HAQQ is something more radical and powerful than Laruelle’s One (ie the agent, so to speak, of unilateral determination) in two ways.   First of all, it has a character of majesty and authority that perhaps can not be thought but can most certainly be felt.   Secondly, it cannot be truly said to unilaterally determine; we can’t truly know whether it does this or not.  It may very well, but it might just as well do something far more ‘metaphysical’ and teleological.   Our nonknowledge of the nature of HAQQ disqualifies non-philosophy just as much as ordinary philosophical decision.  The key, I think, is personhood.   HAQQ has some kind of personhood, some “I” quality that can’t be said to be ‘anthropomorphic’, because surely the situation is the other way around (we are made in its image).  Or it ‘might’ have this personhood, or it has something beyond personhood, more personal than personhood.  The fallacy to avoid is a surreptitious substantialization or reification (despite enormous effort to avoid this) due to thinking of the One vaguely in the ‘3rd person’ as a side effect of the groundless injunction to rule out anthropomorphism.