François Laruelle’s thought is fundamentally schizoid: it is torn between his negativistic non-philosophy and a positivistic, purportedly “non-standard”, philosophy. It is torn also between stipulation and supplementation, between the dogmatic stipulation of what he is unable to prove and the necessary supplementation of his negativistic non-philosophical perspective with diverse positive grafts, unfortunately resulting in a new set of sutures (of the sort that non-philosophy was supposed to free us from).
One of these dogmatic stipulations is what could be called the “uniqueness hypothesis”. Laruelle’s non-philosophical uniqueness hypothesis is the implicit claim that there is only one non-philosopher among all his contemporaries (Laruelle himself) and that all the others (Deleuze, Derrida, Foucault, Badiou) are stuck inside the principle of sufficient philosophy. I do not find that the uniqueness hypothesis is demonstrated in Laruelle’s texts, nor is it even a plausible idea.
A second dogma is that of “unilaterality”, the idea of an irreversible determination in the last instance of thought by the Real. This dogma had its sense in Laruelle’s negativistic phase, which continues even now in “superposition” with his non-standard phase. But Laruelle himself argues in the First Introduction to his NON-STANDARD PHILOSOPHY that superposition can be just as much productive of monistic confinement, or Hell, as of pluralist freedom, or Heaven (for details see my analytic summary of this text).
A more satisfying, “non-standard”, account of our relation to the real can be found in Bernard Stiegler’s latest work, especially his “DANS LA DISRUPTION Comment ne pas devenir fou?” (IN DISRUPTION How not to go mad, May 2016). In this book, Stiegler argues that noetic dreaming involves the irrealisation of the real and its transformation by means of the inscription or actualisation of our dreams.
Instead of imposing a block notion of unilateralism to combat the equally block notion of “correlationism”, Stiegler proposes a dual or duo-lateral rhythm of irrealisation/realisation, with the constant danger of “de-realisation”, which would correspond to living and thinking within the correlation, taking our dreams for reality instead of inscribing them in the real.