Here is \u017d from his latest book:<\/p>\n
My ongoing debate with Badiou<\/span> could be read as a series of variations on the motif of how to redeem Hegel, how to reclaim him for the contemporary universe of radical contingency. In terms of the most elementary ontological coordinates, my difference with Badiou is threefold, with regard to the triad Being\/World\/Event.<\/p>\n 1. At the level of being, the multiplicity of multiples has to be supplemented by the \u201cbarred One,\u201d the Void as the impossibility of the One becoming One.<\/p>\n 2. At the level of appearance, the world has to be conceived of as language-bound: each world is sustained by a Master-Signifier (the true reference of what Badiou calls a \u201cpoint\u201d).<\/p>\n 3. At the level of the Event, the \u201cnegativity\u201d of anxiety and the (death) drive has to be posited as prior to the affirmative enthusiasm for the Event, as its condition of possibility.<\/p>\n How we pass from being to appearing, how and why does being start to appear to itself?<\/span>\u00a0 Ray Brassier is thus right to insist on Badiou\u2019s \u201cfailure to clarify the connection between ontological inconsistency and ontical consistency,\u201d that is, the passage from Being to a World<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n In the history of philosophy, the most consistent answer to this question (in a certain sense one could say the only<\/em> true answer) was provided by the German Idealists, especially Schelling and Hegel. In his Weltalter<\/em> manuscripts, Schelling outlined the birth of logos<\/em> (the articulated World) out of the pre-ontological antagonism of drives<\/span>, while Hegel, in his Logic<\/em>, tries to demonstrate how \u201cappearing\u201d (correlative to Essence) emerges out of the immanent inconsistencies (\u201ccontradictions\u201d) of Being. In spite of the insurmountable differences between Schelling and Hegel, the two share a key feature: they try to account for the emergence of appearing with reference to some kind of tension or antagonism or contradiction in the preceding order of being<\/span>.\u00a0 LTN 809<\/p>\n \ud83d\ude42 Being to appearing, the stuff of being is sheer multiplicity, what \u017d is arguing is that there has to be something to organize this chaos.\u00a0 But the push from being to appearing first happens as drive<\/strong> \ud83d\ude42<\/p>\n This route, however, is excluded a priori by Badiou, since his axiom is that \u201cbeing as being is absolutely homogeneous<\/strong>: a mathematically thinkable pure multiplicity.\u201d This is why all Badiou can do is offer obscure hints about \u201ca kind of push\u201d of being towards appearing which belongs more to the Schopenhauerian Gnostic notion of how the abyssal Ground of Being harbors an obscure inexplicable will to appear.<\/p>\n The key axiom of Badiou\u2019s \u201clogics of worlds\u201d concerns the concept of the \u201cinexistent<\/strong>\u201d of a world: \u201cIf a multiplicity appears in a world, one element of this multiplicity and only one is an inexistent<\/strong> of this world<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n A \u201cnon-existent\u201d is an element which is part of a world but participates in it with the minimal degree of intensity; that is, the transcendental structure of this world renders it \u201cinvisible\u201d: \u201cThe thing is in the world, but its appearing in the world is the destruction of its identity.\u201d<\/p>\n The classical example is, of course, Marx\u2019s notion of the proletariat which belongs to the existing society but within its horizon is invisible in its specific function. Such an inexistent<\/strong> is, of course, the \u201cevental site\u201d of a world: when the Event occurs, the inexistent passes from minimal to maximal existence, or, to quote the well-known line from the \u201cInternationale\u201d: \u201cWe were nothing, we shall be all.\u201d<\/p>\n As Badiou makes clear, this inexistence is not ontological (at the level of being, workers are massively present in capitalist society), but phenomenological: they are here, but invisible in their specific mode of existence. The philosophical question here is: why, exactly, does every world contain a \u201cnon-existent\u201d?<\/p>\n In short, precisely because of the gap between being<\/span> (irreducible multiplicity) and appearing<\/span> (atoms or Ones), the unity (overlapping) of being and appearing<\/span> (existence) can only appear within the (transcendental) space of appearance<\/span> in a negative way, in the guise of an inexistent, a One<\/span> which is (from within the transcendental frame that regulates appearing) not-One<\/span>, an atom which, while part of the world of appearing, is not properly covered by it, participates minimally in it.<\/p>\n This inexistent<\/strong> is the point of symptomal torsion of a world: it functions as a \u201cuniversal singular<\/strong>,\u201d a singular element which directly participates in the universal (belongs to its world), but lacks a determinate place in it.