed dualysis. Dualysis is not synthesis. It is not even a combination. Dualysis freely constructs theory out of dualisms. His quest is to develop unified philosophy or theory and not unitary one has led him to dualysis. Dualysis thinks everything in-One. Thinking in-One the relations goes in one direction and are unilateral. Thought cannot affect the Real-One. The Real-One is foreclosed to thought. Dualysis constructs unified theory of One as determination in-the-last-instance. Marxist thinkers teach us about dominance of economics over every other aspect of human life. This does not mean everything is simply economics. It means in-the-last-instance economics is the dominant causal force of human life. This means everything that philosophy claims to master is in-the-last-instance thinkable from the One-Real. Thinking from the last instance, everything that is thought becomes radically immanent. Thinking everything in-One brings us to radical immanence.
Laruelle contests our assumption that everything is philosophizable. Those that think that everything can be philosophized follow what laruelle calls principle of sufficient philosophy. Philosophy, then become master science that has mastery over everything. It takes a transcendent position. Challenging the mastery of philosophy, Laurelle does not wish to construct a new philosophy that will dismantle the of hierarchical imperial position. On the contrary he attempts a heretical practice of questioning the identity of philosophy itself. He tries to break with philosophy in order to develop a science of philosophy. He, therefore, becomes a heretic within the faith of philosophy. His work is not anti-philosophy in the same was heresy is not anti-Christianity, anti-Judaism or anti-Islam. What we call heresy is a mutation of the accepted orthodox beliefs and practices. He says ‘ all is not philosophizable. This is my good news’. Therefore, there is no one final philosophy for all.
There is no unitary one philosophy. He renounces the desire for the One or thought of the One that always subordinates One to Being. Of course the One remains obscure in the work of Laruelle . To him all discourses persists through vision-in-One. The One has identity that is distinct from Being or Alterity. In the context of thinking in-One, Laruelle thinks that Scientific thinking has some privilege in thinking the Real. But as he moves on, he attempts to free the Real from all authority even the authority of Science. Thus, he arrives at the democracy of thought. It is a democracy of thought that claims its freedom from philosophy. There is no master philosophy. There is no transcendent location for philosophy to rule over other philosophies. What we have are philosophies/ heresies side by side. All philosophies defy a standard philosophy. There is no standard philosophy. What we have are non-standard philosophies non-standard philosophies are heresies. This is a democracy of thought without any hierarchy. We have the challenge to embrace all these non-standard philosophies/ heresies as being immanent in-One.
The master philosophy tries to occupy the place of One. There can be only one master. This is why all other philosophies have to echo the voice of the master. There is no place for dissent. There is no room for heresy. Such a philosophy becomes identical to all-in-One relation. Such a relation is a tyranny of thought. It forces everything to come under its sway. There is no room for other ways of thinking. Only the master can think and speak. Every other one has to represent or copy the master. Such a demand is a demand for uniformity. Laruelle shuns aside this mode of thinking. His thinking in-One is open thinking. It is not closed on the One. Hence, there is no one master philosophy. He thus, opens the democracy of thought. It makes all thoughts equal.
