One must be careful to distinguish what Laruelle says he is doing from what he is doing. This is why the performative interpretation of non-philosophy is a good idea in principle, but is mostly naive and uncritical in its application.
For example, Laruelle is implicitly relativist in his posited radical equality of philosophical thought-worlds, and his explicit scientism is an attempt to escape from that relativism, or to mask it. Laruelleans need to explain away or to neutralise his scientism because it is present in all of Laruelle’s non-philosophical works up to the PRINCIPLES OF NON-PHILOSOPHY, where he explicitly admits that it is a problem of his earlier thought.
However, he does not resolve this problem in that book, and the scientism continues. Thus the ever more pressing need to provide it with a pluralist supplementation. A simply hermeneutic pluralism is a conceivable option, but only because Laruelle, following in Badiou’s footsteps, leaves “ontology” to science.
I have been advocating supplementing Laruelle’s non-philosophy with pluralism for several years now, and have been ignored. Suddenly it has become the fashion from within the ranks of the Laruelleans to advocate the same solution, while remaining within the purview of Laruelle’s non-philosophy.
My name for this pluralist supplementation of Laruelle is non-laruellian non-philosophy.