<\/p>\n At the formal level of the logic of the signifier, this inexistent is the empty \u201csignifier without a signified<\/strong>,\u201d the zero-signifier which, deprived of all determinate meaning, stands only for the presence of meaning as such, in contrast to its absence, to non-meaning: its meaning is tautological, it means only that things have meaning, without saying what this meaning is. 810<\/p>\n What Badiou calls \u201csubtraction<\/strong>\u201d is thus another name, his name, for negativity in its affirmative dimension<\/em>, for a negativity which is not just a destructive gesture, but gives, opens up a new dimension. LTN 811<\/p>\n The question to be raised here is this: why should an Event not designate a modification of the very internal rules of the transcendental of a world? Why do we not actually pass from one to another world? Is it not that, for a non-existent to change into a being with the maximum intensity of existence, the very rules which measure the intensity of being have to change?<\/span><\/p>\n \ud83d\ude42 \u017di\u017eek’s Butler moment<\/p>\n If proletarians are to count as \u201cbeing-human as such,\u201d does not the very measure of what counts as \u201cbeing-human\u201d have to be modified? In other words, is it not that an inexistent which is the point of symptomal torsion of a world can only be made fully existent if we pass into another world? 812<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n **********\u00a0 PAGE 815 \u00a0<\/strong> **************<\/p>\n …reality is, at its most elementary ontological level, an inconsistent multiplicity that no One can totalize into a consistent unity.\u00a0 Of course, reality always appears to us within a determinate situation, as a particular world whose consistency is regulated by its transcendental features.\u00a0 LTN 813<\/p>\n The term \u201cinconsistency<\/strong>\u201d is used here in two senses that are not clearly distinguished. First, there is inconsistency<\/strong> as the \u201ctrue ontological foundation of any multiple-being,\u201d namely \u201ca multiple-deployment that no unity can gather\u201d\u2015inconsistency<\/strong> is here the starting point, the zero-level of pure presence, that which is subsequently counted-as-one, organized into a world, that which subsequently appears within a given transcendental horizon.<\/p>\n Then, there is inconsistency<\/strong> as the symptomal knot of a world, the excess which cannot be accounted for in its terms. (Exactly the same ambiguity characterizes the Lacanian Real<\/strong>.)<\/p>\n a World<\/strong> is historical, a transcendental-historical organization of a sphere of Being, while\u2015as Badiou repeatedly emphasizes in his unabashedly Platonic way\u2015Truth<\/strong> is eternal, in enforcing it one enforces onto reality an eternal Idea<\/span>. We are thus dealing with two radically different levels: a World is a formation of human finitude, \u201chermeneutic\u201d (a horizon of meaning); the evental Truth<\/span> is eternal, the trans-historical persistence of an eternal Idea which continues to haunt us \u201cin all possible worlds.\u201d 815<\/p>\n Both World and Truth-Event are modes of appearing: a World consists of the transcendental coordinates of appearing, while a Truth-Event (or an immortal Idea) is something that, rather than appearing, \u201cshines through,\u201d transpires in reality. The status of the World is hermeneutic, it provides the horizon of meaning that determines our experience of reality, while the status of the Idea is Real, it is a virtual-immovable X whose traces are discernible in reality. In other words, the universality of a World is always \u201cfalse\u201d in the Marxist critico-ideological sense: every World is based upon an exclusion or \u201crepression\u201d which can be detected through its points of symptomal torsion<\/span>, while the universality of Truth is unconditional, for it is not based upon a constitutive exception, it does not generate its point of symptomal torsion<\/span>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Here is \u017d from his latest book: My ongoing debate with Badiou could be read as a series of variations on the motif of how to redeem Hegel, how to reclaim him for the contemporary universe of radical contingency. In terms of the most elementary ontological coordinates, my difference with Badiou is threefold, with regard … Continue reading “\u017d on Badiou ch. world truth 12 LTN”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[45,78,20],"tags":[116],"class_list":["post-9259","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-badiou","category-butler","category-zizek","tag-ltn"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9259","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9259"}],"version-history":[{"count":24,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9259\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9303,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9259\/revisions\/9303"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9259"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9259"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9259"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}