1) For Laruelle, philosophy always revolves around dualities or differences, being – other, theory – practice, ontic-ontological, etc.
2) Laruelle leaves this terrain to fully invest his thinking power in the solutions of the One’s problem, or more precisely to develop an irreversible thinking in one or according to the One following the One.
3) When Laruelle identifies the real and the One, then he tries to liberate the real from any determination through being.
4) The One is simply given (without giving) because it has nothing to do with the world. But what does the world have to do with it?
5) If the One does not problematize itself, it does not mean that it does not participate in a uniform way. And as a negative possibility that is set transcendental.
6) The One is now a negative possibility that stands for every tangibility of objects and for the rigor of thinking, for the object that ceases to be empirical or for thinking that ceases to be philosophical or scientific.
7) Determination can be concisely represented as follows: In Laruelle, the axiom of determination contains a unique (original) causality, which irreversibly, starting from the One, always remains also Two or Duality, without it ever coming to synthesis. There is no difference, or any kind of coexistence, or any kind of exchange between One and Two to be reported here, the One who is Two, or the Two who is One. The determination is irreversible, the One is always only One, even in “relation” with the Two (One is 1+1=1), and the Two forms a Two with the One only from its perspective as Two.
8) The term determination in the last instance (dli) was borrowed from Louis Althusser Engels, from whom the term was conceived in a far too empirical way and then mixed with a model of causality that was onto-regional, physical and chemical.
9) Laruelle calls – in a further departure from Althusser – for the real-transcendental conception of dli. According to Laruelle, the axiom of the dli has to be uniform-principle, but at the same time it has a certain secondary importance, i.e. it is insufficient as a theorem in its own way.
10) Determination-in-the-last instance should by no means be understood in the sense of an ultimate deterministic foundation, but as a sub-foundation, whereby the “sub” does not denote a deeper (logical) level, but rather a generic, which just does not indicate any last in the logical or temporal sense.
11) DLI in the sense of Laruelle is to be understood as a decomposed philosophical decision that indicates the immanent causality of the real.
12) The organon of dli, whose essential function is force-thinking – the noetic or transcendental component of dli – corresponds to the radical primacy of the real over thinking, although thinking retains its relative autonomy.
13) Determination is by no means an auto-positional act, such as a critical transcendental Kantian operation that cements the dominance of determination over the determined. Conversely, it must be noted that it is precisely the determinate, the real as material-without-determination, that forms the determination.
14) The determinity-without-determination does not imply an infrastructure in the empirical or regional sense, but requires the real immanence of the infrastructure, thereby securing its ability to determine.
15) Dli is not an ontic, but a transcendental concept.
16) Neither exteriore reasons nor identity, as conceived by dialectics as a synthesis of contradictions, can give reasons that are in accordance with dli; rather, dli is determined as a real reason by immanence and by the knowledge of its own syntax, its own causality. This works through a process called laruelle cloning.
17) Relationships such as those between production relationships and productive forces are to be understood only as objects for axioms added to the DLI. This implies that Marxism is only a model for non-Marxism.
18) The presence of the object X now exists twice, first as a given-without-gift, or let us say radically immanent, and secondly as a given-bygift, and the latter consists in the mode of capitalist transcendence and the relative autonomy of superstructure.
19) Ultimately, however, there is always only one mode, without ever synthesizing the two modes. The first mode unilaterally determines the second mode, while Dli makes a transcendental (no real) use of capitalist transcendence.
20) So there is the pair determination and determination-in-the-last instance (cloning) and the Identification of the latter with Marxens concept. It should be noted how the new reference Laruelles to quantum theory dli modifies or even tilts.
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)