If in the end one has to choose between philosophical or absolute immanence, which is always already mixed with transcendence, and non-philosophical or radical immanence, of which, according to Laruelle, one cannot say anything except that it determines everything, including philosophy, in-the-last-instance, I am going with philosophical immanence. I would rather be guilty of yet again introducing transcendence, which, as Deleuze remarks, is unavoidable if one wants to do philosophy (metaphysics), than rid myself of responsibility by not making any claims about immanence in the first place.
